To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number and location of gas turbine projects for the production of electricity in England and Wales.

There is substantial interest in using gas both by existing generators and by those wishing to enter the generating market. I will arrange for the list to be published in the Official Report.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the low growth in electricity consumption, many of the 10,000 MW projects will not be required, unless there is a massive closure of coal-fired power stations? Is he further aware that a gas generator producing 350 MW will emit 1 million tonnes of CO₂ per annum and that coal is even worse? Is not that a good argument why we should now have a further nuclear power station, as nuclear power is the cleanest of the lot and will keep the industry together?

I listen to my hon. Friend with considerable interest because of his expertise. In the new regime, it will be for the owners of power stations to determine what they see as the market. Electricity demand is forecast to rise over the next 10 years. All commentators seem to agree on that, although they differ on the rate of increase. The current surplus of capacity is likely to come to an end within the next few years. Net capacity needs to be ordered soon if it is to meet the forecast increase in demand. Capacity is also needed to replace existing capacity. Power stations may come to the end of their life, they may be less efficient or more costly than new power stations, or the cost of reducing emissions may be too high compared with the cost of a nuclear plant.

Does the Secretary of State agree that to follow the line of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), which is to sterilise millions of tonnes of coal by closures in the coal industry, would be a short-sighted medium-term policy? Once gas was not available and the millions of tonnes of coal were sterilised, we should have to rely on competitors. Would that be a wise policy?

The Government's policy is to encourage a diversity of fuels, but combined cycle gas turbine power stations are friendly to the environment. For every unit of CO₂ emitted from a coal-fired station, just over half a unit is emitted from a CCGT station.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of the area electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters.

In the light of recent precedents, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, should he in the near future find himself out of a job, neither he nor any senior members of his Department will go running to take places on the boards of any distribution companies?

I have two answers to that question, neither of which will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is a hypothetical question, and secondly, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said on the subject.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of East Midlands Electricity, will he ask him how the new project at Bilsthorpe colliery in my constituency for a high-efficiency, mini power station is getting on and when East Midlands Electricity, together with British Coal, will be able to announce a starting date with Government help?

I have met the chairman of that regional electricity company on several occasions, and I have no doubt that he will raise that subject when I next meet him. We are looking at the figures, and it is important to examine the economics in particular.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets electricity company chairmen in the east midlands and elsewhere, will he point out that there is serious concern about the high cost of nuclear power and about the revelation today that Sizewell will cost another £1 billion, making the total cost £2.6 billion? Will the right hon. Gentleman also point out that it would be better to use coal because it is very difficult to get rid of nuclear waste? That is especially true of low-level nuclear waste, as the right hon. Gentleman experienced when he was Patronage Secretary and had to get Tory Members to stand up in protest about nuclear waste being dumped in his own constituency.

The hon. Gentleman's recollection of history is not very accurate. Nor should he believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, even the headlines of some of our better-known journals. I suspect that the question of nuclear costs will come before the House before long.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that privatisation has been a success for many industrial users because it has introduced price competition between distributors and generators? Does he agree that the only reason why Labour opposes privatisation is that it would like to see industrial users pay more for their electricity?

I hope that better reasons will be given in this afternoon's debate for the Opposition being against privatisation, but we shall be able to deal with all that they have to say.

I suppose that the Secretary of State realises that one electricity-rated company now in the state sector from which he cannot expect a job offer is Nirex. Does he agree that if the privatised area distribution boards are compelled to abide by normal stock exchange rules, which say that a company's audited accounts must be available going back five years or more, and which, with restructuring, the new companies do not have, it will be impossible to flog those companies? The only way of persuading the "Sids" to buy shares in them would be by a mass advertising campaign that would make the Albanian dictatorship at its Stalinist height or even Lord Young when at the Manpower Services Commission blush.

There were a lot of words in that question, but getting down to their fundamentals, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the stock exchange rules necessary for the flotation of the regional electricity companies will be obeyed to the satisfaction of the people who have responsibility for those matters. Of course, there will be an element of advertising, as there has been in all privatisations. That will be beneficial in ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money.

Mr. Marshall. I call the hon. Member because I thought that I saw him rising to his feet. If he does not want to ask a question, we shall move on.

I am always happy to oblige, Mr. Speaker, by asking a question. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that previous privatisations have been followed by increased investment and effective control of prices than before, and that electricity consumers can look forward to a good future under privatisation of that industry?

My hon. Friend is right. Not only will customers benefit from privatisation but so will taxpayers and those employed in the industry.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) if he was merely taking his place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed with his colleagues in the European Community the implications of global warming for energy policy.

I last discussed with Community colleagues the implications of global warming for energy policy at the Energy Council on 21 May.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the statements made last week by Mr. Jim Smith, chairman of Eastern Electricity, the largest of the distribution companies soon to be privatised, that the industry should concentrate less on cutting back and conserving and far more on winning markets from British Gas? Is that any way to contribute to attempts to reduce global warming? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement as an example of the initiative that is needed in modern Britain?

I am in favour of the chairman of Eastern Electricity looking after the interests of his employees, his customers and his shareholders—

You are the only shareholder.

At the moment it happens to be me, as the hon. Gentleman points out, although shortly there will be a lot of shareholders. I approve of the chairman—he is a first-class person.

My right hon. Friend will doubtless be aware that a fortnight ago the House was well represented at a conference in Ottawa of 23 Council of Europe countries, the Soviet Union and Poland, about global warming. However, he is probably not aware that that conference took the decision that the subject is so important and it is so essential to reach a global solution, that every Parliament represented there should, if possible, hold a two-day debate on the papers discussed at the conference with a view to reporting back to a further conference to be organised by the Council of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend lend his considerable influence to support such a request when he receives it?

For a long time I had some responsibility for organising debates in the House. I no longer have it, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to those who do. I agree with my hon. Friend this far—the conference in Ottawa and the conferences that seem to be taking place regularly in all sorts of places around the world at the moment are important if we are to deal with global warming. He is also right to say that it is necessary for us to have international agreement if we are to deal effectively with those problems. That is why the Prime Minister announced on 25 May that, in the context of international agreements, the United Kingdom is prepared to stabilise CO₂ emissions at the present level by the year 2005. That target depends on other countries being able to play a full part in an international response.

Is the Secretary of State embarrassed when he meets his European colleagues that we are so half-hearted about our commitment to dealing with the problems of global warming? Why do our Government always say that we shall act if others act first? Is not the reality that we have a problem that we share with the world, which is so urgent that the target of doing a little by 2005 is too little far too late? Is not he embarrassed, and does not he want to be more effective as our Energy Minister?

I am very far from being embarrassed. The Prime Minister has taken the lead, with a demanding target. It is easy for those without responsibility here or in other countries with different problems to make forecasts and targets that they probably will not be able to meet. Our target is realistic, and if we can get international agreement on that level, we shall have done well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date estimate of the final construction cost of the Sizewell B nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

Nuclear Electric has undertaken a thorough review of progress with the Sizewell B project, including the estimated cost to completion. The outcome of the review will be announced soon.

The Secretary of State must be aware that recent estimates have put the final cost of Sizewell B at about £3.8 billion, taking into account the cost overruns, delays and lack of economies of scale due to the cancellation of the pressurised water reactor programme. It was also calculated that £2 billion can be saved by cancelling the project now. Does the Secretary of State agree that the time to cancel Sizewell B is right now?

I am not prepared to comment on speculation about the costs of Sizewell B. Nuclear Electric has recently reviewed the cost of Sizewell B, and I understand that it will publish its figure tomorrow. However, I shall seek to give the House an idea of the Government's consideration of Nuclear Electric's review during this afternoon's debate, if I should catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

If it is true that Sizewell B is costing considerably more than first envisaged, does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the nuclear industry, like so many others, cannot get construction costs right? Does he concede that Sizewell B is more than merely one additional power station? It is the forerunner of a series of power stations that are environmentally desirable, and an insurance policy for the future. When fossil fuel declines we shall still need electricity.

I am not prepared to confirm the speculative figures that I read about this morning.

Is the Secretary of State aware that every penny of the overrun will have to be paid by the taxpayer and that it amounts to a subsidy to nuclear power on a scale that the Government have never accepted in respect of the mining industry? Has the Commissioner with responsibility for energy in the European Community, which has taken an interest in the sweeteners that were paid for the purchase of Rover, asked the Government to make a full disclosure in this case?

I have clear responsibility for taxpayers' money, of which I am well aware. That is why I am not prepared to comment on or to accept the speculative figures that appeared in this morning's newspapers. We shall make our comments at the proper time and in the proper way. That will be after Nuclear Electric has published its review. As for the coal industry, the right hon. Gentleman once had the honour to hold the position that I now hold. The financial assistance and grants that have been made available to British Coal under this Administration exceed, in real terms, the total assistance from all previous Governments since the industry was nationalised.

Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that behind Sizewell B is a nuclear industry that must not be allowed to disintegrate? Will he also bear in mind the long-term view that the nuclear industry will be essential to the United Kingdom when coal and natural gas run out?

Those are some of the many considerations that I have to take properly into account when considering those matters.

Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Nuclear Electric has published its figures and will he confirm now that the figures that he says Nuclear Electric is to publish tomorrow will cover the whole of the extra costs, including those that must fall on Sizewell as a result of the cancellation of the other three pressurised water reactors? Will he also confirm that the costs of the £200 million nuclear research write-off will fall on Sizewell? Finally, can he confirm that if Sizewell is to continue, electricity users will have to pay at least twice as much for their electricity from Sizewell as from any other electricity generating station?

The hon. Gentleman would have been well advised to accept my advice not to press his questions at this time. I do not believe that the answers that he will receive a little later will be entirely to his liking. The best plan is to allow Nuclear Electric to publish its report and then decide what is the best thing to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to review the 90 per cent. upper limit on the grant available under the homes energy efficiency scheme.

A number of representations have been received about the 90 per cent. limit as part of the consultation process. They are being considered.

Does the Minister agree that the 10 per cent. shortfall is a formidable disincentive to the most needy families in Britain to take up this environmentally and socially valuable scheme? How can the Government be so miserly with those people and yet so profligate? Is not it true that there would be enough fuel efficiency grants for almost the entire population if Sizewell B were cancelled? Is not it acknowledged now that Sizewell B and the whole PWR programme was the worst, the most futile and the most wasteful civil investment decision since the Pharaohs decided to build the pyramids?

The 90 per cent. grant is a continuation of the home insulation project. However, the levels of individual grant will be determined in the light of the comments received by means of consultation. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are taken into account as part of the consultation process. The principal aim of the new scheme is to bring about a further increase in the uptake of home insulation measures among low-income households. The scheme will, I believe, be successful in doing just that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that loft insulation is the most cost-effective way of reducing energy consumption, so, when the Government are willing to give low-income households a 90 per cent. grant, that is an extremely good deal, which they should be encouraged to take up?

Energy efficiency in the home extends beyond that scheme, and the promotion of energy efficiency in buildings generally is extremely important. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently presented the first national home energy rating certificate in support of the methodology and principles of energy labelling as endorsed by the Building Research Establishment. It is a welcome step in the development of the voluntary energy labelling of homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently spoke at the opening of the one millionth new home to be built with mineral wool cavity wall slab insulation. Such initiatives will greatly help promote energy efficiency and energy savings in Britain's households.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.

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

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

After meeting the chairman of British Coal, will the Minister be prepared to issue a joint statement with him assuring redundant and retired mineworkers that their concessionary fuel rights will be guaranteed unless they choose another option in future?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before with me and certainly with British Coal. It is a matter for British Coal, but I shall certainly ensure that any further representations that he wants to make are put to the chairman of British Coal.

Is the Secretary of State aware that currently nods and winks suggest that even if the country had the unlikely misfortune to have a Conservative Government after the next general election, they would not privatise the coal industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with Lord Haslam and explain to him whether that change of heart is because the Government are to maintain the policy of contraction so that there will be nothing left to privatise, or because wiser counsels have prevailed?

I think that the whole House would wish me to congratulate Sir Robert Haslam on his recent peerage. He has been a distinguished leader of industry for many years and is a distinguished chairman of British Coal. Certainly I discuss many things with Sir Robert Haslam, but he does not seek to interfere with what is essentially a political decision. The Government's position is clear: we intend to bring proposals before the House for the privatisation of British Coal after the next election.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to secure a long-term future for the British coal industry is for its prices to be competitive and for it to develop the technologies to burn coal cleanly? Flue gas desulphurisation does not reduce, but increase, greenhouse gases. The development of new technology such as the fluidised bed and coal gasification will alow us to burn coal in the long term and reduce CO₂.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the long term, the development of new clean coal technologies will be the future of the British coal industry into the next century, but in the meantime the considerable improvement in productivity and performance in recent years must be maintained for many years to come.

When my right hon. Friend speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he take up with him the matter of dumping waste on the beaches of the north-east of England? It may be cost effective for the coal industry, but it is extremely expensive on the environment and ultimately will have to be cleaned up. Will my right hon. Friend give notice that licensing for such disposal will cease quickly?

I recognise that there are strong feelings about this matter, for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible. I know that he is currently considering it.

Considering the overrun in the cost of nuclear power at Sizewell B, when the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he suggest that a fraction of the expenditure on nuclear power should be invested in the Scottish coalfield to reopen the Francis and Monkton Hall collieries? Scottish coal is consumer friendly; it is the green coal of the future. Will he give a lead to the chairman of British Coal by supporting the redevelopment of the Scottish coalfield?

As the hon. Gentleman says, several matters in relation to Scottish coal are encouraging. Scotland has a considerable amount of low-sulphur coal, which is likely to become increasingly valuable, and its quality advantage will provide good opportunities for the future. I was pleased that Monkton Hall and Francis pits were mothballed rather than closed, because it shows that, in the right circumstances, mothballing is a feasible option. I am pleased that British Coal and Scottish Power are close to agreement about coal supplies to Longannet power station. It is not all doom and gloom.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most miners now own their homes and wish to be able to own shares in the industry in which they work? Why, therefore, did he say that the Bill to privatise the coal industry will be introduced only after the next election? Will he please introduce it in November? It could be quite a short Bill and it would be welcomed, particularly by miners.

My hon. Friend has a formidable reputation for cutting through red tape and getting to the heart of matters, but the Bill to privatise British Coal will be complex, because under the licensing arrangements in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 a privatised British Coal could not retain responsibility for licensing our national reserves.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the coal board will he discuss the most urgent matter in the coal industry—its low morale? Will he join Labour Members in supporting the chairman's efforts to win some long-term contracts for supplying electricity generators? Last year, British Coal was offering 10-year contracts to the new generators but it was stopped by the politics of Whitehall. Will he support the efforts of the chairman of the coal board to get talks going immediately to ensure future stability for the British coal industry after these short-term contracts?

In the friendliest possible way, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that part of the cause for the low morale, which is not as widespread as he suggested, may be some of the statements that he and his hon. Friends have made. British Coal secured a three-year contract with the generators which was benefical to both parties. Negotiations for a further long-term contract are continuing and I hope that satisfactory arrangements will be made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the flue gas desulphurisation programme.

Work on retrofitting FGD to the 4 GW Drax power station is proceeding well. In addition, I am considering applications from PowerGen for my consent to it retrofitting FGD to Ratcliffe and Ferrybridge C power stations.

Although Fiddler's Ferry power station was originally considered for flue gas desulphurisation, what progress has been made in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by burning low-sulphur coal, and does it represent a saving to the ultimate consumer?

The fitting of FGD equipment in general adds to the costs of producing electricity; it does not reduce them. How the power station at Fiddler's Ferry will be run is a matter not for me but for the company. I recognise my hon. Friend's legitimate interest in these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of installing this equipment at Ferrybridge C power station, where a number of my constituents are employed? Is he aware that any greater delay in agreeing that the equipment should be fitted will mean a significant danger of more coal mines in the area being closed? Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider the application from Ferrybridge C power station, so that we can get on with the job and assure the people who work in the mining industry that at least their jobs will be made secure?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's question. There certainly will be no delay on my part. If the initial 8 GW of retrofitting is completed, as we hope, it will be sufficient to enable British Coal to produce about 70 million tonnes of coal for the generators. That will meet the provisions of the European directive until, I think, 1998. At the moment, there is a commitment only to 8 GW of retrofitting. It will be some time before we must deal with the problem of extra retrofitting.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable caution is justified in approaching the FGD programme? Does he agree that the plant is large, the cost is great and the efficiency of the burning system is diminished by it? Could not FGD turn out to be an expensive cul-de-sac? Does he agree that it might be more productive to consider more efficient burning systems?

We have told the generators, "You must bring forward your plans"—they are not the Government's plans—"on what you believe to be the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the European directive." The generators must deal with that directive, and that is why we have reached the present position. My hon. Friend is right: it is an expensive and, in some ways, retrograde technology. I believe that it will play an important part in achieving the reductions that are called for, but other measures will be needed too.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of National Power to discuss changes in conditions of employment.

Conditions of employment are a matter for National Power's management.

Is the Minister aware that part of the terms and conditions of employment in the old electricity industry involved a concessionary purchase scheme whereby members of staff could purchase items sold by the boards? Is he aware that on the Saturday before privatisation, National Power sent a letter to all staff and ex-staff telling them that on the following Monday the scheme would be cancelled? Was not that a deplorable action by National Power? When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of National Power, will he find out when the scheme, which existed for many years, will be reintroduced?

Concessionary sales for National Power staff are not part of the conditions of employment; they are a matter for management. I understand that National Power is investigating alternative arrangements and has undertaken to inform staff, pensioners and trade unions in July about progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to improve safety in the handling of dangerous substances on offshore installations.

My right hon. Friend is currently studying the possible extension of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 to offshore installations.

I appreciate that this matter is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I am sure that the Minister of State is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by my constituents who work on offshore installations. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee to take careful heed of the views that have been expressed by trade unions on the importance of any changes?

Offshore safety is of paramount importance and we have consistently stressed that we will not allow standards to be compromised for any reason. We have been reviewing the important contribution that the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have made in improving safety onshore, and it will now be for the Health and Safety Commission to advise my right hon. Friend the Minister of State whether such regulations should be extended offshore. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will also have regard to comments and representations made to him by the trade unions and others concerned with safety in the North sea.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes have been insulated by community insulation projects since 1982.

More than 750,000 homes have been treated by the projects since their work began in 1982.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and the Government on the good work that has been done through the scheme. May I bring to his attention the problems caused in certain areas by the change in benefit regulations? May I also seek his assurance that the work on the scheme will continue and that his Department will pursue that good work as far as it possibly can and encourage its growth and development? The scheme has assisted a number of homes in my constituency, and I should like its benefits to the rest of the country to continue and prosper in the years to come.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. We are keen to ensure, wherever possible, that work undertaken by the community insulation projects is not constrained in the run-up to the new home energy efficiency scheme. That new scheme will have about £12 million available in its first half-year of operation, and I am confident that there will be a substantial increase in the rate at which the work is done.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Duchy; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to visit the Duchy estates in the immediate future.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that several of his tenants have expressed concern to me at the suggestion that one in 15 of them who are standard rate taxpayers may be called upon to pay more tax. They have also said that they might like to hear about the matter in an impartial manner on Independent Television News. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that those tenants will not be called upon to pay more tax and that they will be able to hear impartial reports about the matter on ITN?

To those of my hon. Friend's constituents who are concerned about the possibility of paying more tax, I have to say that it will not be a question of one in 15, two in 15 or even three in 15 paying more: all 15 will pay more tax under the Opposition's proposals. When the Leader of the Opposition talks on television about tax increases, it is a question of, "Watch my slips". I hope that ITN will not be browbeaten by a harassed and embarrassed Labour party.

When the Chancellor visits the Duchy, will he confirm—as I am sure he will—that he meticulously differentiates between his role as a Minister and his fund-raising and publicity roles as chairman of the Conservative party? If he can give that assurance, why did not he observe the same rule when he visited Armenia recently? The Prime Minister told us that he went in his official role as a Minister but, in a response to me, he said that he travelled privately with Sir Jeffrey Sterling, who happens to be the second largest contributor to the Conservative party.

I was invited by a sponsor of the school in Armenia. The right hon. Gentleman cavils too much. Had he seen the school, he would know of the outstanding contribution that the Government and the individual sponsors have made in an area that has suffered a grave tragedy. Moreover, the school is a great tribute to the British workmen who completed the work on time, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot take more pride in that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what environmental responsibilities his chancellorship involves.

As a member of Her Majesty's Government, I am closely involved in the development of future policy towards the environment.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt remember with pleasure his days in Southport and the times that he played on the beach and made sand castles. He will therefore understand the enormous strength of feeling among Duchy residents in Lancashire about coastal pollution. Can he reassure those left in the county, and some who are still left on the beaches, that the beaches will soon be clean and that the Government are four-square behind those efforts?

My hon. Friend reminds me of my youth which I spent in Southport. That was some time ago. The amount being spent on environmental improvement in Lancashire and the Mersey basin constitutes one of our largest programmes. The Mersey basin programme will involve £4 billion over the next 25 years. North West Water will be investing £400 million next year and £100 million is being dedicated to cleaning beaches in Southport and Blackpool.

Why is it that for millions of people, including holidaymakers as well as residents in the north-west and the Duchy, it is unsafe for them and their children to bathe in coastal waters because the concentrations of coliforms, pathogenic micro-organisms and other harmful entero-viruses in the water present a serious risk to people? Is not it obvious that the Government's timetable for resolving the problems is hopelessly inadequate?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Labour Government who presided over a cut of 40 per cent. in capital investment for water authorities. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are spending about £3 billion to improve and clean water throughout the country and specifically in the north-west. The Labour Government ran the country so badly that they could not provide the funds for such important infrastructure developments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that beaches in the north-west are cleaner now than they have ever been? When he next visits the Duchy, will he take the opportunity to suggest to the Labour leader of Lancashire county council that she joins other local authorities and pressure groups in the north-west in getting together with North West Water to make the beaches even cleaner?

If I believed that the Labour leader of Lancashire county council would listen to me, I would willingly pass on that advise. However, all the evidence is that she listens to no one, least of all to the Labour party. Lancashire county council is one of the biggest overspenders in the country. Last year its overspending was 17.5 per cent., which amounted to £123 million. That is why the community charge in Lancashire was so high. I re-emphasise what I said earlier. The Government's commitment to cleaning up the estuaries, rivers and beaches in the north-west is absolutely clear. More money will be spent on that over the next few years than has been spent in recent years.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many written parliamentary questions he has answered since last replying to oral questions in the House.

I have answered two written parliamentary questions since last replying to oral questions in the House.

No doubt that gives the right hon. Gentleman even more time to write those endless letters to some of my hon. Friends. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy have any responsibility for the articles that appeared in yesterday's Conservative newspapers to the effect that the deputy Prime Minister is to be dumped, or do those stories originate from No. 10? It seems odd. Perhaps the Chancellor will wish to come to the defence of his right hon. and learned Friend, who seems to be the victim of a vendetta.

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who asks me questions of this nature at every opportunity—he asked similar questions of my predecessor—that the last time he asked me a question, we were about 25 points behind in the opinion polls and now we are about 11 points behind. The passage of time has seen an unprecedented decline in support for the Opposition.

My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that, at the time of the previous oral questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Conservative party was 28 points behind in the opinion polls, whereas now it is only 11 points behind. Does my right hon. Friend think that, when he next answers oral questions, the Labour party will be decent enough to congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on putting us ahead in the opinion polls?

I would not like to suggest that the improvement in Conservative party fortunes is entirely due to my appearance at the Dispatch Box. In the past few weeks, the Labour party has been rumbled. When it talks of spending, the country now realises that that means increasing taxes. The great launch of its new manifesto has gone off like a damp squib.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official duties for 25 June.

Earlier today I met Duchy of Lancaster officials; later, I shall spend time attending to Duchy business.

When I took over as chairman of the Labour party, it was six points behind in the opinion polls; When I left, it was 15 points in front. You can do anything with statistics.

I am indifferent to the various caricatures of me: I find that the more significant one becomes, the more trenchant they become.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has made to London Regional Transport concerning finance for the proposed development of phase II of the new parliamentary buildings over Westminster underground station.

Consultations on this subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have been taken as far as they can be at this stage.

Does the Lord President agree that every hon. Member who wants one should have an office of his own, with adequate space for staff and adequate office facilities—even Conservative Members who turn up only occasionally, and have other jobs in the City and the law courts? Will he re-examine the question of further office space for hon. Members and their staff in phase 2 of the new development? Will he also tell the House what the financial arrangements will be between the Government and London Regional Transport, and explain who will pay what percentage of costs to ensure that those much-needed facilities are made available to all hon. Members?

In answer to the second question, discussions between my ministerial colleagues and London Regional Transport will bear in mind what the Services Committee said about the share that was originally suggested. It remains the objective of the Committee that every hon. Member who so wishes should have an office by 1995.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how much snuff was administered to hon. Members by the doorkeepers in (a) 1969, (b) 1979, and (c) 1989; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

In 1989 about 1.5 oz of snuff was consumed at a cost of 99p; figures for the earlier years are unknown. Only one hon. and learned Member regularly uses snuff; other hon. Members and Officers of the House do so only occasionally.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that snuff clears the brain and improves the health of those who take it? Will he name the hon. and learned Member who takes snuff from the principal doorkeeper, so that all hon. Members can judge the efficacy of the product that is available to us all?

It would be quite improper for me to disclose the private habits of even an hon. and learned Member in that way. Equally, it would be unwise for me to commend the taking of snuff for any reason. I am advised that, on the whole, its effects are deleterious to health.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the hon. and learned Member is a male Member of the House and that no hon. Ladies have participated in the taking of snuff over those years? In recognising that the taking of snuff is a male habit, will the Leader of the House say what proposals he has to improve the lives of the hon. Ladies in the House?

That is an ingenious and attractive line of argument. I confirm that the hon. and learned Member is a male Member. I cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that female Members may occasionally partake, but I have no evidence to support it. I am always interested in considering and advancing proposals put forward by Lady Members of the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any proposals to improve liaison between the House and the European Parliament.

The Government agree with the Procedure Committee that there are benefits to be gained from building up informal links between the two Parliaments. The House should be able to discuss this subject later this week. Meanwhile, the Services Committee is investigating the scope for improving Members' telephone and postal contacts with Community institutions.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to consider the systems that apply in other national Parliaments, such as the Folketing, to encourage liaison between Members of this House and British Members of the European Parliament who, after all, are fighting the same battle as we are?

I am certainly willing to consider any proposals identified by my hon. Friend. He will recall that the Procedure Committee concluded that there was no strong case for the introduction of legislation to establish formal contacts. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House and of the European Parliament to encourage in as many ways as possible the development of informal contacts.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that liaison between individual Members of both Parliaments is often very good, not least between the three Labour Members for the city of Leicester and the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Leicestershire, and not least concerning travesties such as the closure of Bewcastle house and De Montfort house old people's homes in our joint constituencies, without informing any of us in advance and without telling the old people, who had to find out for themselves? Is not that a disgrace in either Parliament?

Even for the sake of finding something to say, I shall not commend the constituency interest that was so skilfully and characteristically advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a bit more about telephone call facilities to institutions including the Parliament in Brussels? I know that it means phoning wicked foreigners, which is an inherently dangerous activity, but, as we raised the matter about 18 months ago, it really is time that we made progress, like other Parliaments.

As I said in my earlier answer, that proposal is being considered by the Services Committee. Clearly it makes sense to establish workable arrangements for hon. Members to have ready contact with European institutions. I hope that the Services Committee will report on that matter as soon as possible.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to extend the Speaker's warrant to cover postage of correspondence with overseas electors.

Mr. Speaker's frank used on some correspondence originating from the House is valid within the United Kingdom only. A proposal to assist hon. Members in sending official correspondence overseas is shortly to be considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that we have recently extended the franchise abroad to those who left this country up to 20 years ago? We are now receiving a good deal of correspondence from abroad, and that facility would be very much welcomed.

I understand that that extension of the franchise was undertaken with the support of the Labour party. It may raise the matter suggested by my hon. Friend.

Should not we be careful? Whatever the intention of this question, we are not allowed to use free postage to deal with home electors. We are allowed to deal with constituency matters, but we are not allowed to write with stamped envelopes to electors in our constituencies on the basis of the electoral register. What can be done abroad should be no different from what is done at home.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I do not think that the matter is defined precisely along the lines that he suggests. One is entitled to use the free postage for parliamentary or constituency duties, but not for party purposes. As that is the position at home, it will be the position overseas, too.

When will something be done about communications with, for example, European Commissioners, which I understand are not covered by the pre-postage arrangement? As we have to write to them on behalf of our constituents from time to time, surely that should be treated in the same way as writing to a constituent or a Minister.

The range of the postal facilities proposed for communications with European institutions may extend that far. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.

Is not it not just curious, but unacceptable, that the Government are spending more taxpayers' money on advertising to encourage people living abroad to register to vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour supported it."] Welcome though it is, is not it unacceptable that more money is being spent on encouraging a small number of people living abroad to register to vote than is being spent on the programme for all the electors in Great Britain? It is the wrong way round and should be changed.

The hon. Gentleman must understand that most electors already resident in the United Kingdom are registered, and have been for many years. The point about the change is that overseas voters are a new category, so it is perfectly sensible that the information should be brought to their attention as a special innovation. I emphasise that the measure to enfranchise overseas voters was introduced with the support of the Opposition, and it should be commended to voters on that basis.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects offices to become available for hon. Members' use in the new parliamentary building.

The latest forecast is that hon. Members and their staff will be able to occupy the offices on their return from the 1991 summer Adjournment.

I think that I will still be here.

I cannot offer any long-term assurances on the hon. Gentleman's electoral position in the House.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the 20 years that I have been here there have been extensive improvements in office accommodation, but I have noticed no improvements in parliamentary performance? I wonder whether more offices will lead to the Chamber and, above all, the Smoking Room being emptier.

I understand that hon. Members have different views about the importance of office accommodation. I note what my hon. Friend says.