To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the percentage of present energy consumption in Greater London which would be saved if all domestic buildings were fitted with the best existing energy conservation equipment.

Details of domestic energy consumption and potential savings in Greater London are not available. We are continuing to promote energy savings in all domestic buildings.

Has the Minister seen the recent "Electricity for Life" report published by Sussex university, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Friends of the Earth, which suggests that for every pound spent on electricity conservation the consumer would save, say, £1·90 annually and we would have 42 kg less emissions of carbon dioxide? Will the Minister look at the report and consider that aspect? In London, we have only one energy efficiency officer— clearly an inadequately staffed resource. With substantial investment, we could improve the environment and reduce fuel poverty across our capital city.

I regret that I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Now that he has drawn it to my attention, I will certainly look at it and carefully weigh the arguments. As for the Energy Efficiency Office, the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that more emphasis is being put on localised London officers. That accords with the hon. Gentleman's views and my own.

Does the Minister agree that he should pay close attention to last Thursday's words of Robert Malpas, currently managing director of BP Oil and chief executive-designate of PowerGen? He said that energy conservation was the great issue of our time and that electricity privatisation was a distraction from it. Does the Minister agree that things have come to a pretty pass when we have to rely on a BP Oil salesman to tell the energy conservation facts of life to Ministers of the Department of Energy?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Energy Efficiency Office budget is much greater—by a factor of about seven times—than it was when the Labour party was last in Government. It does not come well from him to lecture me on precisely how we should be energy efficient.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity generated in the year 2000 he estimates will come from renewable sources of energy.

There is great uncertainty about projections for developing technologies such as renewable sources of energy. By the year 2025, wind and tidal barrages, for example, might provide up to 10 per cent. of curent electricity requirements each, if they could be successfully developed and were found to be environmentally acceptable.

Will the Minister confirm that renewable energy from the Mersey barrage will be included for the north-west? How much energy could come from that source and what progress has been made on the scheme?

Speaking from memory, 0·5 per cent. of electricity could come from the Mersey barrage. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Mersey barrage would come under the non-fossil fuel obligation, for instance, which we have laid out as part of our electricity supply privatisation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 per cent. will cut the illusions of those who think renewables can make an immense contribution by the year 2000? Does he agree that, these days, large tranches of power are required not small contributions which often come from environmental developments which can be a disaster?

The Government are doing a tremendous amount to sponsor research into renewable sources of energy. As I have already said, we have produced a scheme—the non-fossil fuel obligation—whereby renewable energy will be given special treatment. As I said in my main answer, it is difficult to predict exactly how these technologies will develop. That is why, in the foreseeable future, we shall be putting great reliance on the variety offered by nuclear energy.

Does the Minister accept that offshore wave power could make substantial contributions to the national grid by the end of the century? Does he further accept that a substantial body of opinion believes that dirty tricks by nuclear interests in his Department may have contributed to the rundown of offshore wave power research? Can he report on the progress of any discussions following the meeting between Baroness Hooper and my constituent, Professor Stephen Salter, earlier this winter?

I categorically refute the dirty tricks allegation. No Government have done more for the promotion, development and research into renewable energy than this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all renewable energy sources are reviewed from time to time, and offshore wave power will certainly be reviewed. Large-scale offshore wave power is not one of the sources that we are currently pursuing as hard as the others.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, for all the calls for increased spending on research into renewable energy, if the technology is not there we could spend two or three times as much money on research and still not bring it any quicker? Does he agree, therefore, that for the foreseeable future the only significant alternative to production from fossil fuels is nuclear power?

I agree with that, but I must stress again that we are doing more than any other Government have to explore the potential for renewables and to proceed with them where it appears feasible and commercial to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the protection of consumer interests following privatisation of the electricity industry.

I continue to receive a number of representations on this topic. The Electricity Consumers Council has welcomed the proposals in the Electricity Bill for protecting consumers' interests.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, despite his smooth words and the sham of competition in the Bill, consumers will still pay dearly for the dogma of privatisation? Why is he not prepared to provide in the Bill for right to supply, not necessarily for credit, to ensure that those living in poverty have a right to heat and light?

There is an obligation to supply within the Bill and it is a wider obligation than has ever been placed on the industry before. Previously, if one were beyond 50 yards from a distribution point one could be refused supply. That has gone. We are also making it a right for the low-income user of electricity to have a prepayment meter fitted as an alternative to disconnection. At present that is an option, but in future it will be a right. Prepayment meters have been the real reason why there has been such a substantial fall in the rate of disconnections under this Government.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the best protection for consumers will be competition in electricity production with the distribution boards shopping around for electricity?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it will be a more competitive market for the area boards to buy their electricity and the regulator will be under a duty to regulate the prices of transmission, for both high and low-level distribution systems. Our package plus the package of customer rights adds up to a better deal for the consumer than any ever before.

Consumers will be concerned about how far they will have to underwrite the Government's insistence on building four new nuclear power stations. Since we know even from the authorised version of Mr. Baker's speech that the newly privatised industry will not build those power stations unless "the terms are right", and since we are told in today's papers that the Government are refusing to concede the industry's demands that any cost overruns are to be underwritten by the taxpayer, what will happen if there is deadlock between the industry and the Government? Is the Secretary of State .prepared to contemplate the four new nuclear power stations not being built, which alone would give his negotiating arm strength, or is this just a public posture to be adopted while the Bill goes through the Commons?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that Sizewell B is already under construction and will be coming on stream in 1994. An inquiry is being held about Hinkley Point C and I have just been informed by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it expects to apply for the other two stations within the next few months. Negotiations between the Government and National Power are progressing well. The hon. Gentleman should not believe what he reads in the newspapers any more than what is in the leaked documents that he seems to love using.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that few things are more irritating for a consumer than to be told that a certain service will come on a specified day at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, when the consumer waits in and cancels all professional and family engagements and the service does not turn up? Consumers will be delighted that there is to be a consumer right in the matter in future.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that for the first time consumers will have a statutory right to compensation in the event of failure to meet performance standards.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

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

At the last meeting, did the Secretary of State discuss the problems lacing ex-miners who took redundancy payments between the ages of 50 and 60? Under the Government's restart scheme a 58-year-old ex-miner who cannot find a job might lose his unemployment benefit equivalent which could be paid by the coal board if it so decided. If the Secretary of State did not discuss that, will he do so now and stop the problems throughout the British coal fields where ex-miners, having spent nearly a lifetime working in coal mines, believe that their five loads of coal and other benefits are under threat?

I did not discuss that with the chairman of British Coal, but my officials and the Department are having discussions with other Government Departments about the problem. We recognise that the new arrangements have produced new difficulties and we are determined to find a way around them.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he raise with him the future of the west Wales anthracite field? We have lost Cynheidre colliery and there is serious concern about the mothballing of Carway Fawr drift mine. Those jobs are badly needed in the area and there is a problem caused by competition from Chinese anthracite. In the interest of the balance of payments and future supplies of anthracite, we want an early go-ahead for the Carway Fawr project.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am aware of the project and the local concern and of the shortage of high-grade anthracite reserves in this country. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of the chairman of British Coal.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he congratulate him and the east midlands electricity board on deciding that the first mini power station will be in my constituency at Bilsthorpe? That is an environmentally friendly station and shows our commitment to British Coal. That station is in addition to and not a substitute for the coal-fired West Burton power station.

I do not wish to dampen my hon. Friend's enthusisam, but I have read about those proposals with interest as well. I know that discussions are taking place between the east midlands electricity board and British Coal, but no proposals have been put to me to date. When they are, I will look at them with great interest.

When my right hon. Friend next speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he ask him to think very carefully about the medium and long-term future of Gedling colliery in my constituency which is currently under threat of closure? Is he aware that the colliery has received an enormous amount of recent investment? The paint is hardly dry on a £6 million underground motorway system. The investment has been successful and the pit has seen an enormous increase in productivity and output and has only relatively recently hit severe geological drawbacks. Will he bring all those points to the attention of the chairman of British Coal when he next meets him?

I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about Gedling and I will bring those points to the chairman's attention.

In the many discussions that the right hon. Gentleman may have with the chairman of British Coal, will he raise the apparent breakdown between the south of Scotland electricity board and British Coal concerning the board's take of coal from the deep mine Scottish coal industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it ridiculous that this matter should continue and have to be resolved by the court, which will be too late in any case because I believe that the south of Scotland electricity board intends to take no more Scottish deep-mined coal after 31 March and that that industry will, therefore, be obliterated?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made my position in this matter clear. I should like to see the two sides reach agreement. Last year, when we appeared to have reached an impasse, the two sides found a way forward, which I earnestly hope they will do again.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman of British Coal and his colleagues are all in favour of his declared policy of privatisation? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, when that privatisation comes, those working in the coal industry will be given preferential terms so that they can acquire shares in the industry in which they work?

Yes, I can confirm that one of our objectives in privatising the industry will be to give each miner a chance to have a stake in the industry in which he works. I confirm that I have conveyed to British Coal the Government's determination to go ahead with privatisation after the next election. We are working together gradually on plans to that end.

Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of British Coal the number of mines currently going through the review procedure and how many are likely to survive? Is this not in fact a closure programme brought on by the Government's lack of interest in the industry?

I would claim that we are showing our lack of interest in a rather strange fashion, as we have put up £6 billion for investment since we came to office, and we have approved investment plans for nearly £600 million per year for the next three years. This Government have made more investment in British Coal, have paid more generous redundancy terms to miners, and have a far better record, even in the business of closures, than any Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made of the potential of combined heat and power following privatisation of the electricity industry.

A number of published assessments all indicate considerable potential for combined heat and power. Our proposals for privatising the electricity supply industry will for the first time create conditions which will allow combined heat and power schemes to proceed on an equal basis with conventional generation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that there is a tremendous use for reject heat in myriad different projects? It is likely that that would be best exploited by the private sector with its usual greater imagination.

Yes. The Government have shown their commitment to combined heat and power by funding to date 69 studies and giving approval for a further 92 studies. We believe that there is substantial scope for combined heat and power. We believe that we have laid the way open for it to become a successful competitor in supplying electricity.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that any combined heat and power schemes in the Nottinghamshire area are located at the Blidworth, Cotgrave or Gedling pit sites, which are currently under threat? To keep those combined heat and power stations running, will he consider the redundant mineworkers' scheme agreements which, if people are forced back on to restart and not allowed to continue in the scheme, will not be worth the waste paper that they are written on?

That was a clever, convoluted question, but I am not quite sure where it got us—nor, I believe, is the hon. Gentleman. Combined heat and power schemes will be placed where they are best able to operate efficiently. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted to hear.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the potential for generating electricity from waste burning.

There is great uncertainty about projections for renewable sources of energy. We estimate that by the year 2025 up to 4·5 per cent. of current energy requirements might come from biomass if the diverse technologies involved can be successfully developed and applied.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as environmental concerns are rightly at the top of the agenda these days, biomass power generation offers two marvellous possibilities—first, the generation of power without recourse to primary fossil fuel extraction and, secondly, an opportunity to dispose of waste in a way infinitely more environmentally desirable than conventional landfill methods? Will my hon. Friend therefore commit the Department to an even more vigorous study of the ways in which biomass power generation can be enhanced?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We already spend £1·5 million a year on research into biomass and there have been some successful outcomes of that research. I recently visited an example just north of Birmingham, which is planning to produce about 3 MW of electricity from methane.

On waste burning, could the Minister, whom I have always found helpful in such matters, call for an urgent report on the situation at Polkemmet and Wilsontown where Dixon's pit is suffering from ever-growing subterranean fires, with the result that sulphur emissions are becoming a major environmental problem throughout central Scotland? The Scottish Office is doing its best, but this is an extremely serious situation.

I will, of course, look into the matter and see what lies behind it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and what matters they discussed.

I last met Mr. Harding on 23 January when we discussed a range of matters concerning British Nuclear Fuels plc.

Will the Secretary of State pass on to the chairman the relief of the people of Humberside that neither the Killingholme site, nor any site on Humberside, was chosen for the particular diposal site? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British Nuclear Fuels would rather have gone for a site on Teesside instead of the one chosen at Sellafield? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to speculate on why that site was chosen?

At the moment I hear a lot of rumours about what the Nuclear Industry Radioactivity Waste Executive will say, but it has not yet made its recommendations about the deep site. I do not know where it will recommend for that site and I do not want to add to the speculation, but I look forward to receiving its report.

During his discussions with the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, did my right hon. Friend discuss the economics and feasibility of the proposition for smaller nuclear reactors and the contribution that they may make to our future power supplies?

I did not discuss that with the chairman, but I have noted with interest the agreement between Rolls-Royce and the Atomic Energy Authority to investigate the possibilities for smaller nuclear generators.

During the discussions did the Secretary of State and the chairman discuss the fierce resistance in Scotland to any prospect of a Scottish site being used as a nuclear dump? Will the Secretary of State tell us what representations he has received against Caithness, in particular, being used as a nuclear dump?

I have received very few, but I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received rather more. I must point out that at present this is a matter not for the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, but for Nirex. It is the job of Nirex to come forward with recommendations and, when it does, the Government will take a decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received proposing that, after privatisation of electricity, all smaller hydro-electric wind or other renewable energy generators will have the right to supply into the grid as they have at present, and at a price negotiated on a cost plus basis.

There have been a number of informal representations. Purchases by distribution companies of electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and hydro will contribute to their non-fossil obligation. We shall be setting the obligation to accommodate renewable projects.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever the obligation is, it will provide a level playing field for the other non-fossil fuels? Is my hon. Friend aware that the general feeling among those connected with renewable sources of energy is that, as with research money in the past, future obligations will be tilted towards nuclear power and away from the small private generators?

In my first answer to my hon. Friend, I specifically said that the obligation would be set at a level such as to accommodate renewable projects. I hope that that directly answers my hon. Friend's worries about this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the next approvals for flue gas desulphurisation process equipment to be fitted to Central Electricity Generating Board power stations.

I understand that the CEGB and its successors will be making a full contribution towards meeting the United Kingdom's obligation of a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions, on 1980 levels, by the year 2003. My right hon. Friend gave his consent to the Drax application last August and I expect further applications to follow as soon as possible.

Does the Minister recall the terrible smog problems during the 1940s and 1950s and that the Government decided on a national effort to bring in smokeless fuels? Why can the present Government not show the same enthusiasm to solve the problems of the so-called clean fuel electricity by sorting out the problems of nuclear waste and the acid rain caused by the emissions from power stations? All that they seem to do is to drag their feet and be pushed along by the EC. If they do anything at all it is merely to manipulate the price difference between nuclear and coal produced electricity.

I remember very well that the clean air legislation about which the hon. Gentleman speaks was passed in 1956 under a Conservative Government. I am sure that my hon. Friends also remember that. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to suphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. They form one of the reasons why we have signed an agreement under which there will be a 60 per cent. reduction in 1980 levels by 2003. That is why we shall set levels of emission for each of the companies in the private sector. Those levels will be such that the obligations are met and the costs of the emission controls will be spread over all the plants. We are aware of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions and we are implementing our obligations in the matter faster than any Government have ever done.

When the next round of approvals for flue gas desulphurisation comes about, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that British chemical engineering contractors are keen to undertake this task, not only to provide more work for their work force but further to enhance their reputation abroad so that they may export more and improve the balance of payments to which chemical engineering already contributes substantially?

The placing of orders for equipment will of course, be a matter for the industry, and particularly for firms in the private sector. I am sure that people in the industry will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways ahead on environmental issues is to continue to fund the experimental stage of the fluidised bed? Does he agree that it would be wrong to lose this simply because a top-up fund is not available and that it should come into commercial use?

I understand that there is some commercial interest in the topping cycle. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the chairman of British Coal and the Department are in touch with each other to see what, if anything, can be done to further this technology.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of contracts in the Sizewell B development will be placed with British firms; and if he will make a statement.

The placing of contracts is a commercial matter for the CEGB. It advises me that about 90 per cent. by value of the project contracts for the Sizewell B PWR are expected to be placed with firms in the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very high figure and shows that the benefits of the Sizewell B development will be felt not only in the electricity industry but throughout British industry?

Yes. The programme for modernising and improving the electricity supply industry—both the generation and the distribution of electricity—will be a source of valuable business for British industry in the years ahead.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the contracts that are going out for the Sizewell B development contain any provision for air monitoring of nuclear fallout? If not, can he explain why measurements in my constituency over the weekend show a fallout of 40 times the Government's levels? There is considerable doubt about whether air monitoring is effective.

I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether these contracts contain provisions for air monitoring. I shall look into the point that he raises and shall be in touch with him about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the safety recommendations made by the inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster will be fully implemented; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already informed Parliament that if the public inquiry can recommend improvements to the present safety regime, these will be accepted. I cannot speculate on the findings of the public inquiry.

I thank the Minister for that assurance, but I should like to test its seriousness. Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, the coastguard union, is submitting evidence to the Piper Alpha inquiry to the effect that the Peterhead coastguard station is an essential part of marine safety in the north-east of Scotland, and gives the flexibility to respond to major incidents? Is he aware that the Department of Transport is proposing to close that station, effectively prejudging the results of the inquiry and undermining the assurances that the Minister has just given? Will he undertake to contact the Department of Transport and his colleagues there to argue that any closure decision affecting Peterhead should be postponed until after the Piper Alpha public inquiry, and so validate the assurance that he has given us?

The hon. Member has reasonably raised an important point. I assure him that I shall have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that matter.

This morning, I had meetings with the widows and the survivors of the Piper Alpha tragedy, and they raised with me a matter that is of major concern to them, which is the recovery of items from the sea bed. I know that this matter has previously been raised with the Minister in the House, but it is of continuing concern to these people. Has the Department any plans, or is it its intention, to undertake an internal investigation into the costs of raising the equipment that lies on the sea bed, and which will provide vital evidence for the inquiry in Aberdeen, and perhaps lead to the recovery of more bodies?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend gave consent to the abandonment of the platform. The toppling has not taken place, and it would be premature to make any judgment until we have seen how the platform topples, albeit that the purpose of the toppling is that it should fall out from the debris so as to enable investigators to look at the debris in more safety. At this stage, I cannot give any undertaking in reply to his question, but I note what he says.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received recently concerning the proposed West Burton coal-fired power station; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has received nearly 30 representations about West Burton B from organisations and individual members of the public. I understand that discussions are continuing between the relevant local planning authorities and the CEGB about some matters concerning the proposed construction of the station. My officials have urged them to resolve the outstanding matters as soon as possible so that my right hon. Friend can proceed with his consideration of the CEGB's application.

That Minister there will realise that something was said on the Floor of the House about having a coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire at West Burton, but when we got upstairs in Committee, the Secretary of State, dodging his responsibilities, went in a different direction. I want a straight answer to a straight question. Are we going to have that station at West Burton, yes or no?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously on form today. The straight answer to him is that my right hon. Friend, when he receives an application, has a quasi-judicial role in determining first whether there should be an inquiry and secondly what the decision should be. We have to wait for the CEGB or its successors to come up with an application.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you read Hansard of the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, you will see that he promised—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise this on an Adjournment debate, it would be a different matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current remit of the Energy Efficiency Office.

The Energy Efficiency Office promotes efficiency in the use of energy in buildings and industrial processes, by tackling market barriers and stimulating the market where it is slow to react.

Will the Minister explain how cutting the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office by almost half fits in with the statement by the Prime Minister to the Royal Society that energy conservation is crucial to tackling the greenhouse effect?

The Government have decided to stop funding demonstration projects, because we already have enough, stop subsidising surveys, because hundreds of them have been done, stop general advertising and start to focus its budget much more on specific groups and areas and on spreading best practice. There is no conflict between the news that we are cutting expenditure in certain areas and the fact that we are still seriously promoting energy efficiency.

Will the Energy Efficiency Office organise the programme that my right hon. Friend recently announced for setting a good example in the public sector with cost-effective energy efficiency investment?

As my hon. Friend points out, the public sector is a major spender. A programme was inaugurated two years ago. It needs a further substantial boost, which it will receive in the weeks and months ahead, and the plans are currently being drawn up.

To ask the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the level of abortive expenditure at the Millbank offices consequent upon the decision of the synod not to vacate Church house.

As a result of the decision of the general synod, the works at Millbank, which were well advanced at this time and which were specially designed to meet the needs of the general synod, have had to be replanned to make the space suitable for letting commercially. The cost of the abortive works involved will, on the present professional advice, be around £1·25 million.

Will my right hon. Friend advise the House of the cost to the general synod of this decision? Does he agree that this rather expensive decision reflects a strange order of priorities? Would not the general synod be advised to consider the use of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre?

The general synod will, in addition, have to pass on to the dioceses of the Church of England an annual bill of about £¾ million to pay a new rent liability at Church house which would have been offset if it had moved to Millbank. That is the equivalent cost of maintaining about 25 parish churches in action for a year. Against that background, I am convinced that the general synod reached an unwise decision, at least on cost-benefit grounds. The availability of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre would certainly have been one of the genuine and acceptable options available, if it had moved to Millbank.

What injury would be done to Church or state if the general synod ceased to exist?

So far as the state is concerned, we have a neutral view of the existence and prospects for the general synod. If the link between Church and state were severed, it would be entirely up to the Church of England to determine whether it were well served by the continuation of the general synod at Westminster.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen were dismissed for failing to work hard enough in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

This is not a matter for the commissioners. However, I understand that no central records are kept of the reasons for clergy leaving their posts.

Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents are responsible for the pay of bishops and clergy, is he satisfied that all bishops and clergy are working hard enough on legitimate matters? Will he bear in mind the recent harbouring of an illegal immigrant by a clergyman and agree that any member of the clergy or bishop who emulates that.example of encouraging illegality should not remain in his post?

I note my hon. Friend's comments. I am quite sure that all Anglican clergy, indeed all Anglican diocesan bishops, will want to heed the advice given by the two archbishops that they should not aid or abet any individual or group who seeks to break the law.

Leaving aside how it can be decided whether clergymen are working hard enough, would not a clergyman looking into the Chamber now and finding fewer than 50 hon. Members—five of them Ministers and three PPSs—present out of 650 conclude that we are not in a position to give lectures on the subject?

There may be very few people in the House at any one time, but very hard-working clergymen often find that there are very few parishioners in the pews. I do not think that that reflects on the amount of time and effort that a clergyman puts into preparing his sermon, or that Ministers put into replying to a thin House.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the provision of administrative offices by the Church authorities.

The Church Commissioners and the general synod will, for the foreseeable future, remain in their present office premises. The Church of England pensions board will be joining the Church Commissioners at their Millbank location in May this year.

Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Church Commissioners that instead of shuffling about in expensive west end offices they should show real faith in the inner cities by selling both Church house and Millbank for over £50 million, and investing the proceeds in a move to an area of high unemployment such as my constituency?

The trouble is that if we took that line we could have as many as 650 parliamentary colleagues bidding for the relocation of the Church Commissioners' premises. It might be more politic for us to remain where we are.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much money has been expended by the National Audit Office on audit of the books and records of (a) the banana trade advisory committee, (b) the Black Country limestone advisory panel, (c) Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine, (d) the Marshall aid commemoration commission, (e) Red Sea Lights Company Ltd., (f) persons hearing estate agents appeals and (g) the wine standards board of the Vintners Company, over the most recent period for which figures are available.

Although the Commission is responsible under the National Audit Act for considering the estimates of the National Audit Office submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the cost of particular audits that he carries out under his statutory duties is a matter for him. However, he has informed me that, of the bodies mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, he audits only the accounts of the Marshall aid commemoration commission. The cost of the audit of the 1986–87 account was £1,600.

Does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be responsible for the auditing of such minor bodies, particularly the Marshall aid commemoration commission? Would it not be better if he were left, on behalf of Parliament, to concentrate on the really large audits, and private firms of auditors were responsible for such quangos?

There is much in what my hon. Friend says. Of the bodies that he mentioned, however, only one is audited by the National Audit Office, and in that instance the full cost of the audit was recovered from the Marshall aid commemoration commission.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what topics were discussed.

The Commission last met on Tuesday 6 December, when the main business was consideration of proposed estimates for 1989–90 for both the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the potential deterioration in staffing levels in the Northern Ireland Audit Office? Will he undertake to write to the Comptroller and Auditor-General asking him to assess the staffing level statistics, and will he ask whether people who leave are interviewed to discover why they are leaving and whether those who return are interviewed to discover whether the career pattern in the office is sufficient to retain them in the long term?

I will certainly write to the Comptroller and Auditor-General as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I should say that although there was indeed a staffing problem in the Northern Ireland Audit Office some time ago, the position has improved. When the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I visited the office, along with one or two other hon. Members, we were told that there had been a distinct improvement in recruiting, which we hope will continue.

Have my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) considered the remuneration of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland? If so, what conclusion has been reached?

I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that although we have indeed considered the remuneration of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General and have made a proposal, it has, alas, fallen on deaf ears within the Government. We shall have to return to the matter in due course.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether the Public Accounts Commission has recently discussed the cost implications of moving the headquarters of the National Audit Office to the north of England.

As I told my hon. Friend on 23 May last year, the costs of the London headquarters buildings have been carefully considered in the past, both by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Commission. The National Audit Office employs 20 per cent. of its staff outside London. There, have, however, been no recent changes in the location of Government Departments. The principal work of the National Audit Office remains at the London offices of the Government Departments and other bodies it is required to audit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the drive from many Ministers to relocate in the north and with the expense of employing clerical labour in London, growing, it is time for the National Audit Office to up anchor and leave its office in Victoria?

My hon. Friend's case would be a good one if it were not for the fact that so many Government Departments are still in London. The National Audit Office has to audit the London offices of the Government Departments. As, when and if Government offices are located in different parts of the country, there will be a good case for the National Audit Office to do likewise.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the number of passes to the House currently in issue.

On 19 January 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of 9,976 photo-identity passes, giving access to all or part of the Palace of Westminster, were in issue.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the large number of passes currently in issue, it would be feasible to issue 70 or so passes so that all Members of the European Parliament, who are not currently eligible for a pass, could receive one, which would improve co-operation?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the debate that will take place tonight.

As you rightly say, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend raised a matter that, if you should select a certain amendment, will be right for debate this evening. As my hon. Friend knows, I have considerable sympathy for the point he makes.

Will the Leader of the House tell us how many of the 9,000-plus passes are category 30 passes for lobbyists? Does he take the view—this is not dealt with in the report—that their number should be reduced?

I do not want to anticipate tonight's debate, but lobbyists are partly dealt with in the report and we had best wait for the relevant debate.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the takings of the House of Commons kiosk in (a) the four weeks up to Christmas 1988 and (b) the 12 months up to Christmas; and if he will make a statement.

Kiosk takings for the four-weeks period to Christmas 1988 amounted to £193,249·69 and the figure for the 12-month period to Christmas was £588,007·41. Both amounts include VAT.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all concerned on those remarkable figures? Will he accept that most items sold at the kiosk are of a fattening nature and add to the weight of hon. Members, making many, including myself, overweight? A good use of the profits would be to build a swimming pool within the precincts of Parliament to enable hon. Members to help reduce their weight.

I usually agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but if he is overweight there are ways of reducing weight other than our building a swimming pool. He would have to take up the building of a pool with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Will the Leader of the House dispel rumours that are going round that the kiosk is being fattened up for privatisation? If there are profits to be made, will the Government look more kindly, not towards providing swimming pools and all the rest, but to giving the profits to the staff who work in the kiosk and elsewhere?

What is done with the profits is a matter not for me but for the House of Commons Commission. The profits of the Catering Department are substantially used to assist with capital projects and to improve the services of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he next expects to meet the chairman of the General Medical Council; and what items he expects to discuss.

I have no plans for such a meeting and, therefore, the second part of the question does lot arise.

If the Lord President does see the chairman of the GMC, will he draw his attention to statutory instrument No. 2255/88, which the Council of which the right hon. Gentleman is President has recently issued on the new rules—the first for eight years—of the preliminary proceedings committee and professional conduct committee of the GMC? Will he tell the chairman that there is considerable concern on both sides of the House, for good reason, about the proceedings of both the committees? Given that fact, does he think that it would be appropriate that any prayer against the statutory instrument should be debated on the Floor of the House?

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to those whose concern they are. I remind him and the House, however, that the responsibility of the Lord President and the Privy Council is limited to approving, with or without modification, disciplinary procedures that are proposed by the GMC. New rules were approved on 21 December, and the Privy Council has no standing until such rules are made and submitted to it. The rules are currently being examined by a working party that was established by the GMC. The report of that working party will serve as a proper basis for discussion when it is available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a tragic case that occurred in my constituency brought to my attention a number of cases of great concern and suffering throughout the country over the disciplinary arrangements for doctors? Will he convey that information to the chairman of the GMC when he next sees him? Is he aware that I would support the call for a debate on this important subject? The doctors cannot have it all their own way.

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, and I know the case to which he refers. I shall refer his comments to the GMC. I must repeat that my task, and that of the Privy Council, is limited to considering the rules that it puts before us.

The hon. Gentleman is being less than his usual fair self. He knows well that I do not have any responsibility in these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has responsibility, and action has already been taken, including the calling for reports. The health authority is already examining the matter

To ask the Lord President of the Council what further discussions he intends to have on the setting up of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

I shall give the hon. Member the answer that I would have given to the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) had they been present in the Chamber.

I am most grateful to the Lord President. I shall pass on his answer. Does he agree with me, however, that it is extremely regrettable that a Committee of this place that should be set up has not been, and that the Scottish Office is the only Department of state that does not receive the scrutiny of a Select Committee? This is all because of what appears until now to have been the reluctance of the limited number of Scottish Conservative Back Benchers to serve on the Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been reports that in certain circumstances Scottish Conservative Back Benchers would now be willing to serve on such a Committee? In the light of that, will he renew and intensify his discussions with all parties concerned to ensure that the Committee becomes active and involved as quickly as possible?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Scottish Office is still subject to a fair amount of scrutiny by various Select Committees. I accept that that is not as good as a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I regret as much as the hon. Gentleman does the fact that we were unable to set one up. But I understand the reasons for that, and I and the House have accepted those reasons.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is time for thinking through the problem and understanding the difficulties that the Committee of Selection had? The Committee of Selection reflected, properly, the facts as they were. What is important is how we arrived at that position. We cannot find a solution to the problem until we examine carefully how the House arrived at that position. More important, it must be seen in the light of all the activities of the House as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union.

As is often the case, my hon. Friend has made a wise contribution to this discussion. I shall reflect on all those points.