asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the latest productivity figures for the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about current levels of productivity in the pits.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements in productivity are currently being achieved by the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

The NCB has recently, for the first time in its history, achieved average deep-mined productivity of 3 tonnes per man shift. This major improvement since the ending of the strike is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved with determined effort by all those in the industry.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The 30 per cent. increase in productivity is extraordinary. If my right hon. Friend had suggested that 12 months ago, he would have been accused of living in a dream world. Now that that is a reality and there is a total commitment from those in the industry, will my right hon. Friend give the Government's commitment to the industry and its secure future?

As we have maintained throughout, there is no doubt that, with the best coal reserves in western Europe, and with immense skills in mining and mining engineering equipment, the industry has a considerable future, provided that it applies the abilities and talents that are available to it. Therefore, we rejoice at the achievements that are currently taking place and look forward with confidence to the industry's future.

Are not those excellent figures a triumph of the Government's policy in relation to the coal industry? Will that not release more taxpayers' money for the National Health Service and for pensioners, enable NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. to be adequately financed, and provide the prospect for finally removing the burden of the coal industry from the rest of British industry?

I know that my hon. Friend has industries in his constituency which depend upon the availability of coal at competitive prices. There is no doubt that the achievements that are taking place, and the greater achievements that will be available in future, give a great prospect not only to those who make possible such achievements. My hon. Friend said that the credit for this was due to the Government's policy, but in fact the credit is due to those who work in the industry and produce those figures.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I thought that pit survival was based on profit per tonne, but now gigajoules have been introduced into that calculation? The NCB now states that individual pits have to cut their output costs to 165p per gigajoule. If the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about gigajoules, will he explain the relationship between output costs and gigajoules for the benefit of myself and my miners?

No, Sir, but I should explain that "Plan for Coal", in which the right hon. Gentleman played such a positive part, envisaged that productivity would increase by 4 per cent. per annum, but that, alas, as he knows, as a member of the Labour Government during the five years that they were in power, output declined from 2·28 tonnes per man shift to 2·24 tonnes per man shift. I am delighted that some of the ambitions of "Plan for Coal" are now being achieved by this Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has held any formal or informal discussions about the privatisation of all or some of the pits now operated by the NCB?

None, Sir. All I can say is that had I been Secretary of State during the declining production of the right hon. Gentleman's period in office, I probably would have done.

Do not those figures clearly show what a change good leadership makes? However, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a shadow on the horizon in relation to opencast coal—the rate at which planning permissions are being given? Will my right hon. Friend look at that problem?

Planning permission for opencast coal is now a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I think that he is concerned, as we all are, about delays in the granting of planning permission, which leads to delays in improved productivity and other activities.

In view of the Secretary of State's reply and reports that pits are breaking all output records, has he any information about NCB policies to increase the sale of coal and to improve exports so that we can ensure that no pits close because of overproduction?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from his great interest in this subject, the Government have extended the coal conversion scheme, and in all the energy efficiency programmes that we are pursuing throughout the country we are putting forward the advantages of that scheme. Research is being done on other uses for coal, and the present management of the NCB is more interested in marketing than was any previous management.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that against the background of this significant achievement, some areas, including south Wales, have suffered a disproportionate loss of jobs because of the age and exhaustion of their pits? Will he discuss with the NCB the possibility of sympathetic consideration being given to early approval of the new pit at Margam?

I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's views to the NCB management. The exhibition in the Palace of Westminster last week of the activities of the enterprise company showed that in that sphere, too, much activity is taking place in the interests of the mining communities.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this significant advance has been achieved at high cost, especially to the coalfield communities? Does not the logic of the situation suggest to him that there should be further NCB and Government endeavour to enhance the sales of British coal in the industrial market?

I agree that the maximum safety standards must be retained at all times, and they are being retained. The hon. Gentleman has an immense interest in this subject, and I suggest that he must ask why, for so many years, after all that was predicted in "Plan for Coal", the improvement in productivity did not take place, despite a massive injection of investment. We are, thank heaven, at last getting a return on that massive investment, and that will be to the benefit of the whole industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Energy visited the south Wales coalfield last week and saw at first hand the increasing productivity in that area? Is he also aware that many pits in south Wales are becoming profitable for the first time since the 1950s and that that achievement is bringing about a welcome increase in morale among everyone associated with those coalfields?

It is astounding that some pits which it was argued could never make a profit under the previous criteria are now achieving production levels that make them profitable.

We should be pleased about the increases in productivity, but does the Secretary of State not realise that we must translate that into another avenue? For example, the miners want to know what the consumption of coal will be this year. The CEGB and the NCB have been spreading doom and gloom in the past year, so what will the 1986 figures be? In addition, why are imports so disgracefully high?

Nobody has done more to bring doom and gloom to the prospects of the industry than Mr. Arthur Scargill.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make an announcement of his policy on the import and export of natural gas to and from the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he had an opportunity to study the Select Committee report which recommends the liberalisation of imports and exports? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be helpful to the Standing Committee on the Gas Bill if the Secretary of State's statement could be made while the Committee is still sitting?

I have looked at the Select Committee report, and it is significant that the report says that a number of United Kingdom gas producers have reservations about unfettered imports and acknowledges that other interests see problems in regard to exports. Given that it is a comlex problem, about which there are conflicting views, we should give this important matter much consideration.

In view of the question mark that hangs over the self-sufficiency of gas supplies in the 1990s, will the Minister consider taking advantage of the drop in world oil prices and the link with gas prices to renegotiate a deal with Norway to bring in imports?

If the hon. Gentleman had followed the matter more closely, he would realise that the gap predicted for the 1990s—if there is a gap—is infinitely smaller than the total amount of gas that would have been available under the Sleipner deal. If that deal had gone ahead, it would have jeopardised the development of our own resources in the North sea. Neither I nor the Government wanted that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a gas pipeline to Europe is well overdue and that that is probably the only way to deal with price flexibility in the long term?

Yes, Sir. The Government are equally responsible for ensuring that our resources in the North sea are developed properly without abuse. That weighs strongly with me.

Does the Minister accept that imports and exports of natural gas cannot be divorced from imports and exports of oil? What view does he take of our self-sufficiency, since the price of North sea crude has been almost halved in a month?

Oil and gas are different. Oil is tradeable in the world market, whereas gas is not. Although they are related, one must look at them in different lights.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the progress being made by industry and commerce to reduce their energy bills.

There has been an enormous upsurge of interest, which is now leading to action. Membership of energy management groups has increased by 70 per cent. and the number of firms appointing an energy manager has more than doubled. Savings of £160 million a year have been identified in 5,000 surveys conducted under the energy efficiency survey scheme, and I expect the monitoring and targeting programme to lead to savings of £100 million a year. The energy efficiency office's demonstration scheme has also exceeded its target.

I welcome that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that much could and should be done? Do not some estimates indicate that up to £7 billion could be saved by commerce and industry through increased energy efficiency? Are not the potential dividends enormous?

Yes, Sir. There is no doubt that this is only the beginning. I can think of no other sphere in the British economy where there is more potential to improve our performance than in energy efficiency. The potential saving involved in improving energy efficiency is about £7 billion a year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that effective insulation can play a substantial part in reducing energy costs and that major producers, such as Pilkingtons in St. Helens, require a long-term, Government-backed programme if they are to achieve a proper return on their capital and provide full employment for their workers?

I agree that that is of immense importance. Firms such as Pilkingtons are delighted with our energetic campaign. I am also delighted at the considerable expansion of voluntary organisations helping to provide insulation in the homes of lower-income families.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways for industry and commerce to reduce energy costs is to encourage more competition in coal production and to press the National Coal Board to keep its costs in line? Does he also agree that the best way to do that is to raise the limits on opencast production by licensed operators?

Opencast operators produce a substantial volume of coal. The delays which adversely affect them are caused by planning procedures rather than by anything else. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Does the Secretary of State support the view that the dramatic fall in oil prices is good for Britain, particularly the energy bills affecting British industry and commerce? Is that the message that he will convey at the meeting he is to have with Sheikh Yamani in the near future?

I have no meeting planned with Sheikh Yamani in the near future. The question of oil prices is complicated and is certainly not dealt with under this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will raise with him the current situation regarding the availability of anthracite and south Wales steam coal.

At my right hon. Friend's meetings with the chairman of the NCB all aspects of the coal industry are discussed, including the availability of various types of coal.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bad planning by the NCB has meant massive stockpiling of power station coal and serious shortages of specialist coal, such as that produced in Durham and south Wales? Why was a pit in my constituency which produced dry smokeless fuel shut, yet, two months later, a plant needing dry smokeless fuel had to lay off men because it could not get that fuel?

The hon. Lady should check her facts. The supply of domestic smokeless fuel, including anthracite, is better than it has been for many years. That was one of the markets most affected by the tragic strike. I wish that the hon. Lady would join the fight to regain those important markets instead of cribbing in the way she does?

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are still importing a large amount of anthracite? There was supposed to be an exciting new investment programme in anthracite, but we have seen nothing of it. There was supposed to be an exciting investment programme in coking coal in south Wales, but we have seen nothing of it. When will the Government and the NCB address themselves to those issues?

Stocks of anthracite in south Wales are more than sufficient to meet expected demand in the coming months. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the tragic strike in the industry did a great deal of damage, no more so than in south Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the projected figures for nuclear generated electricity for 1986 and 1996.

No precise projection is possible. The proportions of electricity supplied by the public supply system in the United Kingdom from nuclear power stations could rise to about 25 per cent. when the nuclear stations presently under construction or commissioning are fully operational around the end of the decade. The figures for later years will depend on a number of factors, including the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in any advanced society the need for the cheapest possible source of electric power is paramount and that, therefore the result of the Sizewell inquiry will have a major bearing on the future of cheap electricity and of the industry on which it is based?

Yes, Sir.

Do the Government accept the recent independent forecast on European nuclear capacity, which was published in the Financial Times, that only one new station would be commissioned and working by the end of the century? Is the Minister aware that 1,000 jobs in the Meirionnydd constituency depend on whether Magnox stations will be replaced?

I note the hon. Gentleman's comment on his constituency. I shall look at the article to which he referred.

If we doubled the supply of electricity generated from nuclear power, how much cheaper would electricity be for industry?

The Central Electricity Generating Board estimates the cost of possible new stations to be as follows: Sizewell B, 2·94p per kilowatt hour; a new AGR, 3·67p per kilowatt hour; and a new coal station, 4·29p per kilowatt hour. Those figures assume a 5 per cent. discount rate and costs relating to the lifetime of the plants at March 1984 prices. On the basis of that information, my hon. Friend will be able to make the necessary calculation.

As the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry will be important to the calculations of the Under-Secretary of State, when will we receive that report?

The timing of the report is a matter for the inspector. He has informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, following a recent review of progress, he does not now expect to be able to deliver his main recommendations until the spring.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Association for the Conservation of Energy; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. Friend regularly meets officers and members of the Association for the Conservation of Energy in his campaign for greater energy efficiency.

In the light of the Government's rather odd decision to cut home insulation grants by more than £4·5 million a year, will the Minister consult the Department of the Environment about extending the scheme to cover other worthwhile energy saving measures, such as thermostats and wall insulation, rather than cut the scheme at the start of Energy Efficiency Year?

The 1986–87 homes insulation grant allocation is expected fully to meet total demand. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that he realises the significancce of Energy Efficiency Year 1986 and will bear it in mind when he considers applications from authorities for additional allocations.

Will my hon. Friend continue his negotiations with the Association for the Conservation of Energy, because it is doing excellent work in an important activity, where a great deal of public money can be saved?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend should give me the opportunity to welcome the magnificent way in which the chairmen and chief executives of the major companies involved in energy efficiency industries have come together in that association and, in particular, their initiatives in organising "Monergy" talks and promotional seminars.

Referring to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), may I ask whether the Minister will support an application from the local authority in St. Helens, where, incidentally, most glazing products are made, for an increase in his £40,000 allocation for the current year, which is wholly insufficient to meet the needs of the properties in the area?

I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I made it clear that it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the allocations will meet total demand, but there will be an opportunity for authorities to seek additional allocations.

Does my hon. Friend accept that while energy conservation is valuable in saving energy, it is also a great creator of jobs, especially in the construction industry and in small businesses?

Absolutely. The Association for the Conservation of Energy and my Department have a mutual interest in promoting energy efficiency measures, because an energy efficient nation means more business for those in the energy efficiency industries.

Is the Minister aware that last year's Public Accounts Committee report showed that up to £100 million a year could be obtained by energy savings within the National Health Service—savings which are not being realised at present? Will he take the matter up with the Secretary of State for Social Services?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Only a few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and I wrote a joint letter to all regional chairmen. That is now being followed up with individual health authorities.

Does my hon. Friend support the argument adduced by the Association for the Conservation of Energy and the Select Committee on Energy that the rate of return on new energy investment within the public sector should be compared directly with the return on energy investment conservation, or the Government cannot assess their priorities and decide which produces a better rate of return?

Those of us in the public sector are determined to do just as well as, if not better than, those in the private sector in promoting energy efficiency.

I refer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Is it not the case that massive savings in the National Health Service were identified a considerable time ago and that no action was taken or follow up made? Why should we believe that there will be any more effective action or follow up now?

Because I shall make available to the hon. Gentleman an energy efficiency publication known as ENCODE which is now going out to all operatives in the National Health Service and which demonstrates not just the need for but the ways in which greater energy efficiency can be achieved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be far more energy savings if the iniquitous 15 per cent. VAT on double glazing imposed by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were removed?

It is not just on financial grounds that we urge people to install double glazing, but on a number of other grounds, including comfort and energy efficiency.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further action he is taking in relation to the fire in the Polkemmet bing.

I am in regular contact with the National Coal Board in Scotland and am continuing to take a close interest in the matter.

What is the time scale?

I readily understand the wish of local residents and the hon. Gentleman to know the time scale involved. I am satisfied that the Coal Board is doing everything that it can to minimise the nuisance. Work is progressing as quickly as possible to clear the bing as effectively as possible. I am aware that it is important to keep residents informed, and therefore I was pleased to hear from the area director this morning that he is making arrangements for a public meeting to be held as soon as possible, when experts will be in attendance to answer detailed questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the coal industry in Scotland.

At the end of December the Scottish area of the NCB had approximately 8,500 men on colliery books.

Will the Minister accept that that figure would be enhanced by at least 160 if the Coal Board would accept the decisions of industrial tribunals that have gone against it? Will he acknowledge that I have written to the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State giving him detailed evidence of a meeting at Comrie colliery, which was taped? When my constituent, Mr. Robert Young, went before an industrial tribunal the National Coal Board endeavoured to fabricate evidence that would defame that man for life. Will the hon. Gentleman use his good office to conduct an inquiry into the methods and approach of the Coal Board in Scotland in dealing with dismissed miners, with a view to getting them back to work and getting decisions of the industrial tribunal agreed to by the board?

No, and I reject much of the intemperate language used by the hon. Gentleman. He must realise that the dismissal and re-employment of employees must be a matter for the management of the Scottish area of the National Coal Board. I know that the area director has carefully considered each case, and I am sure that all the available evidence will have been scrutinised before any decision was made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of employment in the Scottish coalfields depends vitally on productivity from that coalfield, and that one sure way to make certain that there will be employment in the future is to continue with the progress that has been made recently?

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given me this opportunity to pay tribute to men and management in Scotland, where productivity has now increased by 40 per cent. since the end of the strike. That is a marvellous recovery by men and management.

Surely the Minister is not trying to defend the decision of the National Coal Board in relation to dismissed miners who went before a tribunal and were found to have been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal recommended that the coal board give them back their jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that the song that he and his hon. Friends sang to the House was that the way out for dismissed miners was that they had to go before an industrial tribunal. Is the hon. Gentleman defending the attitude of the National Coal Board, which at present is indefensible?

The careful consideration that each case has received is emphasised by the fact that out of 206 men dismissed for strike-related offences in Scotland, 75 have been reinstated. I have said that there was a revolution in the Scottish coalfields. It is not the sort of revolution that the hon. Gentleman's friend, Mr. Scargill, wanted. It is a quiet revolution in productivity, and it is about time Opposition Members recognised and paid tribute to that fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheat."]

Will the Minister accept the view expressed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Order.

Will the Minister accept that the view of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is widely supported in Scotland, not least by many people who did not support the coal strike? They see the action of the coal board as simply spiteful discrimination against the miners who have been cleared by industrial tribunals. Will he bear in mind Churchill's dictum of magnanimity once the battle is over and restore the men to their jobs?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard Opposition Members describe someone as a "cheat". Is that a parliamentary expression?

Order. There was a great deal of noise, and I did not hear anybody using an unparliamentary expression, but if it was used, I ask the hon. Member concerned to withdraw the word.

I was one of the hon. Members who said, "cheat". Is it not a fact that the National Coal Board—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the use of intemperate language here, particularly unparliamentary language, is not a part of our conventions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word, although I had not called him to speak.

I was one of the hon. Members who used the word "cheat". I was provoked by the Minister who was answering the question. I withdraw that word, on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

If you insist, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw that word too.

All that I shall say in answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is that appeals are now being considered, and it would not be appropriate to comment further on specific cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he now proposes to make any changes in the membership of the board of the National Coal Board.

I intend to make a number of full-time appointments to the board in the next few months. Sir Robert Haslam will take up his appointment as chairman on 1 September.

While the Secretary of State is making changes to the NCB membership, will he recognise that most people are appalled at the industrial relations record of members of the NCB, typified by the way in which they have dealt with the reinstatement of miners? Will he therefore appoint people to the NCB who will have a better industrial relations record than the present members?

I hope that the National Union of Mineworkers will appoint people to the presidency who have a better industrial relations record than the present president.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the interview that Mr. MacGregor gave yesterday in the Sunday Express, when he talked about leaving his job early? Will he retire before 1 September?

No, Sir. I am delighted to say that, as far as I know, Mr. MacGregor will continue until 1 September, when Sir Robert Haslam will take over.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss employment issues in the industry.

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

Following the disgraceful answers by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, will the Secretary of State face the fact that there were 206 victimised miners in Scotland, that 76 have been reinstated, but that there are 11 men who have gone before industrial tribunals which have recommended reinstatement yet the NCB has refused point blank to reinstate them? Is the Secretary of State defending that?

I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had taken more interest in those who suffered from the violence during the dispute, and in the miners who were unreasonably treated because they went to work. All that I can say is that that is a matter for the management. The hon. Gentleman referred to some specific cases, and appeals will be taking place.

At his next meeting with the chairman, will my right hon. Friend congratulate him on the extraordinary success of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in creating jobs in mining areas? Is he aware that that success will encourage many further applicants to come forward? Will he confirm that the Government will make available to the company all the money that it can usefully use?

I can confirm that with present progress, because NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is attracting about £6 for every £1 that it is investing, it looks as if, even under the present allocation, about £120 million of investment will go into new enterprises in coal mining areas where closures have had to take place. That is a stark contrast to the record of Governments in the past, when massive closure took place and there was no such thing as an enterprise company.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite the very good record of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., many miners who have been made redundant are still not finding new employment? Will he speak to the chairman and make it clear that if NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. requires more resources it will receive them?

There is no need to speak to the chairman, because I have already made that clear in the House of Commons. The chairman agrees with that policy, and the coal board is very eager for it to succeed. Hon. Members who saw the exhibition upstairs last week will know how enthusiastic it is.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he ask whether the board can confirm that it will be able to fulfil its targets for financial break-even?

Clearly a number of factors are involved, but present progress is exceedingly good.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the liquefaction of coal.

I understand that work is proceeding on the Point of Ayr project in accordance with the plans of the National Coal Board and the pilot plant is expected to be completed in 1987.

Is the Minister aware that the delay in establishing the plant at Point of Ayr is a disgrace and shows the Government's lack of interest in this important project? As commercial exploitation is due to start in the 1990s, which is not so far away, is not the £35 million being invested far too little? Will he confirm that future development will not be held up because of lack of private capital? Does he agree that this is essentially a matter for public capital and public investment?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the project is not being constrained by lack of direct Government financial support, but process problems have led to the plans being reconsidered. The present 2·5 tonnes per day unit has a much greater flexibility of operation and will enable a better process to be developed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received about the setting up of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members have made their views known to me as to the best way forward in this matter. Consideration of the issue is continuing.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the recent by-elections in Northern Ireland, especially the victory of Mr. Seamus Mallon, who will be introduced to the House shortly, have shown public support for the Anglo-Irish agreement? Does he agree that it is now time for him to make it possible for us to move towards the other aspect of the agreement—the setting up of the parliamentary tier?

I certainly agree that the by-elections have been a very important development on this scene. Now that they are over, it is the more important to consider setting up the parliamentary aspect.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Unionist anti-treaty vote has increased? Quite apart from that, is he aware that many of us who are against the Hillsborough agreement as an unequal treaty would nevertheless support the setting up of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier provided that it was between the two sovereign Parliaments?

My hon. Friend will understand that I do not feel under a requirement to engage in any psephological analysis of what happened in the by-elections, but I am certain that he is right in believing that now that they have been concluded there is a possibility of giving renewed consideration to the idea of a parliamentary tier.

The Leader of the House has had a number of representations, and he has time to think about them. Does he favour the proposal in the early-day motion to set up a Select Committee?

That is one of several proposals to which I have given consideration. My mind is thoroughly open on the matter.

Would it not be better, before pursuing the objective of a joint committee or meetings of any kind, for a Select Committee of this House, including Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, to go into the whole question of relations with other countries?

Of course, at the end of the day it will be a matter for this House to authorise. I am certainly prepared to consider my hon. Friend's proposal, along with those of many others.

The right hon. Gentleman will note that there is support within the alliance and in other parts of the House for progress with the parliamentary tier, but is not total abstention from the activities of this House as proposed by some Unionists the total negation of what unionism is supposed to be about?

That is quite a separate consideration from the parliamentary tier, but doubtless if the parliamentary tier were established it would be beneficial if it were the subject of as much widespread commitment as possible. [Interruption.]

Order. These are very important questions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the implementation of the resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, in so far as it relates to his responsibility, concerning the establishment of new registers of interest by people working at the Palace of Westminster.

The main responsibility for the implementation of the resolutions passed on 17 December rests with the Select Committee on Members' Interests, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend, the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). I understand that that Committee is already considering the necessary administrative arrangements for the operation of the new registers and its proposals will be made known to the House as soon as possible.

As a member of that Select Committee, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? Is he aware that there appear to be an increasing number of secretaries and research assistants of right hon. and hon. Members who to have been engaged in the services of outside so-called parliamentary consultants? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the arrangements between secretaries and other hon. Members' secretaries are not always known? Will he please give an assurance on behalf of the Government that, when the Select Committee reports, its reports will be acted upon by the House at the earliest opportunity?

I shall most certainly try to arrange that the House has an early opportunity to confirm the Select Committee's proposals, if that is required before they can be implemented.

Has the Leader of the House yet had representations from representatives of secretaries and research assistants who feel genuinely offended that they are to be asked to sign a declaration that goes into more detail than that which hon. Members are asked to sign?

If that feeling is widespread, it must be communicated to the Select Committee concerned, as it is the relevant body to receive such views.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what were the takings at the souvenir kiosk in (a) the final four weeks to Christmas 1985 and (b) the latest 12 months period; and if he will make a statement.

The takings of the Refreshment Department's souvenir kiosk in the four-week period and the 12-month period to 20 December 1985 were £148,482 and £446,340 respectively. These figures include value added tax of 15 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend give some rough idea of the profit in those figures? If profits are regular, will there be price reductions in the next few months? Will he assure the House that there are no plans to expand the activities of the kiosk by building a bigger office elsewhere in the Palace, and that there is no plan to move on to gondola-type trips up the Thames from Mr. Speaker's Steps?

My hon. Friend has other things to consider this afternoon besides the possibility of gondola journeys from Mr. Speaker's premises. The gross profit for the financial year 1984–85 was £113,000. It will be best if I refer my hon. Friend's other questions to the Services Committee, which is responsible for the kiosk.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the price of some articles is exorbitant? As he is a believer in market forces, does he agree that, if some prices were reduced, sales might be even greater?

I shall refer that point to the Services Committee:

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the kiosk is more profitable than Westland? Can we consider a takeover bid?

One little difficulty at a time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price increases of goods at the kiosk are way above anything else in the land? Is he further aware that Members of Parliament and our constituents are taken for a ride when they go to that shop?

I am so glad that we have found a real issue. As I have already said, I shall refer the points that have been raised about prices to the relevant Committee.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the current access arrangements throughout the Palace of Westminster for Divisions of the House.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the GLC. as a last spiteful act before abolition, has introduced bus lanes between Lambeth bridge and Parliament square, which, when operating between 7am and 7pm cause hon. Members difficulty getting into the House for Divisions? Is that not disgraceful? Do not hon. Members have enough trouble crossing the road between Divisions as it is? As he well knows, I was knocked down on 16 May.

The Patronage Secretary expects every man to do his duty this afternoon and not to be an erstwhile jay-walker. I shall look into the wider difficulty that my hon. Friend has mentioned and will be in touch with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report progress on the city combined heat and power district heating schemes which his Department is supporting.

The work programmes of the Belfast, Edinburgh and Leicester consortia began in April 1985. The Leicester consortium expects to complete its work programme by this middle of the year; Belfast and Edinburgh consortia early next year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that prospective combined heat and power city consortia are threatened with rates assessments that are several times out of line with the rates that the public sector electricity boards have to pay for their power station utilities? Is that not an unfair practice against the private sector competing against the nationalised industries, and will he do something about it?

At present there are no uniformly applied bases for rating systems, and propositions appear to be very high. However, one of the objectives of the study is to identify this sort of problem—[Interruption.]

Order. We have a further 10 minutes of questions before we reach this afternoon's main debate.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has had in relation to redundancy for civil servants working in soil research.

None, Sir.

What scientific or financial sense does it make to close the MacAulay Institute for Soil Research at Aberdeen against the public wishes of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), a former Agriculture Minister and a local Member of Parliament who knows something about this matter?

I must point out that these are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Moreover, the people employed at the two institutions are not strictly civil servants.

In that case, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the deep feeling that exists in Aberdeen against this move, simply because it is not based on any logic at all?

I shall certainly do just that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland discuss this whole question with the research bodies connected with soil research?

I must again point out that the whole question of soil research is a matter either for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep disquiet throughout north-east Scotland about the possible removal of this institute with its consequential loss of expertise and personnel? Will he give an assurance that no final decision will be taken until there has been the fullest possible consultation with all those likely to be affected?

I must again stress that this is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if this closure goes ahead he will receive representations from many people involved in soil science? Does he also recognise that the feasability study that has been set up is biased in favour of removal, in spite of the fact that all the evidence and all the representations are against the undermining of this excellent institute by its removal from Aberdeen?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 27 civil servants have been axed from the Soil Survey of England and Wales? Will he discuss this issue with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that Government resources are put into this important area of research, particularly at the present time?

Although that is mainly a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and although, strictly speaking, soil researchers are not civil servants, I assure the hon. Lady that all the staff involved in soil work at the laboratories to be closed are being offered transfers to other locations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on his visit to Leicester on Wednesday 15 January, when he met senior officials of the Leicester combined heat and power consortium.

I visited Leicester on 15 January at the invitation of the Leicester combined heat and power consortium. I was most impressed with progress to date and the enthusiasm of the consortium. I was pleased to hear that the consortium is hoping to complete its work programme by the middle of this year.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the way in which the consortium has been put together is an excellent example of both long and lasting co-operation between the public and private sectors, bringing about genuine savings in energy, which are of great benefit to the citizens of Leicestershire?

In paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) for their support of the consortium, I agree that the consortium indeed demonstrates the public-private sector collaboration, that is needed if the consortia are to be successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what part he intends the coal industry to play in his plans to promote Energy Efficiency Year.

The NCB already promotes new energy-efficient technology and will continue to do so and to participate in relevant initiatives during Energy Efficiency Year. In common with the other major fuel industries, the NCB has agreed to make widespread use of the "Monergy" logo in its advertising, and is already doing so.

What is the Minister's response to the European Community's plans to increase dependency on coal imported from outside the Community? Does he not recognise that an increasing dependency on high-cost, low-quality coal will inevitably mean a lower level of efficiency than would be achieved by using higher quality home-produced coal?

The hon. Gentleman forgets that under this Government we have moved from being a net importer of coal to a net exporter. Sadly, much time and effort was lost by the tragic strike that occurred in the industry. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman remembered that.

If we want to save energy in Energy Efficiency Year, is it not time that we all stopped wasting energy with endless arguments about who knew what and when?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase the cash available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

The £20 million already allocated to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. remains sufficient for the company's needs, but I am pleased to say that on present calculations it will attract £120 million of investment. To the end of December 1985 the, company had committed £5·5 million to assist projects, creating some 3,700 new jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a vital meeting took place in Durham on Friday between representatives of Sunderland borough council, Easington district council and Durham county council to consider a series of projects for the regeneration of the area following many pit closures? Outside the meeting, when I suggested that £20 million was a pittance an official of NCB (Enterprise) said that any sum could be made available if a case could be made out with relevant projects. As the programme of projects will cost £60 million, will the Secretary of State consider it sympathetically, particularly in view of the high level of unemployment in my area?

The company is considering all sensible proposals being made to it. Under the present proposals about £120 million is likely to be invested in the coming period. We welcome any sensible suggestions made to that company.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest performance against planned output of nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.

I am advised by the chairman of the CEGB that the board's fully commissioned nuclear stations are performing as planned and making a major contribution to the country's electricity supply. The AGRs at Dungeness B, Hartlepool and Heysham I have all provided valuable commercial output, but there are still problems to overcome before they are fully commissioned. Power stations in Scotland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that as the nation has reached the point of buying cheap nuclear-generated electricity from France it is time that our nuclear industry made progress and went faster?

My hon. Friend is right. Nuclear power has the potential to produce electricity more cheaply than other types of fuel, provided that our nuclear power stations can be built to time and cost. The Government continue to attach great importance to the safe and economic development of nuclear power.

Does the Minister expect the PWR at Sizewell to be on stream by 1996? Is he aware of the widespread opposition of the staff and work force of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to the PWR programme? Why does he not stick to AGR?

That matter is the subject of the inspector's report on the Sizewell inquiry, which we are still awaiting. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on it.