To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what statutory provisions cover consultations between the electricity industry and a developer prior to new house building developments.

There is no statutory requirement for formal consultation in the relevant electricity or planning legislation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that new houses throughout the country are being built close to underground cables and overhead wires and without a guarantee of adequate supplies? That happens because there is no statutory requirement to consult the electricity industry. However, there is a statutory requirement to consult the National Rivers Authority before planning permission is granted. Will my hon. Friend say something to my constituents who are regularly plunged into darkness when the local sub-station is overloaded? Too many houses are being built without consultation with the electricity industry with the result that local electricity boards cannot cope despite all their efforts.

It is sensible for developers to consult the electricity companies before proceeding, to ensure adequacy of supply. But I assure my hon. Friend that the suppliers can levy reasonable charges on developers to recoup the cost of the necessary transmission lines and plant to service new developments. The charges do not fall on my hon. Friend's constituents.

As it is in new buildings that thermal efficiency is most advantageously applied, why is there no statutory requirement on developers to consult not only electricity suppliers but other energy suppliers to ensure that houses have the maximum energy efficiency?

The energy efficiency requirements for new houses are covered in the building regulations, which were updated and improved in April last year. They should improve the thermal efficiency of new houses by about 20 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of proceeds of the sale of the 12 regional electricity companies.

The sale of the 12 regional electricity companies will raise some £8 billion, more than £5 billion from the sale of the shares and almost another £3 billion from the injection of debt into the companies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high level of those figures is significant and reflects the great success of all those involved in what was a difficult flotation? In view of that large sum, will he suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at least some of the money could be spent advantageously on energy efficiency schemes both on their own merits and as a way of meeting global warming problems?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the success of the sale. Privatisation in itself has several advantages for energy efficiency. First, the Electricity Act 1989, under which the companies were privatised, places an obligation on them to promote energy efficiency. Secondly, the creation of competition and a downward pressure on fuel prices should substantially improve energy efficiency. My ministerial committee, set up as a result of the Government's environmental White Paper, is pursuing many other avenues of energy efficiency.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a large tranche of shares in South Wales Electricity was bought by the Welsh water authority and that, given the way things are going with the sale of the regional electricity companies, we are liable to end up with Wales plc, which cannot be a vast improvement on the monopolies that preceded privatisation?

Of course, the sale of the shares took place after the companies were put into the private sector. All the regulations were drawn up in accordance with stock exchange rules. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a golden share operates in the company. It would not be right for me to say anything further at this stage.

Even before the Government have received most of the proceeds of the sale of the regional electricity companies, we are once more being softened up by the aerial bombardment of "Star Trek" before the land invasion of the generating companies begins with the production of the pathfinder prospectus on Friday. Will the Secretary of State confirm that one thing that he has learnt from the disaster of the sale of the electricity distribution companies is that if one keeps back 40 per cent. and underprices 60 per cent., one has some hope of making up some of that underpricing two years later when one sells the remaining 40 per cent?

The hon. Gentleman is an observer of the scene, but not a wholly dispassionate one. I do not accept his strictures on the sale of the regional electricity companies. I do not accept that they were underpriced or that the sale of the generating companies will be underpriced. We shall take proper care to ensure that the price struck is fair to taxpayers and investors. Naturally, the fact that we are selling only 60 per cent. rather than 100 per cent. will have to be taken into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the progress of the 12th round of offshore licensing.

I am delighted to say that we have received 115 applications covering 81 blocks in the 12th round of licensing. In addition, 37 companies have applied for acreage covering a further 66 blocks in the separate frontier round for the difficult areas north and west of the Shetland islands.

Will my hon. Friend welcome the co-operation between the Government and private enterprise on this venture in the North sea? What would be the effects if the interventionist policies of the Labour Opposition were put into effect in the North sea?

This is my hon. Friend's first question since his knighthood and I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate him. It is undoubtedly true that a stable, fiscal regime, predictable and well-established criteria for licensing and an oil and gas market that maximises private sector investment are the keys to economic success. Some of the interventionism in the oil and gas market which the Labour party has made it clear that it would deploy would be counterproductive to the success record of the 1980s continuing into the 1990s.

Our interventionist policies concerning the safety of men and women who work on rigs and platforms are far superior to those that the Government put into practice.

On the licence negotiations, must not companies satisfy the Government about the environmental impact of their work? If so, could not the Government institute some of the recommendations in Cullen at this stage of the negotiations—for example, recommendation No. 17 on page 390 of the Cullen report which talks about the need to implement safety regulations and goal-setting objectives? Why do not the Government introduce some of those recommendations now?

First, there is no question about the Government's commitment to implementing measures that will enhance safety in the North sea. The Government have been quick to respond fully to the Cullen report and to make it clear that safety is the No. 1 priority and that the recommendations will be implemented in full.

If the hon. Gentleman connects his specific point with his first point about interventionism, he will note that Lord Cullen recognised that it was vital that private sector operators should provide a safety case for each platform and should set up a safety audit and that, working with our outstanding inspectorate, they should have the assistance of the public sector to ensure that we enhance safety in the North sea.

As for environmentally sensitive blocks, the operators in the licensing round who wish to develop those quadrants must ensure that their environmental case is sound and persuade my colleagues in the Department and Ministers that that is the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make available the detailed evidence on which he dismissed the scientific warnings given by Professor Paul Crutzen, head of the atmospherics physics department of the Max Planck Institute in Mainz, and Dr. Abdullah Toucan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, principal scientific adviser to King Hussein of Jordan, about the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrocarbon and photo-chemical smog results of the war in the middle east; and if he will place his detailed technical evidence in the Library.

I did not dismiss the warnings of possible fires at Kuwaiti oil fields or criticise particular scientists, but I thought it right to make available the advice that I received on the environmental implications of such fires. That has been followed up by a study by the Meteorological Office which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Since then Saddam Hussein has set on the course of deliberately polluting the waters of the Gulf, which is a gross act of environmental terrorism, and I believe that the whole civilised world will deplore that action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making a statement about it later this afternoon.

Will the Secretary of State put the detailed evidence that he had from his Department in the Library? Is not it the case that the Government cannot say that they were not warned of the pumping of oil into the water to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? During the Consolidated Fund debate on 19 December, at column 403, I spoke for 55 minutes and gave a specific warning. Surely it is negligent of Ministers not to have taken precautions. As a senior member of the War Cabinet, will the Secretary of State consider the activities and the frivolous answers from that silly little boy, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who masquerades as a Minister of State at the Foreign Office—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is spoiling his question.

I think that these matters deserve more serious treatment than the hon. Gentleman appears to be giving them. I am sure that no one has ever underestimated the possibility of serious environmental terrorism. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I made accessible the best advice available to me on the environmental consequences. The report of the Meteorological Office has been put in the Library.

It is absolutely clear that the fact that Saddam Hussein is capable of environmental terrorism of this kind—

The Government were warned, but did nothing. Why did not the Government do anything?

The Government were well aware of the threat. The fact that Saddam Hussein is capable of such environmental terrorism shows, once again, how essential it is that Kuwait should be freed from his grasp. It is because of that man that we have taken our action.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether Saddam Hussein was given such warnings and information about environmental pollution? Does he know whether Saddam Hussein submitted himself to questions on this matter in the Iraqi Parliament? What evidence exists to show that Saddam Hussein took notice of those warnings or the concern of his parliamentary colleagues?

My hon. Friend makes his point well. I add only that Saddam Hussein is well aware of the damage that he is doing to the world. That is why his actions are even more criminal than they would be if he were ignorant of such matters.

As the right hon. Gentleman represents his Department in the War Cabinet, can he tell the House what advice and consultations he and his colleagues have had with European Community Commissioners and Ministers and the United Nations Environment Programme so that the full implications of the environmental risk in the middle east is at all times in the forefront of not only politicians' minds, but those of the military?

There have been discussions and consultations among the allies, as well as wider discussions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will come to the House at 3.30 to make a proper statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will evaluate the respective cost of house heating by gas, electricity and oil; and if he will make a statement.

The cost of heating a house will vary according to the size and type of dwelling, the level of insulation, the comfort level required and the type of heating and fuel used. But the weekly cost of heating an average three-bedroom house by gas, electricity and solid fuel has been estimated at f10·25, £15·50 and £12·10 respectively.

I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which will be helpful to people seeking to find the best way in which to heat their homes. Will my hon. Friend take steps to make better information available to people who need to make such decisions as there is precious little current information about?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to give accurate advice on this matter. He will be pleased to know that the new home energy efficiency scheme, which gives grants to low-income households, provides advice of this nature. We also have a new campaign to give information to those improving their houses or moving house, backed up by leaflets available from my Department. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is sent a copy.

Although these measures are welcome, will the Minister ensure that bodies selling heating appliances explain their thermal efficiency and running costs in a way that is understandable to the person buying them—because much of the official language that is used is not understandable to the purchaser?

We are pursuing the idea of an energy labelling scheme for such appliances. Clearly we should like it to be compatible with schemes being worked up in other European countries so as to promote free trade too.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the new building regulations, we are still light years behind our European colleagues? Would not it be better if the Government legislated to stop the building of new houses, with single-glazed windows and inadequate insulation, so that people would have cheaper bills irrespective of whether they were for oil, gas or electricity? That would stop the present position, which is nonsensical in this modern day and age.

Our building regulations compare favourably with those of other European countries, but I agree about the need to improve the thermal efficiency of new houses. In April last year we improved the building regulations and raised standards, We shall see how that goes down generally and then consider the possibility of further improving the regulations in the next round.

Is the Minister aware that in the judgment of Sheikh Yamani the interruption of supplies of oil from Iraq and Kuwait need not have—indeed, has not had—a major impact on the world's supply of oil? Does he therefore agree that the major fluctuations in the price of oil since the start of the Gulf crisis represent exploitation of that crisis for profit by the major oil companies? Will he conduct an urgent investigation into those activities?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the oil market; but I can confirm that oil stocks remain generally high.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual average increase in British Coal's productivity between 1961 and 1979, and between 1979 and 1989.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual average increase in British Coal's productivity between 1961 and 1979, and between 1979 and 1989.

The average annual increase in the corporation's productivity between 1961 and 1978–79 was 2·5 per cent., and the average annual increase between 1978–79 and 1988–89 was 6·3 per cent.

Given the outstanding improvement in performance that my right hon. Friend has just described, does he agree that the single greatest constraint within which British Coal must still operate is the fact that it is in the public sector? Does he agree with the new year resolution expressed by Mr. Malcolm Edwards, commercial director of British Coal, that he will seek at the earliest opportunity the separation of the coal industry from the machinery of government so that its managers can concentrate on the interests of that industry alone?

I agree with both points. There has been a significant improvement in British Coal's productivity, for which I pay tribute to it, but that productivity must continue to improve if British Coal is to hold its own in a competitive market.

I agree that the privatisation of British Coal is a desirable objective; it is a commitment of the Government and it will be done in the next Parliament.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even so, in the lifetime of this Government British Coal's productivity has been almost double that of the previous two decades?

Yes, certainly. British Coal's productivity is up 85 per cent. on pre-strike levels, which is excellent progress. It recently achieved an impressive weekly record output of just over 5 tonnes per man shift.

Does the Secretary of State agree that output per man shift depends on the number employed, and that the figure has increased only because of the number of miners who have been made redundant? As to privatisation, will the Minister assure the House and people outside it that in the unwelcome event of British Coal's being privatised, existing arrangements for concessionary fuel supplies or cash in lieu will remain in force?

It is not for me to speculate about the privatisation that will occur during the next Parliament. All obligations to employees will be a proper matter for consideration at the appropriate time.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government are behaving in a stupid and irresponsible manner by not having a national energy plan? There is no point in increasing production if market forces are to dictate the amount of coal that the country produces. If it is left to market forces, we shall not meet the needs of the British people.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. The best way to meet the energy requirements of the nation and of the world is to encourage diversity of supply and that is the basis of the British plan.

Does the Secretary of State accept that any further loss of contracts between British Coal and the generators after 1993 will be viewed as a very poor reward for the miners who have increased productivity in recent years? What action are the Government taking to stop the dumping of foreign coal in Britain, in the interests of not only British Coal but the nation?

The Government have done more than any other to assist the industry by giving it financial support, and for the first time ever British Coal has long-term contracts with its customers, the generators. It therefore has the best opportunity of securing further long-term contracts, and it will do so because it has the potential to be the supplier of choice. That is the best way of securing the industry's long-term future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on North sea oil and gas developments presently under consideration by his Department.

Draft plans for 11 new or incremental oil and gas development projects in the North sea are currently under detailed consideration by my Department.

Given the extent of the developments to which the Minister referred, is his Department taking steps to ensure that contracts for the steel pipelines and production and exploration platforms required will be allocated to domestic steel mills? In particular, did the Department establish any contact with the Scottish Development Agency when it prepared its report on the future of Ravenscraig, Clydesdale and Dalzell, when the agency could have pointed out the potential contracts that would arise from the new developments?

In the marketplace, suppliers will win contracts only if they deliver top-quality products within specification and on time. The capability to undertake work for the pipeline to which the hon. Lady refers does not exist in the United Kingdom at present because of the quality and thickness of pipes required. On the positive side, I assure the hon. Lady that all three jackets under consideration for Everest, Lomond and the separate riser platform have been awarded to Highland Fabricators. Of course, we take note of the success, or otherwise, of United Kingdom suppliers in that sector.

As oil and gas sources are finite and should be conserved, can my hon. Friend the Minister comment on the Government's support and hopes for the future of converting coal into fuel oil? I refer particularly to the Point of Ayr project, which I and a number of my hon. Friends visited last Friday.

On the second point, I am sorry that I was not with my hon. Friend when he made his visit and I shall follow that up in writing. On the first point, my hon. Friend is right to refer to the importance of a sensitive and sensible policy when it comes to the depletion of oil and gas reservoirs. In that context, we pay special care to ensure that the licence rounds, which have been taking place on average every two years in the offshore oil and gas sector, reflect the need for a sensible depletion policy in the long term.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his Department's investment in alternative sources of energy.

Energy paper 55 "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward" set out my Department's strategy for the development of renewable energy sources. My Department's provision for research and development into renewable energy for this financial year is £20·3 million. This is due to increase by 20 per cent. in the next financial year.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? Would I be right in saying that, rather than simply mouthing platitudes about the need for renewable energy, his Department has provided the expenditure, which has doubled during the past 12 years, to ensure that we meet that challenge?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. More than simply highlighting the importance of research and development, in which we have invested, my hon. Friend will be aware that we achieved a first by establishing a marketplace, through the non-fossil fuel obligation, to allow renewable projects which are both environmentally acceptable and economically competitive to come on stream. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that 75 such projects were eligible in the first NFFO tranche and we hope that many more will be successful in the years to come in future tranches.

Is not the truth that, historically, the hon. Gentleman's Department has been as deeply in hock to the nuclear industry as the Department of Transport has been in hock to the road lobby? Will the Minister give us an assurance that he has now established with civil servants that they should take a serious and long-term interest in alternative sources of energy, and not sit around working out ways to sabotage research on the subject?

I reject the hon. Gentleman's last comment, but I welcome the fact that he recognises that the Government have a clear commitment to ensure that renewable energy sources come on stream and that they must be environmentally acceptable, as well as economically competitive.

What about Salter's duck?

From a sedentary position the hon. Gentleman refers to Salter's ducks. I am sure that, like me, he will welcome the fact that both parties have accepted that an independent review should be undertaken. Its findings will be carefully considered. The Government do not wish to put any hindrance in the way of renewable technology that can come on stream and is commercially competitive, as well as environmentally beneficial.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the best way that he can further help renewables is by increasing the number of power generation projects that he sanctions in the second tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation, especially waste incineration into energy projects, which will also help the environment?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I very much hope that, across the range of renewable energy technologies, many projects will come forward in the second tranche of the NFFO and that they can meet the criteria. The more projects that come forward, the more they will be welcomed by the Government.

Does the Minister agree that if we wasted less energy in Britain we would depend less on imported fuel from the Gulf and other insecure sources of supply? Will he make it a top priority to save energy, to develop alternative sources and to use coal, oil and gas produced here in Britain? To that end, will he instruct the generating companies to abandon their preposterous plans to import more oil, gas and coal and will he make them concentrate instead on energy saving rather than energy sales?

I am always pleased to agree with the hon. Gentleman when it comes to energy matters, especially on energy efficiency and energy-saving policies, and to that end I agree with the thrust of his remarks. As regards oil and gas, of course we should like increased production and we should like to ensure that we do not need to become an importer. However the reality, which I know that he accepts, is that in recent months production has had to be restrained, despite world demand for increased production before the Gulf crisis, because of the importance of safety and of ensuring that topside emergency shutdown valves are in place. Safety has been the top priority and that is the reason why production has not been at the highest possible level, as we should have liked.

Will my hon. Friend summarise the current state of the Mersey barrage project?

The Mersey Barrage Company reported to me last week. That report explained further the extensive discussions in which the company had engaged to analyse cost-benefit assessments in each Government Department as a result of meetings that it had held with those Departments. A further meeting will take place before Easter. We shall then assess the economic feasibility of the project, as well as the detailed scientific research that has accompanied it. Our aim is to give it as much support as possible, as long as it is commercially viable and meets all the important environmental criteria.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many exploration and appraisal wells were drilled on the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990.

During 1990, 224 exploration and appraisal wells were started on the United Kingdom continental shelf. This is the first time since UKCS activity began that drilling in a single year has exceeded 200 wells.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a remarkable figure? Can he confirm that it is the highest since North sea exploration began back in 1964, and will he also confirm that the only threat to this expansion comes from the prospect of a Labour Government, who might again start intervening in the North sea with state-run corporations and set back the magnificent achievements of 1990?

I entirely accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument—not least because the success that led to what he rightly described as the highest number of exploration well starts since the 1984 record of 109 is evidence of continuing confidence in the United Kingdom continental shelf. That confidence is wholly dependent on a stable fiscal regime, a comprehensive licensing regime and the opportunity for the private sector to excel where it excels best—in the marketplace for the development of oil and gas within the UKCS, and in exports. Any interventionism or return to state-owned control would be extremely damaging to that success story.

If the Minister thinks that the Tories' record in the North sea is such a wonderful success, how does he explain the fact that, last year and the year before, we were net importers of fuel?

First, we were not net importers in cash terms. Secondly, as I have already told the hon. Gentleman—I am surprised that he did not take the point in my response to his last question—safety considerations had to lead to shutdowns and to working conditions for production that were less than optimal for maximum recovery. An example is the present need to handle dead rather than live crude. It was vital that Lord Cullen's recommendations be implemented as matter of urgency, and that the all-party agreement on topside valves be put in place, even if that meant that production would not reach the levels that the hon. Gentleman would have liked. I am surprised that he does not know the answer to his own question.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that last year was the first year of about six in which this country was a net importer of energy?

Let me reinforce what I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We were not a net importer in cash terms: furthermore, given the total activity on the UKCS, there is no doubt that we can and will increase production. Our net position will not be under threat once the essential safety work is completed. We shall then have not only high levels of production, but a safer North sea in which to operate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for energy conservation.

We continue to promote the adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures through a range of programmes and other services offered by the Energy Efficiency Office. A number of new initiatives, including the ministerial group on energy efficiency, were announced in the White Paper on the environment and we are now working to carry these forward.

Is the Secretary of State aware that an estimated 6·6 million households suffer from fuel poverty as a result of inefficient fuel heating systems? Does he agree that the lessons learnt from the Gulf crisis and war and the fight over oil, combined with this Government's inefficient approach to energy conservation, mean that a national programme for energy conservation and energy use is urgently required if we are to address the country's energy problems?

I agree this far with the hon. Lady—that there is a continuing need for greater energy efficiency. We estimate that about 20 per cent. of all the energy used in this country is wasted. However, we have made some progress. During the last 10 years gross domestic product has increased by 25 per cent. while our energy consumption has remained virtually unchanged. Both commercial and domestic energy efficiency are important. That is why the Government have introduced a home energy efficiency scheme. Grants are provided for basic insulation measures and advice is available for low-income households. We have built on the success of the community insulation project that led to the insulation of about 850,000 low-income homes.