To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the level of employment in the offshore oil and gas industry in each of the years from 1983 to 1989.

Employment in the offshore oil and gas industry has ranged from 31,300 to 22,300 during the past seven years. It is currently over 30,700—the highest level since 1984.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him of not only offshore investment, but inshore investment in the oil industry—in valves, heavy engineering equipment and highly technological equipment, in which British engineers lead the world? Will he do all he can to encourage inshore investment, as well as offshore investment?

My hon. Friend is right. Literally tens of thousands of people are employed onshore in the services and capital goods industries. I am delighted that the numbers employed onshore have increased substantially in the past year.

Will the Minister explain why his Department today issued such a pathetically weak response to the report of the Select Committee on Energy on Britoil and BP job losses and assets sales? Why was not his Department able at least to agree with the Select Committee that to sack 1,000 people a mere 18 months after apparently promising them job security represented a substantial breach of the spirit of that assurance? Has not the Department of Energy, under Tory control, once again demonstrated that it is not fit to police oil companies independently in the North sea and has no intention of protecting Scottish interests?

The hon. Member will understand that it was not a weak response in any sense. It responded to the points that he and others made in the Select Committee report, which we welcomed and, by and large, agreed with. Unlike him, I am no interventionist.

Now that offshore employment is at its highest level for six years, thanks to the massive investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is good news for jobs in Scotland?

It is certainly good news for jobs in Scotland. My hon. Friend points out what some Opposition Members apparently do not want as much as we do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of Greenpeace; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend and I have not met Greenpeace.

Does the Minister agree that, in that case, more regular meetings are needed with Greenpeace and that, at those metings, the decommissioning of nuclear plants should be discussed, especially those of Sellafield and Springfield which discharge into the River Ribble and the coastline of my constituency at Southport? Does he also agree that the three-mile safety limit should be extended to 15 miles around the nuclear power stations where 3 million people live?

I am always happy to meet Greenpeace and any other organisations to discuss matters of energy policy. We have made our intentions on nuclear policy perfectly clear. There will be a full review of nuclear policy in 1994. We all look forward with interest to discovering the energy policies of the party that the hon. Gentleman represents. There seems to be some confusion between those in his party who were once members of the alliance.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he shares Greenpeace's concern for the environment? When he meets Greenpeace, will he find out whether it will acknowledge the cost of the measures it advocates and recognise that those costs have to be passed on to the consumer?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. The comparison does not involve merely economic costs but environmental costs. One of the concerns, which I suspect Greenpeace and many of us have, is what to do about sulphur emissions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in an excellent speech to the Royal Society last week, the Government, as part of their policy, are fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment at the most modern of our coal-fired power stations, Drax in Yorkshire, at a cost of about £600 million for one single site. My right hon. Friend said:

"retrofitting desulphurisation equipment is not the only way to achieve reductions. Indeed it can create wider environmental damage because it involves mining limestone (sometimes from some of the most beautiful areas of our countryside), the disposing of gypsum waste, and adding something to carbon dioxide emissions and thus to the greenhouse effect. As so often, solving one problem can create or exacerbate others."

Those costs must be taken into account when determining the best way forward.

Can the Minister explain the present position, because he appears to be switching the arguments weekly? Can he tell us why the Government have allowed the two new generators to slide backwards on the £2 billion programme to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to 12,000 GW of electricity generation capacity?

Is not it the case that the Prime Minister's words of last November—and what Ministers said throughout last year— have now been turned on their head? While Drax is going ahead, the Government have allowed National Power and PowerGen to forgo the rest of the capacity on the basis that the importation of low-sulphur coal, which at best could cut emissions by 50 per cent., is the correct policy to pursue in preference to retrofitting FGD, which would cut emissions by 90 per cent. In its press release on that subject, Greenpeace stated that if the Government allow the new generators to do that, we will rightly be called the dirty man of Europe. How will the Government meet those targets in view of their ratting on last year's agreements?

The Government are committed to meeting the European Community large plant combustion directive in full and we will do that. I commend the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the most recent edition of the magazine "Power in Europe", which I suspect he reads with interest. It states:

"In Brussels, European Community officials say the decision does not place the United Kingdom in contravention of Community environmental rules. 'We're concerned with the amount of sulphur in the air and not with how it does —or does not—get there,' said a source close to the European Community Commissioner for the Environment."

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will meet the European Community large plant combustion directive in full.

If my hon. Friend would like to keep one step ahead of Greenpeace, would he raise as a matter of urgency the fear expressed about the safety of French nuclear installations? Is he aware that there is a real fear among my constituents who live along the channel coast of a French Chernobyl, because the inspector of French nuclear safety has published a most damning report which states that, within the next 20 years, there is a one in 20 chance of a major nuclear accident in some of France's unsatisfactory nuclear stations, 14 of which are within 30 miles of the English coast? Will he raise that as a matter of urgency?

If those reports are continuing to cause concern to my hon. Friend and others who have constituencies near his, I will ensure that they have a full explanation of the situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current estimate, coal equivalent, of electricity that will be imported from France in 1990; and how much has been imported since the first months of 1990.

Future imports and exports of electricity will largely depend on commercial decisions by Electricitéde France and on market conditions in England and Wales. I understand that there were virtually no imports in January and February.

Further to the Minister's answer, does he agree that it is a foolish policy for the Government to depend on energy supplies for this country from a foreign source? If we are so full of the idea that we should have electricity by cable or wire, why do not the Government pursue a policy of using the existing connector between Scotland and England, which has a capacity equivalent to 1·5 million tonnes of coal and, if strengthened, would have a capacity of 3 million tonnes? Why does not the Minister pursue that, as a more sensible energy policy?

Electricité de France will provide an important source of competition in the United Kingdom electricity market. However, so will Scotland. I understand that, just as there are discussions between the area boards and the French, so too are there discussions between the area boards and the Scottish boards for the import of electricity from Scotland into England and Wales.

My hon. Friend has underlined the importance of our nuclear industry. What preparations are being made for the vesting of our nuclear stations in Nuclear Electric plc?

I am glad to be able to tell the House that full drafts of Nuclear Electric's licences have been prepared, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will place copies of them in the Vote Office and in the Library this afternoon.

Given the feasibility of the linkage with France, is there any real technical difficulty in providing a similar link between Scotland and Northern Ireland?

I am happy to look at that matter and hear the right hon. Gentleman's views on it in greater detail.

Does the Minister agree that section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 provides for electricity from France to be part of the non-fossil fuel quota? Does my hon. Friend agree also that, when electricity from France is available, it will be the cheapest in Europe? Does he agree further that, in future, it might be an excellent idea to build a second line across, carrying 2,000 MW?

The arrangement for French electricity will be outside the non-fossil fuel obligation. However, sales of French imports will not have to pay the levy. Clearly, with electricity supplies to and from Scotland and to and from France, we are anxious to ensure the greatest possible competition for the electricity industry in this country, which must be of benefit to the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make it his policy to publish his exchange of correspondence with the member of the European Commission responsible for competition policy regarding the coal contracts agreed between British Coal and National Power and PowerGen.

It has been the policy of successive Governments to treat correspondence with the Commission as confidential.

What is the Secretary of State doing swanning around in Europe, fixing up contracts for imports of foreign coal, when he stood at the Dispatch Box and promised miners in this country a fair deal? The miners of Nottinghamshire will not be very pleased with him; nor will the pensioner nor the consumer. Let us have the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box and let us have the information that we require about what he has been doing.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that I have been swanning round Europe fixing up coal contracts. Rather the opposite: I have been to Brussels on two occasions to obtain appropriate clearance for the contracts that have been negotiated between British Coal and the generators. I am pleased to inform the House that I do not see any difficulties in that clearance. The size of British Coal's market in the United Kingdom will be limited only by its capacity to supply coal of the required quality and price.

But does not my right hon. Friend agree that, when the electricity supply industry is privatised, it will at long last be in the interests of the generators to buy cheap rather than dearer coal?

It has always been in the interests of generators to buy cheap coal, but they must buy cheap coal that is of the appropriate quality. British Coal is in the best position to supply the bulk of the requirements for British generators.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has made an estimate of the effect that announced changes in domestic gas and electricity prices in April 1990 will have on the retail prices index.

It is estimated that the changes in gas and electricity prices will add about 0·4 per cent. to the retail prices index once the tariffs have been fully implemented.

How does the Secretary of State's recent decision to allow electricity prices to rise by more than the rate of inflation square with the Government's long-playing record, which we hear every Tuesday and Thursday at 3.15 pm, by the female lead singer of the "Mid-Staffs Blues Band", called "Bearing Down on Inflation"?

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's well-rehearsed supplementary question. The increase in the price of electricity which has recently been announced means that, on average, all prices will be increased by less than 6 per cent., which is less than the rate of inflation. Average domestic prices will rise by about 9 per cent., and, on average, customers over 1 MW will get a reduction in price.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since privatisation, the real price of gas to the consumer has fallen and that during the last five years of the Labour Government the price of electricity rose by 155 per cent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that suggests that privatisation rather than nationalisation is the key to consumer satisfaction?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Government, prices have fallen, whereas they rose substantially under the last Government.

Nevertheless, does the Secretary of State agree that the price rises that will take effect from next week have emerged as the most extraordinary unprotected rip-off ever to face the British consumer? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the letter that I received last weekend from Professor Stephen Littlechild, the regulator of the industry, who stated:

"I shall have no power to suspend the recent price increases or to impose temporary price increases at a different level."?

As the price increases that have been announced cannot be commented on by the old electricity consumer consultative councils, which can comment only on this year's prices and which will go out of action on 31 March, and nor can they be commented on by the new statutory electricity consumer committees, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nobody can comment on those price increases except himself, the Secretary of State? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in effect, the electricity consumer is being shipwrecked while both lifeboats have been hidden in the boat shed and he has hidden the key?

That is not correct. There is nothing that I can do to stop anybody commenting on the price of electricity. If I wanted to do something about it, I should not be able to achieve it. Although the price increase for domestic consumers is slightly above the rate of inflation this year, it will be followed by two years of price stability, which is good for the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the rate of productivity growth in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

Productivity in the Nottinghamshire coalfield rose from 2·9 tonnes per manshift in 1985–86 to 4·64 tonnes in the first 11 months of 1989–90, an increase of 60 per cent.

The Nottinghamshire mineworkers' productivity record is second to none. Never a week passes without one or another colliery breaking a previous record. All that is due to the skilful negotiations of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, which has not only increased take-home pay for all miners, but secured the future of the British coal industry into the next century. Therefore, will my hon. Friend accept from me an invitation for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to visit Nottinghamshire and to thank our miners personally?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, it must be noted that output per man shift has to increase by 10 per cent. across the country if British Coal is to become profitable. From what I have seen of the Nottinghamshire coalfield, I am confident of the spirit and the will, and the skills and the co-operation of the UDM work force there to achieve increases such as my hon. Friend has identified. I know that my right hon. Friend hopes to visit Nottinghamshire, as soon as that can be arranged, to thank the Nottinghamshire work force for what it has achieved.

When the right hon. Gentleman visits Nottingham, will he also tell the UDM and the miners the number of pits that will close over the next five years as a result of the Government's policy and the number that will close because of the new 20 per cent. non-fossil fuel obligation on the electricity generating industry? No witness who has recently given evidence to the Select Committee on Energy has been able to give an estimate of the true cost of nuclear fuel, so can the Minister give us the true cost this afternoon?

One depressing thing about having energy questions on a Monday is having to face the serried ranks of the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the recent statement by the chairman of British Coal, that he does not agree with such gloomy forecasts and that British Coal is determined to ensure that it remains

"the supplier-of-choice to the new generators".

The chairman recently described the new contracts as

"a firm rebuff for the Jeremiahs and their gloomy forecasts for the future of the coal industry."

He emphasised that

"scare stories of a further massive contraction of the industry have been seriously over-stated."

I am sorry to note that the hon. Gentleman is among the Jeremiahs who wish to do down that industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the productivity from all the other miners to keep up with that of the Nottinghamshire miners, so that the CEGB and its successors can be kept to the commitment to keep electricity prices down, because coal prices will be set at a steady rate? Might not we then be able to export electricity to France and use British coal in so doing?

The Government have demonstrated their commitment to our coal industry, not least by the passing last week of the Coal Industry Act, which gives British Coal between £5 billion and £7 billion of taxpayers' money to help to clear its overhang of past debts. We wish to see a competitive and profitable coal industry, and that will require all the technology, investment and skills of those working in the coal industry. They have those skills, and with them can achieve further productivity gains.

If what the Minister says about improved productivity in the Nottinghamshire coalfield is true, why are the Government proposing to stab the Nottinghamshire miners in the back by pushing for the Associated British Ports coal-importing installation at Immingham and supporting both PowerGen and National Power in building not one but two gas-fired power stations at Killingholme, so that even The Daily Telegraph says that, if these imports of coal continue, they will spell the end of the Nottinghamshire coalfield? Is not that a poor way to reward this increased productivity?

I find it difficult to see as a stab in the back the £2 million every working day that the Government have invested in the coal industry and the between £5 billion and £7 billion that the Government gave to the coal industry at only the end of the last financial year towards its overhang and clearing past debts. It may have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that British Coal has succeeded in securing with the generators coal contracts that will guarantee a stable market and income stream over the next three years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives his Department is taking to develop commercially viable and environmentally acceptable forms of renewable technology.

The Government are supporting a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable energy technologies to contribute to future energy supply.

How many such projects are there and to what extent are private sector companies involved in them?

There are some 300 or so such projects. We hope to see another 60 or 70 come on stream this year. They are very much joint ventures between the public and private sectors.

Does the Minister recognise that, with the privatisation of gas and electricity, measures on renewable sources of energy and environmentally positive moves will always come second to the profit motive and market forces? If we are to have positive moves in such a direction, will the Government do much more?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the non-fossil fuel obligation. We have had 339 applications under that obligation, which are to be reviewed; that shows that, with the privatisation of electricity, renewables will be encouraged.

What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that our beautiful coastline will not be littered with great big windmill generators under this programme? Having recently refused to endorse such a programme for Tennyson Down, I should not like to see my right hon. Friend become a modern-day Don Quixote.

That is a blandishment which I find it difficult to resist. The normal planning application procedure will apply, but my hon. Friend makes a fair and reasonable point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the possible future application of nuclear fusion technology.

If successfully developed, fusion would he a new source of electric power. It is too soon to speculate about its prospects.

Does the Minister agree that the development of nuclear fusion technology could bring many benefits to the people if pursued with urgency by the Government?

It is important to make it clear that the Government already spend about £27 million a year on fusion research with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and a further £28 million, through the European Commission, on the Euratom fusion programme.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no truth in the story put out two weeks ago by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that a nuclear power station will be built at Pembroke?

The four successor companies have been allocated the properties they need for operational reasons. Other properties, such as that at Pembroke, which are not required for current operations, have been divided up to ensure an equitable distribution of assets among the companies. Nuclear Electric has no development plans for Pembroke. The house knows that we have decided that no new stations should be built anywhere by Nuclear Electric until a complete review of nuclear power has been carried out in 1994.

How much money has been spent on fusion technology since the days of Zeta back in the 1950s? Does the Minister accept that it will be the year 2025 at least before benefits come from this technology, and that the millions of pounds that have been spent on research would have been much better spent on alternative technology, which could now be bringing real benefits?

It is important to get these matters into context. A proper balance has to be struck, and I believe that the Government have arrived at that balance. Even if fusion were shown to be economic and reliable, it is unlikely that a commercial fusion reactor could be running before the middle of the next century.

Does my hon. Friend accept the advice of the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats that the nuclear industry should be wound up?

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I am completely confused—as I suspect many hon. Members are—about the nuclear energy policies of the SLD and its associates in this place. I would welcome their making clear to the House exactly what their policies are for nuclear energy.

Will the Minister tell the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that he should not be too swift in ruling out a nuclear power station at Pembroke? I received a letter from the Secretary of State today stating that Nuclear Electric intends to keep the land at Pembroke until the review of nuclear policy is completed. It would not do that if it were not contemplating building it there.

As I have made clear, Nuclear Electric has no development plans for Pembroke. We have decided that no new station can be built anywhere by the company until a review has been completed in 1994, and that is how matters stand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many of the wells drilled on the United Kingdom continental shelf have been drilled (a) since 1964 and (b) since 1979.

Up to 12 February this year a total of 4,190 exploration, appraisal and development wells had been drilled on the United Kingdom continental shelf since 1964, of which 2,886 had been drilled since the beginning of 1979.

I thank my right hon. Friend for supplying those figures, which demonstrate the success of the Government's energy policy and the climate that has been created for investment and enterprise with these drillings. Do the drillings show that there has been an overall increase in the resources available beyond that which was expected and estimated earlier?

Due to the considerable number of discoveries made last year, the remaining reserves recoverable—proven plus probable—will have increased by about 10 million tonnes to 1,200 million tonnes.

Despite what the Minister said and the bright prospects for the North sea, will he confirm what last year's Brown Book figures show—that we are still producing more oil than we are finding in the North sea and that our reserves are depleting rapidly?

I think that I would be right in saying that last year we produced a little less than we discovered. The figures will be announced formally in the Brown Book, which will be published in April.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Director General of Ofgas to discuss British Gas tariffs.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the Director General of Gas Supply from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

I congratulate British Gas on its more competitive tariffs for industrial and commercial consumers in response to complaints from them. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with Ofgas the remaining serious problem for users of fewer than 25,000 therms? There is an incentive to waste gas because it benefits a user burning 22,000 therms to burn 25,000 or more as he would then pay less. Is not that a breach of the Gas Act 1986 and the licence? Should not there be a smoother banding and a lower threshold so that that ridiculous anomaly can be ended?

I do not believe that it is a breach of the Gas Act. We have discussed the matter with the Director General of Ofgas who is having further discussions with British Gas. My hon. Friend's point is perfectly fair.

Should not British Gas be warmly commended for its sponsorship of the arts, such as the concert at Hampton Court palace last September for charity—which you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to attend?

Yes, and I hope that you enjoyed the concert, Mr. Speaker. It would be only fair to say that the entire energy industry should be commended for its sponsorship of the arts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what was discussed.

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

During the right hon. Gentleman's latest discussions, did the chairman of British Coal outline the concern of people working in the mining industry and those in the mining communities about the 30 per cent. increase in electricity prices between April 1988 and 1990, with further increases to come? Those increases have occurred despite the fact that coal prices have remained the same or, in some cases, even been reduced. Is not the only purpose of such increases to fatten the bottom line of the CEGB's accounts? Is not that screwing the miners, the old people and the domestic customers? When will the Secretary of State ensure that customers, including the miners who produce the coal, obtain a fair deal?

I did not discuss that matter with the chairman of British Coal, but I did discuss the advantages for the coal industry of the passing of the Coal Industry Act 1990, which provides £5 billion to £7 billion of grant that will enable the coal industry accounts to be cleared of the hangover of past debts and will provide a good basis for the future. In addition, British Coal has secured a three-year contract with the generating industry at prices which, I hope, will enable it to be the supplier of first choice in the long term.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contracts between the electricity industry and British Coal are an extremely good deal for British Coal? Will he convey that view to its chairman? Does he—

Order. One question please—that is only fair.

It is a good contract for British Coal and for the generators. The important matter is that it is still a tough contract for British Coal. Although it has made great strides—productivity is up by more than 75 per cent. on pre-strike levels—further productivity gains are essential. I believe that the industry has the technology, investment and skills to achieve that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the chairman of British Coal should have told him that the pursuit of international supplies of low-sulphur coal could be a wild goose chase? Will he explain to the chairman of British Coal the precise nature of the mathematical formula which The Daily Telegraph told the world the right hon. Gentleman was capable of explaining to the House and the public?

The answer to the mathematical formula is 10·6 per cent.—the fossil fuel levy.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the chairman's recent remark that the north-east area is the jewel in the crown of British Coal? In view of that, does he agree that it is time to embark on a massive programme to fit flue gas desulpurisation equipment to make the importation of low-sulphur coal unnecessary?

I will not discuss which area of British Coal's activities is the jewel. There are many hardworking and highly skilful miners all over the country. I have nothing further to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said recently about FGD. We are committed to the European directive. It is clearly laid down and we shall ensure that it is achieved. British generating companies are considering their plans for how best to implement it. My view is that they will implement it partly by fitting FGD, partly by switching to some new stations for gas burn and partly by importing low-sulphur coal.