To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on present petrol prices in the United Kingdom.

Petrol prices are currently estimated to be about 48p a litre for four-star and about 44½p a litre for unleaded petrol.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the recent increases in petrol prices and the effect that they have had on the entire day-to-day life of the country. Can he tell the House something about the agreement made on 13 December by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which I understand will lead to a 6 per cent. increase—the equivalent of 12p per gallon—in the price of petrol, to come into force in 1993? The agreement was signed in Brussels with other Euro-Ministers.

To my knowledge, no such agreement was made. Of course, I will look into the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made and ask my right hon. Friend to reply. The hon. Gentleman mentioned prices. They are set by the market and reflect international trading conditions. The recent increases were in line with movements in the Rotterdam spot market.

If prices reflect international conditions, can my hon. Friend explain why in Britain, almost uniquely, there is no differential between petrol and diesel prices?

I accept that at present diesel prices are only about ½p a litre below unleaded prices. As I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, the reason for that is that the demand for gas oil, which is equivalent to diesel, is high at this time of the year because it is used for heating. That high demand tends to push up prices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the amounts allocated to encourage improvements in energy efficiency among industrial and domestic electricity and gas customers in 1991–92.

Public expenditure on energy efficiency benefiting such customers will total over £1 billion in 1991–92. Expenditure by supply utilities is a matter for these companies.

It is not just a matter for the utilities, because, of course, energy efficiency is important to all of us. Is it not the case that when the Government privatised the electricity and gas companies they created not a range of companies which could induce real competition for the benefit of customers and the environment but large companies with near monopoly supply status which are not in the least interested in energy efficiency? They are interested in maximising profits from sales of electricity and gas. That cannot be good for the environment.

That is not a fair analysis of the position. A great deal of competition is available to the whole range of industrial customers which was not available before. At the end of the transitional arrangement there will be competition throughout the whole of the industry.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the suggestion of the Office of Gas Supply that an E factor should be introduced into the gas tariff formula to fund cost-effective investment in energy efficiency. We shall await with interest further developments in that, as well as Professor Littlechild's intiative in publishing a consultation document on energy efficiency in the electricity industry. We shall follow that with great interest.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have increased the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office to £59 million? Is not that a massive 40 per cent. increase in the money that we give to that office? Does not that show a total commitment to the preservation of energy?

Yes, indeed. Further increases are planned for 1993–94 and for 1994–95. By and large, energy efficiency is profitable for the user of electricity. Therefore, many of the Government's intiatives using those funds suggest ways in which energy consumers can save energy.

Why does not the Government give the regulator the power to direct electricity-generating companies to use their massive profits to invest in home insulation and to improve the energy efficiency of industry?

The regulator, whose task has been laid down by Parliament, is perfectly entitled to come to me if he thinks that his powers are not enough. He does not share the hon. Gentleman's view that he should have further powers to achieve his objectives.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the change in the United Kingdom's energy-intensity ratio since 1983; and what are the corresponding figures for the rest of the EC and with Japan.

Latest available OECD figures show that between 1983 and 1989 the United Kingdom's energy ratio improved by 11 per cent.—more than any other European Community country or Japan. The improvement for the EC as a whole was 4.2 per cent; for Japan it was 7 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend quantify the savings to this country as a result of a number of relevant programmes being run by the Government?

Savings resulting from the Energy Efficiency Office's programmes alone have led to a current annual energy saving worth more than £500 million a year.

My hon. Friend has identified the potential of £10 billion worth of energy saving a year which is cost effective. Can he give any sign of the time scale that he hopes will be achieved and what impact that would have on the energy ratio that he has just quoted?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise timetable. It is the Government's view that if we can implement the package of energy efficiency measures, not least through, for example, the home energy efficiency scheme, additional resources for the energy management assistance scheme, the best practice programme and our regional and publicity activities, we shall be well on the way to achieving significant additional savings.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many pits were open in (a) January 1986 and (b) January 1992.

British Coal had 133 producing collieries in operation at the beginning of the financial year 1986–87, which produced 88 million tonnes of coal. There are currently 53 collieries in operation, which are expected to produce 68 million tonnes this financial year.

Does the Secretary of State recall the letter sent by Mr. Ian MacGregor, the former chairman of the coal board, to every miner in June 1984, which described as "absolutely untrue" the claim by mine union leaders that the Government planned to reduce the number of working pits to under 100? The letter said:

"I state categorically and solemnly that you have been misled."

Was Mr. MacGregor lying, or did he not know? Should not the Minister give mineworkers an apology?

The chairman of the coal board made a fair assessment of market conditions at that time. The hon. Gentleman will know that the British coal industry must respond to a competitive environment. The best way to secure future jobs and future collieries is to win the largest possible share of the electricity-generation market, and the contracts are to be renewed next year.

Would any of the pits that have been closed still be open but for unfair competition from Germany? Why are the Germans allowed to subsidise their coal production so much?

The European Commission is in dispute with the German Government over the level of their production subsidies, but I assure my hon. Friend that imports from Germany are minimal and that the real competition for the British coal mining industry comes from other fuels.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the miners of this country feel betrayed by the Government? Is he aware that they posed me the question, "Is anybody in the Government prepared to stand up and fight to defend the coal industry?" Is he further aware that they feel that the chairman of British Coal acts as if he is a clone of the Government?

I am by no means gloomy about the prospects for British Coal, but its future success and security depend on its becoming more competitive and productive so that it can secure a large part of the British energy market in years ahead. That can be delivered by the industry, rather than by the words of politicians.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to keep uneconomic pits open by trying to protect them from competition from imported coal? Does he agree that it would be totally wrong to start imposing levies or some form of import quota on coal coming into Britain, partly because that would jeopardise hundreds of jobs in the electricity industry, notably at two power stations in my constituency?

My hon. Friend makes several fair and valid points. If we were to force the electricity-generating companies to take coal in volumes and at prices that they do not want, the certain consequence would be higher electricity prices for the domestic customer and for the rest of British industry, which could in turn be bad for long-term job prospects.

Will the Minister tell us why the Government insist on making British miners redundant when they work in the most efficient collieries in western Europe? Can he name any other industry in Britain that is twice as efficient as its west German counterpart, but which, nevertheless, is suffering from job losses? Finally, why will the Government not allow the extra European funds to be spent in the coalfields to make up for the jobs that have been lost? Is it not true that the Government want to divert that money to keep down the poll tax in Wandsworth and Westminster?

On European Community funds, I regret that Commissioner Millan is not releasing the RECHAR money, which we could well use in areas affected by colliery closures. I remind the hon. Gentleman that since the Government took office all the redundancies in the British coal industry have been voluntary and that the terms offered to miners affected are among the most generous in British industry and can reach £37,000 per man affected.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what he is doing to promote opportunities for the British oil industry in winning orders and contracts overseas.

Last November, I visited Vietnam, Hong Kong, Japan and Korea in order to promote the United Kingdom's wide-ranging expertise in the energy sector. I hope that my visit provided opportunities for the British oil industry to take part in the development of oil and gas fields in that region.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that that news should be welcomed on both sides of the House? Is it not the case that on the trip he was identifying markets, boosting British business, ensuring that British companies can take advantage of that business and, in the end, creating jobs back here at home?

Yes, after 25 years of successful development of the North sea, our expertise is some of the best, if not the absolute best, in the world. It was important that in my visit to Vietnam, for example, I was accompanied by British business men from British Petroleum, Enterprise Oil, Shell, Lasmo, British Gas and Barclays bank. They all believe Vietnam to be a good market for British expertise and jobs to follow.

Before the Secretary of State sets sail to be Governor of Hong Kong, will he exercise his subtle and calming qualities on behalf of the 5,500 British expatriates, many of whom are Scots engineers working in the oil industry in Libya? Will he look at last Monday's Adjournment debate and see that there is another side to the story, before we start, heaven knows, on sanctions that will hurt the 36 British companies in Libya, which are led, by for example, Brown and Root, and which could lead to something worse in the form of another strike?

The hon. Gentleman is also talking of events in the aftermath of the Lockerbie tragedy. There are people who are required to appear before the courts either in Britain or in America, and all civilised people will wish to see that happen. As the hon. Gentleman invites me to read the Adjournment debate, I will.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we are leaders in many forms of oil technology we have every reason to expect that we shall get some good export orders for that technology? Will he join me in congratulating the Petroleum, Science and Technology Institute in Edinburgh on its work on propagating Britain's ability in the oil industry?

Certainly, that institute is of the highest international standard and it is doing good work here and overseas providing advice and assistance. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Sir P. Morrison) had a lot to do with its founding when he was a Minister in this Department.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent criticism that the British offshore supplies service industry is failing to take advantage of world opportunities? It has a comfortable market here with the North sea at its doorstep. The huge world market out there was worth $330 billion between 1989 and 1992, but the industry has won only a small share of that business. No amount of globe trotting by the Secretary of State will sort that problem out. What will he do about that at home?

The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the North sea supplies industry. The total world value of those markets is about £40 billion a year and one third of all of the orders won by United Kingdom suppliers are for overseas markets. That is worth about £2 billion a year of the overseas markets won by the industry serving the North sea. That is a very creditable record. More can be done and more is being done and we shall encourage the industry to go out and get more business wherever it is; but it has made a good start.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress the Government have made in establishing a standard assessment procedure for home energy labelling.

The Government have introduced a standard assessment procedure for rating the energy performance of homes. I am pleased to say that both the leading organisations which carry out home energy labelling, the National Energy Foundation and MVM-Starpoint, have agreed to incorporate the procedure into their labels. That will enable consumers to make direct comparisons between labels.

I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful reply. Will he accept that it is of particular interest to householders in Chelmsford because they accept that home energy labelling will lead to substantial energy savings?

I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in promoting energy efficiency in his constituency. These developments will help all those buying a home, moving house or taking a house to rent to choose dwellings that will not only save money on their fuel bills, but help to improve the environment.

Given the importance of home energy labelling in saving energy and the Government's excellent record of funding an eightfold increase in expenditure in the past 12 years, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of incorporating energy labelling with other initiatives undertaken by the National House-Building Council so that new homes have adequate levels of energy labelling and, therefore, energy efficiency?

Yes, we believe that the recent moves would give greater assistance to the organisations that are undertaking energy efficiency assessments of homes, including new ones. I urge all those considering the purchase of a house—including brand-new houses—to look carefully at the energy efficiency or otherwise of those dwellings. An authoritative energy-labelling system will assist them to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the output per man year in British Coal's mines in (a) 1978–79, (b) 1983–84 and (c) 1990–91.

The output per man year in British Coal's mines was 448 tonnes in 1978–79, 470 tonnes in 1983–84 and 1,181 tonnes in 1990–91—an increase of 163 per cent. over 11 years.

Although the trend in the figures is most gratifying, thanks to the enormous investment by the Government, does my right hon. Friend agree that British Coal is still not competitive with coal from Australia, South Africa, Colombia and the United States? Much additional work has to be done to increase productivity further.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have supported the coal industry since 1979 with a total investment of £17 billion and productivity has improved, particularly in recent years. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, productivity of British mines is the highest in Europe, but major exporting countries such as Australia and the United States achieve higher productivity. British Coal therefore needs to continue its efforts to raise productivity still further.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the improvement in productivity is partly due to the fact that the number of registered disabled people employed by British Coal has fallen? Is he aware that that figure is now 0.4 per cent., which is way below the guidelines laid down in legislation? Does he intend to prosecute British Coal for its failure to maintain the percentage of registered disabled people employed in the industry?

On the general point, I do not believe that the substantial improvement in productivity has arisen through a reduction in the number of disabled people in the mines. The hon. Gentleman is being neither reasonable nor fair to the management or work force in British mines and is not taking account of the pain and suffering through which some of them had to go to achieve that improvement. I shall not necessarily take the hon. Gentleman's figures on the disabled as being correct, but I shall certainly make inquiries of British Coal to find out what the position is, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

However successful British Coal is in the future in building on its outstanding success in recent years and improving productivity, one of its basic problems is that it can sell only coal. Should not one of the objectives of our privatisation programme be to give British Coal, or whoever the private company may be, the freedom to produce electricity from its coal and to sell that electricity through the national grid?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. However, the form and shape of privatisation will not be determined until after the general election. Those who have any doubts about it should note that there is scope for further improvements in productivity. I have received an encouraging report from Boyds, the US mining engineering company, which has reviewed British Coal's colliery operations and found much scope for further productivity improvements. It concludes that British Coal should be able to compete with the price of imported coal while continuing to improve safety standards.

The whole House will want to congratulate the British miners on doing everything that has been asked of them over a number of years and achieving that massive increase in productivity.

The generators are now buying coal at 3 per cent. less than before privatisation. Given that 70 per cent. of the generators' costs is the cost of British coal, will the Secretary of State explain why the cost of electricity for more than 21 million households has risen by 40 per cent. during the same period?

It represents some 25 per cent. of the cost of electricity. Electricity prices have fallen by some 2 per cent. in the past seven years, compared with an increase of 22 per cent. in real terms under Labour—or 2 per cent. every six weeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the terms of the inquiry into the plans by the National Grid Company to erect new overhead power lines in North Yorkshire and Cleveland.

The public inquiry will start in Northallerton on 19 May. My Department is writing to all those who have been registered as objectors to the applications, with details of the arrangements.

I thank my hon. Friend for announcing the inquiry today. Is he aware that my constituents remain strongly opposed to the proposed overhead power lines and are rightly concerned at their impact on the rural landscape? Will he confirm that the inquiry will be wide ranging and will pay close attention not only to the environmental impact of the proposed lines but to whether they are needed at all for the national grid to meet its licence standards?

I am well aware of the views of many of my hon. Friend's constituents in this matter. I assure them that both the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend will be considered at the public inquiry.

Does the Minister think that it is satisfactory for the people of Teesside to be faced with an application for a power station, another for a gas plant for the power station, and a separate application for the overhead line? Would not it have been more sensible to request all those concerned with the project to put forward their plans together and subject them all to just one public inquiry?

I am quite satisfied with the structure and scope of the inquiry as announced.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the terms of reference for the public inquiry that he has announced today will allow the inspector the option of recommending that my right hon. Friend refuse the National Grid Company's application? Does he agree that the private sector electricity industry makes it ever more important that safeguards should be built in to the process so that the need factor and the environmental impact are taken into account?

The National Grid Company has a number of statutory obligations, including that of running a co-ordinated and efficient transmission system. The need for those new lines to discharge that obligation will be considered by the inquiry. I agree that it is an advance to have the industries in the private sector, regulated by the public sector, rather than having ownership, operation, regulation and the planning system all in the Government's hands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans for the expansion of the coal industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The future size of the coal industry in Scotland will depend on the success of British Coal and other mine operators, including the Monktonhall mineworkers' consortium, in producing coal at competitive prices.

Is the Minister aware that there were more than 17,000 people employed in the Scottish coal industry in 1984, but by 1989 that figure had fallen to 3,480 and it will be even smaller now? Will the Minister commit himself and the Government to the development of the coal industry in Scotland and say more about the Government's intentions for Monktonhall, lest Yorkshire face the same problems as Scotland, as the Bishop of Durham made clear this weekend?

There are still considerable quantities of good-quality coal in Scotland and I am confident that the industry will be able to make a success of producing coal at competitive prices. As regards Monktonhall mineworkers' consortium, it is encouraging that a group of ex-mineworkers have applied to British Coal to take over the pit, and I hope that they can make a success of it.

The Minister's enthusiasm sounds a bit hollow, especially as the Government ran away from Monktonhall and the idea of developing the Scottish coalfields. If the Government have any interest in coal, the Minister must agree to reconsider the franchise and develop the coal industry, which produces low sulphur coal and is highly efficient. The Scottish coal industry is waiting to be developed, not vandalised as the Government have vandalised the coal industry in general.

Since 1979 the Government have given £17 billion to the British coal industry by way of grant and write-offs. In return, we require the industry to become productive and efficient so that it can win the largest possible share of the future market for electricity generation. I am confident that it will rise to that challenge, which must be faced whether the industry is in private or public hands.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures given demonstrate clearly that nationalisation has failed the Scottish coal industry and that the only hope now is that it will be privatised in the imminent future?

The future of the industry will be best served in private ownership. That is why, after the next election, we shall introduce firm proposals for returning the industry to the private sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his plans to assist with the repair and protection of the electricity supply in the event of severe weather conditions.

Repair and protection of electricity supply in the event of severe weather conditions is the responsibility of each of the regional electricity distribution companies.

That is an inadequate answer, given that more than a year ago there was a severe weather crisis throughout the country, especially in the east midlands district where 2 million people were without supplies, some of them for a considerable period. The Government did nothing and have apparently learnt nothing from the experience. They should have declared a state of emergency and ensured that Bellwin money was made available to councils so that they could take emergency action. Why have the Government learnt nothing from the experience, and why are they proposing to do nothing if a crisis emerges shortly, as it could?

No distribution network in the world could have survived without damage the severe weather which struck that part of Britain in December 1990, but the regional electricity company concerned, with help from other companies and from overseas, did what it could in the circumstances to connect those who were temporarily cut off. It is an insult to the many managers and workers who responded so well for the hon. Gentleman to imply that they were less than efficient and hard working in those difficult circumstances.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers in the electricity industry who, despite foul weather and difficult circumstances, managed to restore supplies so swiftly?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The subsequent report on the incident showed that the company, its staff and workers responded magnificently in the difficult circumstances. I do not believe that any more could have been done—certainly not if the company had still been in the public sector.

Will the Minister consider holding a meeting with representatives of Hydro-power, which serves the most isolated communities in Scotland which are subjected regularly to the most severe weather conditions? Is he aware of the severe difficulties experienced in late December and early January when people in remote communities—often elderly people living alone—were without power for more than 48 hours, despite the best efforts of workers to reconnect power? Surely the Government have a responsibility to investigate mechanisms to reduce failures to a minimum.

No system in the world can be wholly immune to bad weather conditions, but there are always lessons to be learnt. The report into the East Midlands Electricity Company, in the light of the severe storms of 1990, has been made widely available so that other electricity companies can learn from that experience.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by what proportion productivity has been improved in deep-mined colleries operated by British Coal during the last three years.

Poductivity in deep mines operated by British Coal improved by 29 per cent. in the last three years to December 1991.

Can the Minister tell the House of any other industry in Britain that could equal the productivity achievement of British miners? Is he concerned about the rewards for that achievement—the brutal loss of employment, the economic devastation of the coalfields, the adverse effect on our balance of payments, which will get worse, the excessive and inevitable energy dependence, and the deceitful diversion of funds from the coalfields as a result of the Government's approach to the European money that should be available to us?

I repeat that the European Community money should be for the benefit of coal communities, and we very much regret that the European Commission has not released the funds. It is not the Government who are blocking the money—it is the European Commission.

I have been the first to pay tribute to improvements in productivity in the coal industry, but they must continue if the industry is to provide, as I believe that it can, the bulk of supplies to fossil-fuel generators in the years to come. If the hon. Gentleman believes otherwise, he is inviting electricity consumers to pay over the odds for their electricity.

Does the Secretary of State agree that despite the tremendous advances in productivity made by the employees of British Coal, the perverse reward that the Government give them is to squeeze the British coal industry between the upper and nether millstones? The upper millstone consists of the new gas plants, which are protected by their 15-year contracts. The nether millstone is the nuclear industry, which is protected by the mysterious ENOR—the existing nuclear operating regime—which protects the nuclear industry so that all its power stations will run whenever they are available to run, a condition which may be applied to Sizewell B as well.

I have made it abundantly clear that the licences of the regional electricity companies require them to purchase from the cheapest suppliers. If the cheapest supplies are from gas, they will purchase gas; if it is coal, I would expect them to use coal-fired methods.

The Secretary of State has something of a reputation for being the Lord Whitelaw of the Government. Will he use his experience and wisdom to sort out the ridiculous dispute affecting the coalfield communities and the money that is due to them? The technical obstacle relates to ring-fencing of local government money. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the substantial sum that the European Community wants to give us, and which the coalfield communities want to receive, is given now when it is needed? Surely the right hon. Gentleman has the wisdom to sort that out.

I do not think that it is wisdom that is required but if I can do anything, I will. The position is clear: the United Kingdom has paid its contributions to the Commission, and the Commission has the money. We are entitled—and we expect—to get that money back.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of carbon dioxide emissions that are saved in the United Kingdom every year by the use of nuclear power.

If the electricity currently provided by nuclear power stations were to be generated by coal, the United Kingdom would emit about 55 million tonnes more carbon dioxide, increasing total emissions by about 10 per cent. per year.

If the Government decide to run down the nuclear industry, apart from the loss of 120,000 jobs in the north-west, in the area that I represent, would it be possible to meet the Government's target for reduced carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005, let alone by the year 2000, under the Labour party's policy?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would not be possible to meet our environmental obligations by shutting down the nuclear industry. It is also true that the two main Opposition parties have energy policies which are flatly contradicted by their environmental policies.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to visit the duchy.

I am chairing a meeting of the duchy council on 29 January and I plan to visit the county palatine on 7 March. I very much look forward to both engagements.

When my right hon. Friend visits the county palatine, will he hold a meeting with tenants and perhaps point out to them that a standard rate of 35p in the pound, which was described as preposterous by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), was the rate levied by the last Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely correct. I believe that the last Labour Government but one put up taxes in eight Budgets. The last Labour Government put up the standard rate to 35p. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), was a member of that Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said with characteristic understatement:

"Dogs bark, cats miaow and the Labour party puts up taxes."

Is it too much to expect that the Lord President, on one of his journeys away from the capital, will take the opportunity to apologise unreservedly to the people of this country for his gross error of judgment in imposing the poll tax? As that key area of his governmental responsibilities so far was such a monumental disaster, does he not think that people would be well advised in the weeks ahead to treat any of his judgments, prophesies or predictions with derision?

I shall certainly put that point to my right hon. Friend the Lord President when he comes to the Chamber a little later to answer questions. Speaking for myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am sure that it is a safe prediction that bills for local government services will be higher in local authorities where Labour is in control and that the standard of service will be lower.

Would my right hon. Friend care to come to the county town of Lancaster to see how outstandingly well our schools, under local management, are spending their money now that they have been freed from an extravagant county council which never had the right priorities and always deprived our schools of the money that they should have had?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that local management of schools has been a great success. It has given parents and teachers much more responsibility for running their own schools and has freed the schools from the dead hand of local education bureaucracy in many places.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to visit Blackpool.

I have no plans to visit Blackpool in the immediate future.

Is the Chancellor aware that not so long ago I met a chap in Blackpool who said to me, "When you see that Chancellor of the Duchy, tell him that I want to give him a piece of my mind: not only is the poll tax three times higher than the rates, but I have lost my job, my wife has been waiting for an operation for two years, my daughter has lost her maternity grant through this Tory Government and my son has lost his income support—so when you see the chairman of the Tory party, will you tell him that I want to meet him to discuss this matter at the top of the Blackpool Tower?"

It sounds as though the high point of that person's career was his encounter with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to tell the gentleman that he might well see me in future as I shall be returning to the town in which I was born.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some three weeks ago I spoke to the business community in Blackpool, who expressed concern about the possibility of local government reform? One thing in particular that frightens the business community is the possibility of an elected regional assembly for the north-west, with powers to tax, which would inevitably be dominated by the cities of Liverpool and Manchester, to the detriment of everyone else in the area. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to inform the House that that is certainly not one of the options for local government reform that he is considering?

We are certainly not considering that option, which would produce a further layer of government, another regiment of politicians, another army of civil servants and even higher taxes from a Labour Government; fortunately, however, there will not be a Labour Government.

When the right hon. Gentleman next takes the opportunity to visit Blackpool, will he refer to the fact that according to the Government's own figures which have been supplied to me, 38 per cent. of all pensioners have incomes below £70 per week? Will the Chancellor bear it in mind that Labour is determined that justice shall be done for our retired people, despite all the smears, accusations and Government lies which come daily from Tory central office?

I very much agree with those Labour spokesmen who argued in the past that we should look, above all, at pensioners' net incomes. I would point out how much better pensioners have done under this Government than under our predecessor in terms of pensioners' net incomes. I would also point out how much their savings would be clobbered by the inflation that would he unleashed by a Labour Government's economic policies.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the duchy.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) some moments ago.

When my right hon. Friend is next in the duchy, will he make a point of meeting the management and employees of Coats Viyella and reassuring them that under the Conservative party in government there will be no question of a national minimum wage and that it will not be necessary for them to consider moving 10,000 employees—one third of its work force—to jobs abroad? However, to keep those jobs here, we must have a Conservative Government.

I noticed that the chief executive of Coats Viyella was quoted yesterday in one newspaper as saying that—

And Ford.

I will return to Ford, if I get the opportunity—which I hope will now be afforded me.

The chief executive of Coats Viyella said that he thought that there were 10,000 jobs at risk in his firm from the Labour party's proposals for a statutory minimum wage. Many of those jobs are in the north-west. I noticed also that the chief executive of Courtauld's said that the Labour party's proposals for a statutory minimum wage would lead to big job losses. We all know that Labour's proposals for a statutory minimum wage would have devastating consequences for job prospects right across our country. I guess that in referring to that issue in the past few weeks we have been guilty of understating the size of the problem.

When the—

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

It is a non-job anyway.

I nearly called him the chairman of the Tory party—I apologise.

When the Chancellor next visits the Duchy of Lancaster, will he kindly explain why the Government are cheating on the RECHAR money and thus depriving the coalfields of Lancashire and Yorkshire of funds that are rightly theirs? As the Chancellor's friends should know, the Government have been warned every year—from the days of Mr. Vredeling until the present time—that additionality is essential, and that this country is breaking the rules.

I observed the way in which the Commissioner concerned applied the rules when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.

I shall take great pleasure in saying to those to whom the hon. Gentleman wishes me to speak—here comes the opportunity that I mentioned earlier—that, as the chairman of Ford in Britain observed yesterday, Labour's economic policies would prove suicidal for our economy.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will next visit the county palatine.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) some moments ago.

When my right hon. Friend next visits the duchy, will he point out that under our NHS reforms a record number of patients are being treated there by a record number of doctors and nurses, and that waiting lists are falling? Will he also point out that the only threat to the progress being made in the duchy comes from those who propose the introduction of a national minimum wage, and the abolition of competitive tendering and charging in the NHS? Taken together, those measures would cost the NHS £1 billion.

I could not have put it better myself, so perhaps I should not try. I shall confine myself to mentioning that under the present Government NHS spending has increased as a proportion of gross domestic product. I hope that even at this late stage Labour will support the GPs' contract, GP fundholding and NHS trust status for hospitals, all of which are proving so successful.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects results from the feasibility study on refreshment facilities for visitors to the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made to improve catering facilities for Members' parties visiting the Palace of Westminster.

The newly formed Catering Committee is expected early next month to consider two consultants' reports on the architectural feasibility and management implications of converting the premises of the former St. Stephen's tavern into a refreshment facility for groups of Members' visitors. I understand that the Committee will be asked to work for a decision by Easter.

As the Lord President will be aware, visitors to Wales are always given a warm welcome and a nice cup of tea, but coachloads of my constituents visiting the Houses of Parliament are cold-shouldered and cannot obtain refreshments anywhere.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's response, but would it not be a far better idea to use Westminster Hall for the purpose, providing chairs and tables there? After all, until the last century Westminster Hall was used for royal banquets and coronation feasts; surely it would be possible for people to order a nice cup of tea there.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first remark about visitors to Wales. Certainly when I went there recently I was given a very good reception, which pleased me very much.

The hon. Gentleman will probably know that the authorities who deal with Westminster Hall do not consider that the use that he has suggested for it would be appropriate; nor, I think, would the vast majority of hon. Members. The Catering Committee will be considering whether what used to be St. Stephen's tavern could help by providing facilities for visitors.

Can my right hon. Friend improve the refreshments provided not only for visitors but for Opposition Members, who seem rather subdued and depressed today?

When my hon. Friend began his question, I intended to say that it was a matter for the Catering Committee, but I am no longer sure that it is. I well understand why Opposition Members are looking rather depressed today, but I do not think that it has anything to do with catering facilities in the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that during the deliberations of the Select Committee on Broadcasting, Etc.—with all of whose arrangements we have been happy so far—parts of the Palace of Westminster were discovered that no one knew existed, including the area above Central Lobby? Is it not high time that a proper review was carried out of exacty what space exists throughout the Palace, so that we can use it well for the benefit of our constituents and for other purposes?

The hon. Gentleman and I visited the part of the Palace to which he has referred. I think he would agree that it is not a suitable location for the provision of refreshments for visitors. The right step is for the Select Committee on Catering to consider the proposals, as it will do shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend be sure to ask for a branch of the kiosk in any new catering facility for visitors, and will he make sure that it has House of Commons fudge and humbugs on sale? The main kiosk has had none of these since before Christmas.

My hon. Friend might like to put that point to the Select Committee on Catering.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to consider the investigations into the Lockerbie air disaster.

I have no plans to do so. The Lockerbie air disaster is regularly discussed in the House —including Government statements, when appropriate—and I recall that the hon. Member had the Adjournment debate on this very subject just last Monday.

What is a Member of Parliament to do when, having been lucky enough to be given an Adjournment debate by you, Mr. Speaker, and having given a copy of his entire speech to the Foreign Office at 9.45 in the morning, the Minister—in this case the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—makes no attempt whatever to answer the deeply serious issues that have been raised? Is it surprising that in respect of foreign affairs this is the most ill-informed House of Commons that I have known in my 30 years here? Or is it possible that the Government are contemplating a repetition of the 1986 strikes on civilian targets in Benghazi and Tripoli? If so, the House of Commons ought to discuss the matter.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise that the House is ill informed in respect of these matters. Indeed, there have been many Government statements. The hon. Gentleman will know that the generally accepted purpose of Select Committees is the monitoring of individual Departments. It would be possible for one of the existing Select Committees to consider the issue, if it so wished.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the allocation of parliamentary time for private Members.

I have not received any representations about the allocation of parliamentary time for private Members. The general point is, of course, being considered by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever changes are made to the sitting hours, it would be a retrograde step—a step detrimental to the rights of Back Benchers—to introduce legislation to reduce them? As it is, Back Benchers have precious little time and it should not be reduced further.

It is, of course, a matter for the Select Committee on Sittings of the House to make recommendations in the first place. Thereafter, it is for the House to decide upon those recommendations. The point that I made to the Committee is that if we wish to reduce the hours of the House or change the sitting times—that is still an open question—it is important that we consider how the time of the House is used at present and to make reductions pro rata. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the opportunities for Back Benchers to introduce Bills are very important, and I am sure that the Select Committee will keep that very much in mind.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements for Members to receive output from the parliamentary channel introduced as from 13 January 1992.

As making the parliamentary channel available in Members' rooms would be tantamount to supplying a clean feed direct from the Chamber, it would be for the Select Committee on Broadcasting, Etc. in the first instance, to approve such a proposal. There are, however, technical problems which look like precluding the provision of this service for all Members before 1994. I hope to arrange for the Broadcasting Committee to consider the issue at an early date. Any eventual recommendation to proceed would be a matter for the House as a whole to decide.

Will the Lord President tell the House what the technical difficulties are? It seems absurd that, while extended coverage of our proceedings is now available, Members cannot have a sound and vision feed to their rooms. The idea that this Chamber is a place to which we all come to be influenced by the ebb and flow of debate and the oratory of Members is totally ridiculous. Why should we come to the Chamber to be bored rigid when we could be bored rigid in the comparative comfort of our own offices?

It would be technically possible now for some Members' offices to be given the feed. The real problem is that this building does not have the necessary cable ducts. Given the nature of the building, the provision of ducts is a very complex task. At the moment, consultants are looking into the matter in detail, and their report will be put before the Broadcasting Committee for its consideration. However, it seems likely from the preliminary indications that it would not be possible to complete the work until 1994.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are possibly far too few people in the Chamber and, even more important, far too few in the Smoking Room, the most vital part of the House of Commons? If hon. Members are going to be glued to their television sets, as apparently some are at home, there will be even fewer of them about anyway.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to bear in mind the key significance of the Chamber and the Smoking Room. We must take that into account. On the other hand, many hon. Members want such a facility directly available to them and we are examining that.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to change the rota of departmental and Prime Minister's questions; and if he will make a statement.

I have no immediate plans for any significant changes in the question rota at this stage in the Parliament.

Is it not a tidy state of affairs when the best that the 370-odd Tory Members can deliver in this place every Tuesday and Thursday and at other Question Times is a tirade of abuse about what Labour would do? Why do they not have the guts to tackle their own Government about cuts in services? Then there was that bleating Prime Minister on "Desert Island Discs" saying that he would love to get away from Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If he is that much of a wimp, why does he not get out of the road and let us take over?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a sense of humour, but it appears not. With regard to answers in the House, over the whole range of government, we have indicated the considerable improvements including a considerable increase in expenditure on our priority areas in the public services. It is legitimate to spend some time—I well understand why the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so sensitive about this—examining the tax and expenditure proposals of the Labour party. There is no doubt that that has been happening in the country at large and that they have now been rumbled. That is why the hon. Gentleman is so concerned.

The Opposition may not like it, but does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a case for allowing a small part of parliamentary time for the Leader of the Opposition to be questioned? He always puts his foot in it and tends to cause more confusion when he opens his mouth than when he keeps it shut.

I do not think that it is necessary to provide any more parliamentary time for that.