To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress on the privatisation of the electricity industry.

Following the successful flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies with a total value to the taxpayer of around £8 billion, we are now proceeding with the sale of the two generating companies. I announced on Friday that the total value to the taxpayer of National Power and PowerGen would be more that £4·3 billion. This share offer has now been successfully underwritten. The offer will close on 6 March and dealings will commence on 12 March. The total value of the businesses comprising the electricity supply industry of England and Wales of more than £12 billion makes it by far the largest privatisation ever undertaken in the United Kingdom.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great skill with which he has undertaken these privatisations. In connection with the regional electricity companies, is not the most pleasing feature the fact that 98 per cent. of eligible employees have taken up shares and become shareholders? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skilful and sophisticated arrangements that he has put in hand for the underwriting of the generating companies for privatisation. There have already been signs of innovative thinking by the electricity industry and, in the long run, will not the beneficiary be the consumer?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the main purposes of privatising these industries is to bring new thinking into the way they operate. I also agree that one of the pleasing things has been the way in which the employees have taken shares in the company, and many of them are continuing to hold those shares. That is satisfactory.

I want to know what is going on. I think that the Secretary of State had better have a look at this privatisation of the electricity industry. What about the prices that these people are charging? I thought that the aim of privatisation was to look after the consumer. but consumers in my area are getting a right belting on prices. Is it not high time the Minister had a look at this, or he will not be coming to the Dispatch Box any longer?

The hon. Gentleman and I obviously read the same newspapers, but the companies have not yet made their proposals for price increases. When they have, they will have to justify them to the regulator, who I know will be looking at them closely.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of privatisation, the vast overwhelming number of commercial and industrial customers are already getting lower electricity prices than they were a year ago, before privatisation, thanks to competition and the ability to shop around?

My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority are paying lower prices as a direct result of the competitive nature of the regime for commercial and industrial customers.

The Secretary of State talked about bringing new thinking into the industry. Can he confirm that the new thinking started off with his approving a 9·2 per cent. price increase for domestic consumers last year, when the projected rate of inflation, however inaccurate, was 6 per cent. and that the companies are now contemplating increases up to 13 per cent. when the projected rate of inflation is only 5 per cent? That is the kind of new thinking that customers could well do without.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have not yet had any proposals from the companies. As I have said, they will be making their proposals to the regulator, who will have to be satisfied that the increases are justified under the price regime that is included in the licence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual average level of expenditure on research and development into renewable sources of energy between 1974 and 1979 and between 1985 and 1989.

The annual average expenditure by the Department of Energy on research and development into renewable sources of energy between 1 April 1975 and 31 March 1979 was £1. 9 million, and between 1 April 1985 and 31 March 1989 the figure was £14·4 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which illustrates the commitment of this Government to renewable energies compared with that of the Labour Government. Is not the biggest problem with renewable energy sources the high cost of producing electricity from such sources? Would not it be difficult to get past the House provisions that made little old ladies pay twice or perhaps even more times as much as they would for electricity generated by coal or nuclear energy?

I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. It is as important for these projects to be environmentally acceptable as for them to be economically competitive. With the introduction of the non-fossil fuel obligation we have been able to create a marketplace so that commercially competitive renewable energy projects can come onstream effectively.

I hope that the Minister is looking at new projects for possible development and that at some stage he will look at one in my constituency, where, as part of an attempt to regenerate Consett, we are considering a wind park on part of the old steel works site. I am not sure that it would exactly replace what was there, but I hope that the Minister will consider these projects carefully, because there are people in my area who still do not have electricity and we hope that these projects will supply electricity to more far flung places.

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is important to identify new wind projects. She will be pleased to learn that the largest tranche of research and development expenditure is on wind energy. I am not aware of the specific project to which she referred, but I know that my officials will be only too happy to look in detail at any proposals. We want to give commercially viable wind energy projects as big a push as we can.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no virtue simply in increasing expenditure on research and development on renewable sources of energy for its own sake? Does he further agree that what is needed is the careful examination of each project to see what its potential long-term yield is for the future?

I hope that my hon. Friend heard my earlier comments and is satisfied that we are aware of the importance of ensuring that proposed projects are commercially viable. Many are not. The great advantage of having the non-fossil fuel obligation is that we not only back the research and development with increasing resources, but provide a marketplace for those projects to play an important role in the diversity of energy supply on competitive terms.

Is not the reality that for the Government renewables are still the poor relation? Less than £25 million per year is spent on research and development into renewables while more than £95 million is spent on research and development in the nuclear industry. The other day the Government closed down the Camborne geothermal facility with a loss of 30 jobs. The evidence is that the cost of producing geothermal electricity is 31 per kWh, the cost of producing electricity is about 3·5p per kWh and the cost of producing nuclear power is more than 6p per kWh. On all assessments, nuclear power is a bad bargain and renewables are good, but the Government are blind to any sensible opposition.

I am sorry to inform the House that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The hot dry rocks project in Cornwall was not closed down last week. That important project was given a new direction and a boost of £3·3 million for the period 1991 to 1994 so that we can work on it with our European colleagues and make it as economically viable as possible. I spent a day visiting that project. The cost per kilowatt hour to which the hon. Gentleman referred bears no reality to the sort of cost produced from the research on geothermal hot dry rocks, which can be up to 10 times higher than the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted. That said, however, it is an important source of potential renewable energy within the European Community and further research is being undertaken to try to make sure that we can make it commercially viable. If we cannot, we cannot put further research and development into that energy source. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, any Government who spend £160 million on renewable research and development are committed to renewable energy projects and any Government who increase next year's provision by 20 per cent. more than that for this year are committed to undertaking research and development for commercially effective renewable energy projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the adequacy of existing energy conservation schemes.

My right hon. Friend and I have received frequent representations about our energy efficiency programmes to which we accord high priority.

What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the potential for further energy savings? Is he satisfied that the existing schemes will enable us to achieve those savings?

It has been estimated that further savings of up to 20 per cent. are possible. I am convinced that we shall be able to approach that target through a mixture of regulations, such as the improved building regulations, labelling, advice, and targeted grants such as the home energy efficiency scheme, which directs grant aid to low-income households.

What encouragement has been given to local government to draught-proof the windows and doors of older houses so that many millions of homes can benefit from the conservation of energy?

I can confirm that the estate action programme is directing substantial sums of money towards upgrading older council estates. In addition to that, the home energy efficiency scheme is targeted precisely at older dwellings, which are often occupied by low-income households who need grant aid to improve the energy efficiency, draught-proofing and insulation standards of their homes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many pits he expects will still be operating by 1993.

Decisions on future capacity are a matter for the British Coal Corporation, but it is clear that the future of every pit depends crucially on the degree to which management and men are successful in containing costs and continuing their productivity improvements.

The Minister will be aware that, since the privatisation of electricity, the country has been flooded with cheap coal, which no amount of productivity improvements are capable of competing against. In the unhappy event of the Minister's party winning another general election, not one pit in the north-east will survive. I invite the Minister to deny that.

The future capacity of the north-east coalfield is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. It would not be right artificially to restrict imports of coal and to insulate British industry from overseas competition. The future of that coalfield depends on continuing the productivity improvements of recent years, and I pay tribute to the British Coal Corporation and to those who work for it for the 85 per cent. productivity improvement since the coal strike.

The Government have invested some £7 billion in British Coal since 1979. That is surely proof that the Government see a good future for a competitive coal industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the 85 per cent. productivity increase since the miners' strike is evidence that the coal industry has an important role to play in the future energy market?

I entirely agree. The Government have put more than £17 billion of grant aid into the coal industry since 1979. That is proof of our financial commitment to the industry. The future prosperity and success of that industry, however, depend on continuing those productivity improvements.

Will the Minister offer the House some estimate of the effect on the balance of payments deficit, which is already enormous, of our increasing reliance on imported coal, which will become more and more expensive, to the ruinous deprivation of the country?

It would not be to the advantage of the balance of payments or of British industry artificially to restrict imported energy sources. I confirm, however, that until 1993 British Coal has secure contracts with the electricity generators and I anticipate that after 1993 electricity generators will recognise the value of an indigenous source of supply.

Is not it a fact that the future of the British coal industry lies in the hands of the mineworkers themselves? Is not it marvellous that once the power of stupid trade union leaders such as Arthur Scargill is diluted the men at the coal face respond and have increased their productivity by 87 per cent. since the coal strike?

I cannot improve on my hon. Friend's description of the situation.

The Minister knows full well that the framework of privatisation of the electricity supply industry has thrown British Coal's marketing into chaos. Does he honestly think that the £17 billion investment of which he boasts is a sound investment, given the ending of current contracts in 1993? When will the Government take action not just in the interests of the miners, who have improved their productivity, but in the national interest, instead of increasing the growing energy deficit of this energy-rich country?

It is up to the industry to prove the soundness of that investment, but the signs are that management and workers are rising to the challenge and can mine coal competitively.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of direct employment in the offshore oil and gas industry in 1990; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs indirectly supported by the industry.

Direct employment offshore in 1990 was at an all-time record level of 36,500, some 19 per cent. higher than in 1989. The number of those employed indirectly in the oil and gas industry is considerably larger than those working offshore.

As a former Aberdeen councillor, I welcome that answer as good news for Aberdeen, for the north-east of Scotland and for the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that it shows the efficiency of private enterprise in creating jobs?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

The expansion is indeed good news for Scotland—if not for my constituency, where unemployment at 13·8 per cent. is no laughing matter. I remind the Minister that Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde is the finest shipbuilding and oil rig construction yard in the United Kingdom. Has he any hope to offer to my oil rig workers and dockers, or anything to say about Scott Lithgow?

There is no doubt that the position for many offshore fabricators is very strong. Their order books are strong. They have opportunities now because levels of investment and activity in the North sea have never been more buoyant. I hope that they will use those opportunities to the full by producing, on time, good-quality products to meet foreign competition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the production of electricity in the United Kingdom is currently supplied by nuclear power.

In 1990 about 20 per cent. of electricity available in the United Kingdom came from United Kingdom nuclear sources.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the foreseeable future nuclear power has an assured role in generating safe, clean and reliable energy?

Yes, I can confirm that. Nuclear generation is vital to ensure security and diversity of supply and brings with it excellent environmental benefits in that it produces no carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen doxide.

Will the Minister confirm that the largest single industrial user of electricity provided by any source in Scotland is the Ravescraig steel plant? Is he aware of the announcement of a further 1,500 redundancies there? Can he give an assurance that, under a privatised electricity set-up, the costs of the decline of Ravescraig and the demise of the steel industry will not be passed on to the individual electricity consumer in Scotland or in the United Kingdom?

Questions to do with the steel industry or the Scottish industry are clearly not for me, but under the system that we have introduced industrial consumers generally pay lower prices as a result of the competitive nature of the electricity industry.

Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that unless more nuclear power stations are built and the review is accelerated, there will be very few new nuclear power stations by the turn of the century? Will not that lead to the disintegration of an industry which it is most important to preserve?

I know that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about the nuclear industry. As he is aware, a full-scale review of the prospects for nuclear power in the future will be undertaken in 1994, when the Sizewell B project will be nearing completion. That review will have to take all the relevant factors into account.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that—given the progessive unravelling of the beautiful Heath Robinson structure erected by his predecessor, the right hon Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the withdrawal from privatisation of the nuclear industry and the fact that 40 per cent. of generators are now not being sold on the market—by the time of the next election less than 50 per cent. of the electricity-generating industry in England and Wales will be in private hands? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman and his honourable lemmings on the Back Benches think that they voted for in 1988, and if that is what they call a success, we should welcome many more such successes.

The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. Very shortly, the generating industry—National Power and PowerGen, that is—will be in the private sector; indeed, they are at this moment. Nuclear Electric will remain in the public sector for the foreseeable future. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the facts with some view of creative accountancy. The 40 per cent. stake that the Government retain in the privatised companies will be retained for another two years; I have explained what will happen after that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of investment on the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990.

My estimate of investment in 1990 on the United Kingdom continental shelf is £3·5 billion. That represents a significant increase of around one third on 1989.

Is not that a remarkable achievement by Shell, Esso, British Petroleum and the other oil companies that invest in the North sea? Given the substantial fall in the real price of oil in the past decade, is not it also a tribute to the improved technology there, as well as to the fiscal and regulatory regime governing the area? Will my hon. Friend continue to press Treasury Ministers to ensure that our tax regime encourages marginal investment?

The answer to my hon. Friend's first two questions is yes; as for the third, the Government are fully aware that a stable fiscal regime and regulatory framework have been part and parcel of the success of investment in the North sea over the past decade.

The Minister just said, in a kind of coded language, that the Government would allow the tax regime to be shifted in relation to the smaller underground pools of oil. When miners run into narrow seams of coal, however, the Department decides that they are unprofitable—in its language—and closes them. If it is right to use every possible effort to maximise oil production, the same should apply to getting out the coal, and pits such as Creswell in my constituency should not be shut.

The hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood the code.

The Opposition constantly seek to ignore the effects of our indigenous energy, and our investment in oil and gas, on the performance of the United Kingdom economy, while constantly drawing attention to the technology and out-of-date practices in the coal industry. Does not that clearly show that they are people of the past, not of the present—and certainly not of the future?

I entirely agree. I am glad that my hon. Friend has recognised the continuing outstanding success of our buoyant oil and gas market.

The Minister will know that a substantial part of the investment that he rightly praised relates to safety improvements. Is he aware that, according to the trade figures announced this morning, our present deficit includes an oil deficit of £109 million compared with the surpluses that we have enjoyed over most of the past decade? Does he agree that the main reason for that deficit is the need to close down platforms for safety modifications? Had the Government taken their job of ensuring safety more seriously, and had they accepted the Opposition's criticisms, the shutdowns would have been unnecessary, the improvements phased and the present large deficits avoided.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I agree, however, that the reason for our lower net exports is a temporary reduction in North sea oil production. The first priority must always be the safety of the work force in the North sea. If that means reducing output at any time, so be it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Director General of Ofgas about disconnection for debt.

I have had no specific discussions with the Director General of Gas Supply on the subject of disconnection for debt. I can confirm that the number of British Gas customers who have been disconnected because of debt is lower than at any time since 1977, when records were first kept.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, especially as 3 million new customers have been connected. Does he agree that protection for debtors has increased since privatisation, not decreased?

That is absolutely true. From a peak of almost 62,000 in the year ended March 1988, just over 19,000 people have been disconnected for debt.

Is not it also a fact that the drop in disconnections has coincided with an increase in the installation of credit meters, which have an automatic cut-off on what people can pay? As the Government are trying to encourage wage settlements below the rate of inflation, will the Minister tell the electric industry not to increase its prices by more than the rate of inflation?

On the substantive question, I acknowledge that the offer of a prepayment meter as an alternative to disconnection has played an important role, but the reality is that privatisation and the excellent work of the Office of Gas Supply have been paramount in assisting the gas industry to reduce the number of people who are disconnected for debt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase since 1989 in the number of petrol-retailing outlets selling unleaded petrol; and what is the level in other EC countries.

The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association estimates that, at the end of November 1990, 98 per cent. of filling stations in the United Kingdom sold premium unleaded petrol, compared with about 80 per cent. at the end of 1989 and 20 per cent. at the end of 1988.

The latest available comparable figures for 1990 in the European Community were: West Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg 100 per cent.; Denmark and Netherlands 85 per cent.; Italy 64 per cent.; Ireland 50 per cent.; France 40 per cent.; Spain 19 per cent.; Greece 11 per cent.; and Portugal 4 per cent.

Do not those figures, taken in conjunction with those for the sale of unleaded petrol, show the determination of the Government, the industry and the people to reduce the amount of lead in our air? Is it not it possible, perhaps through the European Commission, to encourage our European partners, who are not as environmentally friendly as we are, to improve their actions and environment?

I agree that it is important for the Government to continue to pursue that objective throughout the Community.

It is welcome that so many petrol stations are making unleaded petrol available, but the Minister understands that the real test is the number of cars using it. What discussions are being held within the Department or with Treasury Ministers and officials to encourage the take-up of unleaded petrol by giving further tax incentives or cuts in petrol prices?

The latter point is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The 1990 Budget, which increased the duty differential to nearly 14p a gallon, was important. About seven out of 10 cars are capable of using unleaded petrol. The Department of Energy and other Departments have been promoting a publicity and information campaign to encourage those who can convert rapidly to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what support his Department is giving to the investigation of the prospects for clean coal technology.

My Department is currently reviewing coal-related research and development and this summer will publish a document setting out our strategy. Much important work on clean coal technology has already been carried out by British Coal and others.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmentalists should be greatly encouraged by the Government's clear commitment to clean coal technology? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but my right hon. Friend may like to remind them that the Government are contributing £17 million to 15 separate projects.

I confirm what my hon. Friend said. The current programme of more than 15 projects which are under way or planned has a contract value of more than £80 million and my Department's contribution is more than £17 million. I am not satisfied that we are doing enough. That is why we have set in hand a study to find out what more can be done.

It is refreshing for the House to hear candour from the right hon. Gentleman about the investment in clean coal technology. Is he aware that the investment, which is running at about 3 per cent., is pathetic? In the quest for clean coal, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider Monktonhall colliery which, although it produces more or less sulphur-free coal and has received £14 million of investment, has been mothballed. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reopening that colliery? It would result in jobs as well as sulphur-free coal.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of what we are doing about clean coal technology, but Monktonhall colliery is a matter for British Coal's management, not for me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that clean coal burn technology is important for not only the future of the British coal industry but the environment? Does he agree that it is important also in ensuring that we achieve the maximum use of our indigenous industry? Does he recognise that, although we may be in the lead in terms of research and development and investigations into these techniques, we are somewhat behind in building demonstration plants? Will he undertake to find ways to encourage the building of demonstration plants? That work can be done in various ways. It does not always involve Government money.

Yes, indeed. Recently we announced the provision of an additional £3·7 million towards British Coal's topping cycle project at Grimethorpe. That brings the Government's support for the project this year to £9·2 million and clearly demonstrates our commitment to supporting clean coal technology. We have set up a coal task force, a new advisory body to develop new strategies and project selection methods, and United Kingdom industry is strongly represented on that task force. That shows confidence in the way forward.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the failure to back the demonstration plants which the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) endorsed is putting British plant manufacturers at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and France? Would not it be better to put some money into that work? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that more money was spent tarting up his Department's headquarters than the Government are investing in clean coal technology?

I have no idea about that last point. I had no responsibility for those matters. I would support any project that was worth while and could be shown to have a commercial future. The first projects that we demonstrate must have the possibility of being economically viable in the long term.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that coal will not have a future as an electricity-generating fuel unless the technologies of decarbonisation are improved to a level at which CO₂ emissions are much lower? My right hon. Friend's efforts in that regard are greatly appreciated by people who work in the coal industry, as those developments will give them a future.

Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows that most of the new power generation projects in the next few years are likely to be gas-fired projects. It is important that research and development should occur so that coal is increasingly thought of as a fuel to be used and is seen to be environmentally safe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total spent by his Department in the current financial year on promoting energy efficiency.

Forecast outturn expenditure by the Energy Efficiency Office in 1990–91 is £23·4 million. That represents a substantial increase on expenditure last year of £15 million.

Will the Minister examine the serious decline in the energy efficiency industry? Figures published recently by the Association for the Conservation of Energy show a 20 per cent. fall in the demand for heating control since 1987, a 34 per cent. fall in the demand for double glazing and a 49 per cent. fall in demand for cavity wall insulation. How can the Government claim to be taking energy efficiency seriously when the industry is in such a serious decline?

The hon. Gentleman quotes some figures which I do not deny, although I have not checked their accuracy. However, those figures relate to the construction industry and are not out of line with the general cuts in that industry. We have increased our expenditure on energy efficiency. We are anxious to improve energy efficiency because we believe that that is far and away the most important way in which to deal with problems of global warming and CO₂. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to remember that the progress of that policy so far has been very encouraging. Over the past 10 years GDP has increased by 25 per cent. while energy consumption is almost unchanged.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss developments in the prosecution of City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

I met the director of the Serious Fraud Office on 13 February to discuss matters of departmental interest.

When the Attorney-General discussed those matters with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, did he refer to the Harrods swindle and the fact that Graham Jones, the former financial adviser to that company, wrote two letters to the Governor of the Bank of England accusing Harrods of breaking banking regulations, but the Governor refused to reveal anything to a Committee of the House? Why are the Government afraid of taking on Harrods? Why does not the Attorney-General act? Are the Government frightened to death of the real owner of Harrods, the Sultan of Brunei, who bailed out the Government several years ago when the pound was down to near-parity with the dollar?

I am sure that the latter part of the question owes much more to ignorance than to malice. The question of Harrods did not feature in my recent discussion with the director. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions made a joint statement in June or July last year stating that, following detailed examination by the Metropolitan police, the conclusion was that insufficient evidence was admissible for criminal proceedings to warrant a prosecution. Each director is always open to further evidence becoming available, but the Bank of England is its own enforcing authority.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and his staff have prosecuted a large number of offences of serious white collar fraud and that they have not regarded the importance of the defendant as a criterion in taking that person to court? One example was Guinness. Is not that a clear sign that people who commit serious white collar crime will be treated in exactly the same way as a burglar or a shoplifter?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful to him. In the two years that the Serious Fraud Office has operated, it has prosecuted to conviction more than two thirds of the people whom it has charged. The Government have been responsible for not only the introduction of the Serious Fraud Office, but before that—in the days before the Crown prosecution service—the introduction and resourcing of the fraud investigation group in the DPP's headquarters. The Government have also legislated for the confiscation of proceeds of crime. Of course, the prosecuting authorities pay no regard to personalities. That is the answer to those who endlessly snipe from a basis of ignorance at the Government's response to the challenge of fraud.

To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest date to which statutes in force are up to date.

The publication of new Acts in statutes in force is up to date as at 11 February 1991, other than part of one 1990 Act. Information on the repeal of whole Acts is up to date as at 1 January 1991. Information on the amendment, or partial repeal, of existing Acts is brought up to date periodically.

Even if they are brought up to date periodically, does the Solicitor-General agree that statutes in force, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, can never be up to date because statutes enforceable in the United Kingdom include self-acting regulations of the European Economic Community? Does the Solicitor-General agree that, since agreement on the package for 1992 involving financial and commercial matters, the change in enforceable statutes is now even greater? Should not there be some warning in front of the volumes of statutes in force to put lawyers and others on their guard?

Lawyers who advise on matters relating to the European Community are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. The longer-term methods for dealing with statutes in force must be computerisation and projects on that are coming forward for financial approval.

To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the president of the Law Society to discuss matters of concern to the legal profession.

No meeting is scheduled at present between myself and the president of the Law Society, with whom I enjoy a warm relationship.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He will know of the Law Society's interest in judicial appointments. It is concerned that solicitors should be more readily appointed to the Bench and that the areas from which appointments o the Bench are made should be more broadly based. I understand that meetings are planned shortly with the Lord Chancellor, but has my right hon. and learned Friend any comments to make on the position at present?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Lord Chancellor will listen with great care to all suggestions made to him with a view to broadening the range from which judicial appointments are made. As for solicitors, although candidates are, naturally, considered on their merits, the Lord Chancellor is anxious to encourage more solicitors to put themselves forward for judicial appointment when they have reached the appropriate age and standing. He consults more widely than ever before on this matter and is evaluating the results of a pilot scheme designed to improve the methods by which solicitors are identified for potential judicial appointments.

Does the Attorney-General detect any concern on the part of the Law Society about the inability of senior members of the judiciary to distinguish between innocence and guilt? Does he have any plans to take action on that? My question is motivated neither by ignorance nor by malice.

I do not answer for the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman will know that any judicial system is only as good as the quality of the evidence fed into the trials over which judges preside. The judges hold the ring and enforce the rules. Although every effort must be made—the hon. Gentleman knows that every effort is made—to rectify any miscarriage of justice that may later be found to have occurred, the people of this country acknowledge that our judiciary is of a high standard.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the public's confidence in members of the Law Society would be greatly enhanced by the setting up of the legal ombudsman? Will he report on how that system is progressing?

This is the age of the ombudsman and I am sure that his arrival has been generally welcomed. However, it is too early for us to assess what progress he is making.

When the Attorney-General meets the president of the Law Society, what will he be able to do to assuage what the Lord Chancellor called the perfectly genuine cries of hardship from legal aid practitioners? What will be the percentage increase for legal aid work that should take place after 1 April this year and what proposals does he have for easing the cash flow for legal aid practitioners who are suffering from high interest rates and the fall-off of work that used to be subsidised by the commercial and conveyancing sectors?

These are all important matters which the Legal Aid Board keeps under review.

To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 4 February, Official Report, columns 14·15, what representations he has received on the extent to which the principle of international law relating to minimisation of civilian casualties has been adhered to during carpet-bombing in the Gulf conflict, and whether these civilian losses are proportionate to the military advantage expected.

I have received two letters from the public about the minimisation of casualties. I should emphasise that allied forces have instructions to attack only military targets or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.

Is the Attorney-General aware that on Saturday night I rang the ever-courteous clerk at Downing street to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had been consulted about the use of napalm in the Gulf? She in turn consulted Sir Charles Powell and the answer came back that it was far from clear. As a member of the War Cabinet, will the Attorney-General clarify whether the use of napalm, the horror weapon of the Vietnam war which gave us the image of the burning girl running in sheer horror, is legal in international law?

There is no convention or instrument of international law bearing on the use of napalm. However, its use, like that of all weapons, is governed by the principles that I described when I last answered the hon. Gentleman's question regarding the minimisation of casualties three weeks ago. To those on the receiving end of any of the modern weapons of war, each one probably qualifies as a horror weapon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her recent visit to South Africa.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to southern Africa.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to southern Africa.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her recent visit to South Africa.

My most recent visit included both Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa. I was able to discuss recent developments and future prospects with political leaders in both countries and to see some of the aid projects that we are assisting. During my visit, I announced a further 10,000 tonnes of food aid for Mozambique and a number of new commitments for teacher training, rural and community development projects and student awards for black South Africans.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the apparent success of her visit. It was billed as an opportunity for her to have discussions on political reform in South Africa. Will she give the House the benefit of her conclusions?

I can genuinely tell the House that I was most impressed by the speed with which the moves towards political reform are taking place. The week that I was there saw the 12-hour meeting between the African National Congress and the Government—two days later, on 15 February, good progress was announced. It is clear that President de Klerk and his Government are determined to move ahead as quickly as possible to repeal not only the Group Areas Act, but the land acts and the population registration acts. While we were there, during the time of the meeting on 12 February, an order was made to obviate the need for any child to be registered by race. We should encourage good steady progress and the repeal of all apartheid acts by recognising what the South African Government are doing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of continuing the exciting developments of political reform in South Africa should be highlighted by increasing the openness of the South African market to international trade? In addition, our aid programme should be geared particularly to assisting community development. It is much more important to develop that aspect of South Africa than simply to worry about the principle of voting.

I should be wrong not to say that the principle of voting is important. We hope that the all-party congress to discuss the modalities of the new constitution will proceed apace. Of course, it is critical that we lift the bans holding back the progress of black South Africans. South Africa needs investment if it is to provide training and job opportunities to young black South Africans. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for welcoming our announcement not only to give more than £500,000 over four years for teacher training, but to support other projects that will lead to training and work for young black South Africans so that they can take their rightful place in the new South Africa.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most encouraging features about British Government aid to developing countries in recent years has been the improvement in its quality and effectiveness? During her visit to Mozambique in particular, was she able to see that improvement in effectiveness taking place?

Indeed, I was. I went up to Magude and then further up the Limpopo railway line where the workers are doing work with our money at the same time and so improving that line. I saw work in the port and work on power stations. It is going well and the quality is high.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that her discussions showed that courage and persistence are needed by Nelson Mandela, Chief Buthelezi and President de Klerk in trying to overcome the prejudices and provocations that are still likely to unsettle the path to one person, one vote and to full economic development?

Yes. We hope that all parties will get together to join in the process of peaceful change. I stressed that to all whom I met—the Pan Africanist Congress, the ANC, Inkatha and AZAPO—the Azanian People's Organisation. I hope that there will soon be progress.

Was one of the views that the Minister reached on her visit that the European Community should increase its regional allocation from the figure agreed under Lomé IV?

In fact, Lomé IV will not apply to South Africa, but it applies to Mozambique. We shall have a debate tomorrow night on the details of that. I shall be able better to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at that time, because it needs to be answered at length.

Will the Minister confirm that what is needed in South Africa, as well as peace, is food? Is it true that a large part of the allocation of moneys that she announced will be held over until the beginning of the financial year?

The hon. Lady does not understand the progress of giving food aid. When we are asked for help, we ask in what way that help can most aptly be applied. Sometimes it is with transport costs and sometimes it is with transport equipment, but all that we have learnt in recent years is that we must keep the food pipeline full. We are now nearly at the end of February. Food is needed from April onwards. That is when it will get there and that is what has been arranged.

Did the Minister have the opportunity to discuss with conservationists in southern Africa the impact of the construction of the northern buffalo fence in the Okavango region of Namibia? Is the Minister aware that that fence has been constructed because of the requirements of the EC to establish a foot and mouth disease-free range, but that its impact on the wild creatures—elephants, giraffes, buffalo and wildebeest—is catastrophic? Will she consult the authorities in Namibia to call a halt to the construction of that fence until a proper environmental investigation of its impact has been made?

As I understand it, the authorities in Namibia have not been concerned with this matter—it involves the authorities in Botswana. As the hon. Gentleman knows from questions that I have already answered to him, we are looking into this matter most carefully.

Although additional assistance for Mozambique is welcome, does not the Minister realise that an emergency appeal made by Mozambique and the United Nation's last year for £76 million to help with famine, refugees and the effects of war has still not been met? However, the Minister said—I am very puzzled by this—in an interview in the environment section of The Guardian on Friday:

"If I needed more money, I could go and get it."

Is she telling the House that despite the fact that 27 million people in Africa are starving and crying out for help, she has not even bothered to go to the Treasury to ask for more money to meet their needs? If that is the case, she is failing them and failing in her job.

First, it is 29 million people who may be at risk of starvation in 25 African countries. We are extremely well aware of the problem. Secondly, we have planned our expenditure and we have planned our provision with the non-governmental organisations which I met last week to make sure that we keep the pipelines as full as we can. However, it simply cannot be left to Britain alone. That is why I have written to all other major aid donors to make sure that they make adequate contributions and we shall carry on doing so ourselves.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of children in sub-Saharan Africa who are likely to be orphaned as a result of AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

In the analysis for UNICEF, covering 10 African countries, the data are all estimated and based on selected assumptions. Therefore, the data must not be used as though they were exact. They can indicate only that during the 1990s between 3 million and 5·5 million of the 50 million children under 15 years of age by 1999 may be without mothers.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that according to the ODA's own research, one eighth of all children in the Rakai district of Uganda are orphaned and that that may be connected with the 30 to 40 per cent. HIV positivity rate among young adults there. If that trend continues unabated in sub-Saharan Africa, is not a disaster looming?

We believe that the situation in Rakai may be far worse than in other areas. As I tried to explain in my letter of 18 February, it is not right to extrapolate from those figures to the rest of Africa. When dealing with this terrible disease, we must beware speculation. We are doing a great deal through the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS to help with the AIDS factor and we shall continue to do so.