To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's most up-to-day estimate of the energy savings that would accrue if the latest standards of energy efficiency in buildings were implemented.

The Building Research Establishment has estimated that the proposals for amending the requirement in the building regulations for the conservation of fuel and power would improve the energy efficiency of new buildings by about 20 per cent. compared with existing regulations.

Is the Minister aware that if the Government were to back a scheme of energy conservation along the lines either of the Eurisol report or that of the Milton Keynes' energy cost effects, we could cut CO² emissions by between 39 million and 43 million tonnes a year? Does he think that that would be an extremely good investment for the Government because at a stroke they would reduce those emissions and energy costs, and cut the need to build so many more power stations?

The Government are in favour of energy conservation measures, but we must balance the position by accepting that, even taking account of energy conservation measures, on most estimates there will be a continuing increase in the demand for electricity. If one is interested in CO² emissions, as the hon. Gentleman is and as we are, the issue is how to get balanced fuel production which will reduce CO². That is why we are in favour of nuclear energy and why we are surprised that the Labour party is not.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of energy is lost through the windows of our homes? How much longer will it be before he prevails on the Secretary of State for the Environment to have double glazing as an integral part of new build houses? That is needed as much as damp courses. If double glazing were installed at the beginning, it would save all the conversions which must take place later and it would be an enormous saving of energy.

I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for building regulations. Only about 1 per cent. of building stock is replaced every year, so taking the 20 per cent. figure that I mentioned in my original answer, the potential savings are 1 per cent. of 20 per cent. The matter must be seen in context.

Does the Minister admit that the Government's record on energy efficiency and insulation during the past decade has greatly worsened and is most unsatisfactory, particularly compared with the rest of western Europe? Does he accept that if we reach those standards we would not need to build any more nuclear power stations?

Speaking from memory, we are above the European Community average for energy conservation and efficency.

Five per cent. above.

My right hon. Friend says that we are 5 per cent. above the EC average. If one takes CO² emissions as a proportion of electricity generated, our position has greatly improved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many exploration and appraisal wells have been drilled in the North sea since drilling began.

Up to the end of April 1989 a total of 2,114 exploration and appraisal wells had been started on the United Kingdom continental shelf since drilling began in December 1964.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reserves are much higher than orginally envisaged? does he accept that it is an encouraging sign that applicants are now finding viable much smaller fields than the large fields that were orginally viable?

Yes, I can confirm that the past two years have been extremely good years in the North sea with record exploration, good finds and record investment. It is now clear that we shall be a substantial producer of oil and gas for at least the next 25 years.

As the Secretary of State has accepted that there may be some danger to safety in the North sea if the geomagnetic survey comes to an end and as his Department has accepted that there are circumstances in which he may be prepared to pay a contribution for the continuation of that programme, will he consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science and ensure that funding continues beyond 15 July so that a package of finance can be put together?

Yes, Sir. I will.

Do not those welcome figures show that the tax regime following the Budget is about right? Can my right hon. Friend tell us how developments are proceeding in the North sea and whether our self-sufficiency will extend into the years ahead?

Yes, Sir. In the last year, not only was there a great deal of activity and exploration, but 24 developments, representing an investment of more than £32 billion, were approved by my Department. It is now clear that our reserves will last considerably longer than anyone originally dreamt. That is no reason why we should not take action to find more and to conserve what we have, but the picture is promising.

The Secretary of State is rightly encouraged by the rate of development in the North sea, but he will be aware that the rate of discovery is still much less than the rate of production. Can he give us a precise date for the latest estimates of our self-sufficiency, and what measures has he taken to extend the period of self-suficiency?

I cannot give those exact figures. It is clear that 1988 was not a good year for discovery as compared with exploration, but this year is much better. There have been seven discoveries in the first three and a half months of the year, and it is clear that the rate of production in the future will tail off much more gently than we had expected.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive firm proposals for starting construction of the proposed West Burton 1800 MW coal-fired power station.

My right hon. Friend is still waiting for Nottinghamshire county council, Bassetlaw district council and the CEGB to sign agreements. When he receives them he will decide whether to give his consent to construct the station. The timing of construction is a matter for the applicant.

The Secretary of State usually answers this question, but today he has put up the junior Minister. What does he think he is playing at? Before the election, he said that we would have a station at West Burton. Look at him laughing and grinning all over his face! He has used the excuse of planning problems and problems with the CEGB, but those problems are now out of the way. Why does not the Minister pull his socks up and let us have this station? It would be in the interests of jobs and power for Nottinghamshire and the nation. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself for laughing when I am putting this serious problem to him. Come off it! He should get up at the Dispatch Box and tell us that we are going to have that power station.

Somewhere in there was a question trying to get out. I shall answer it in these terms. Tripartite agreement between the local authorities and the CEGB on the main conditions has been reached, although several minor issues on highway matters are outstanding. I believe that the signed agreements will be with us shortly, after which my right hon. Friend will be able to decide whether to hold a public inquiry.

I am delighted by my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). We and everyone else in Nottinghamshire know that the 25 per cent. reduction in real terms in the cost of raw materials to the CEGB was due to the increase in productivity by the Nottinghamshire miners, who can guarantee a secure supply to the new power station. Will my hon. Friend bring that fact to the attention of the authorities who will decide when the station is built?

My hon. Friend is right. The nation and the electricity consumer owe a great deal to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, for whom I think he was speaking. The Opposition would do well to think about that occasionally. The area boards, which will be a key determinant in the future of West Burton, believe that it is a good site for a coal-fired power station. Their precise needs will be determined by their obligation to supply and by the estimates that they make of future demand for electricity.

If a coal-fired station is built at West Burton, can the Minister estimate what percentage of the coal burn will be imported coal? Does he propose to introduce regulations covering the sulphur content of imported coal, bearing in mind the low sulphur content of much of the coal mined in the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland?

There are strict regulations covering SO2 emissions, and the intention is that SO2 will be reduced by 60 per cent. by the year 2,003. We have always made it clear that there are no import controls at present and that there will be none in the future. Unlike many Opposition Members, we are completely confident that the core business of the British coal industry will be the production of electricity. We believe that that is evidenced by the vast amounts of money that we have been putting into the industry and the response that we are getting from the work force.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a station of that size will be commissioned only if the generator has a long-term contract to supply? Does he further agree that the reverse side of that is that the generator will need a long-term contract for the supply of the basic fuel? I suggest that such long-term security will come about only if the coal used is coal produced by British Coal, and that may involve the Government knocking a few heads together. May I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, whether he feels in an aggressive mood?

My hon. Friend makes some extremely good points about the reasons why a British electricity industry would wish to buy from an indigenous supplier such as British Coal, especially as the industry has very good coal at its disposal. My hon. Friend asked me to join the negotiations that are taking place between British Coal and the electricity industry. I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that we wish those negotiations to be conducted freely between the two sides. That is why it was quite wrong for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to run round town this morning saying that we have predetermined plans for British Coal.

Then perhaps the Minister will answer the question that he failed to answer this morning. Is it the case that, as matters stand at present, the electricity industry will order 15 million tonnes less from British Coal next year, despite being offered it at market prices? Even if the Minister feels no concern about the effect that that will have on jobs, on the balance of payments, on the midlands economy and on the future of electricity supply in his capacity as an Energy Minister, does he not feel even a twinge of conscience, as a member of the Conservative party, towards those UDM members whose support the Government was happy to exploit during the miners' dispute and whose reward may now be a P45?

It is a matter of great interest to the Government that the hon. Gentleman should suddenly discover the UDM. It is a little rich for Labour Members suddenly to be defending the UDM. I have already made it quite clear to the House—I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would join me in this—that the nation owes a great deal to the UDM, and we do not need to be taught that lesson by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his proposals for employees in the electricity industry being offered a stake in their own companies.

There will be attractive terms to ensure that employees can acquire shares in the successor companies. Decisions on the details of the offers that will be made to employees will be taken nearer the time of the sales.

When allocating shares, will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement to employees to take up their full individual entitlement, to spread the benefits of share ownership as widely as possible?

We think that it is very important for individual employees of the industry to have their own shareholding. We therefore intend to put together a package of discounts and encouragements which we hope will encourage more than 90 per cent. of employees to take up their shares, as has happened with previous privatisations.

However welcome the proposal may be in principle, will this not remain merely a cosmetic exercise unless the Secretary of State is willing to ensure that the majority of shares go to people who have staked their lives in the electricity industry, rather than to big business, which happens to have the capital to put into shares but which has no real long-term interest in the industry?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the rest of the nation should make a present of something up to £10 billion to the 131,000 people who work in the industry. It is a national asset. The employees receive a proper wage and salary, but we want them to have the chance to have a stake in the industry and we intend to ensure that they do.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply on this matter. Has he given any thought to setting up employee share ownership plans trusts—ESOPS trusts—as part of the offer for sale of the companies as a way of ensuring that employee share ownership is ongoing?

That is a possibility that has been put to us. I have not taken a final decision nor have the companies, but we are slightly dubious about collective ownership in this case. We believe that, initially, the employees should become individual shareholders in their own right.

Rather than just giving the employees a stake in the industry if it must be privatised, why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the opportunity, while the Bill goes through the House, to enable them to have a say in the industry by making provisions for employee participation at board level on the various boards? The right hon. Gentleman could do that and he could ensure that the employees are allowed to elect their own representatives on to those boards.

We do not believe that trade union representation is necessarily the same as representation by the labour force. We do not believe in the institutionalised representation of the work force on the board. We want individual members of the work force to have shareholdings, to go to the AGM and to use their votes to vote on to the board directors of their choice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of emissions of Co₂ by the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations in 1970 and 1987; and what was the amount of electricity supplied in the same years.

CEGB emissions of carbon dioxide in 1970 and 1987 were 184 million tonnes and 182 million tonnes respectively. Over the same period electricity supplies by the CEGB rose by 23 per cent.; The amount of Co₂ emitted by the CEGB per unit of electricity production has fallen over the period by 20 per cent.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the CEGB has no plans to increase emissions of carbon dioxide by 25 per cent., as rumoured in some quarters?

Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance. A number of predictions have been made about future Co₂ emissions, but they depend upon what assumptions are made about demand or the future make-up of electricity generation. For instance, a continuing switch from coal to gas or an increase in nuclear power will reduce Co₂ levels considerably.

Surely the best way of reducing Co₂ is by conservation, by alternative energy means and by ensuring that we can green our cities and plant trees on derelict land to fix the Co₂2 in the biomass.

As we discussed earlier, undoubtedly one way to reduce CO₂ emissions is to engage in conservation measures. We certainly intend that that should be the case. Our main policy to combat CO₂ emissions however, has been to encourage a variety of non-CO₂ emitting fuels, such as nuclear and renewables and reduced CO₂ emitting fuels such as gas and clean coal technologies. Since the Opposition oppose most of those measures, especially nuclear power, it is fair to ask them what they propose to do about it.

In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, can my hon. Friend confirm the rumour that the Government are, after all, to introduce amendments in the other place to the Electricity Bill to strengthen the obligations to improve energy efficiency and to provide incentives for the production of electricity combined with the marketing of the heat?

My hon. Friend has been pressing the case for combined heat and power for many years and with increasing effect. He will know that a number of measures associated with the Bill greatly improve the chances of CHP and will particularly ensure that it has a fair and even playing field in comparison with other forms of electricity. That is the only assurance—it is a good one—that I can give my hon. Friend about the terms of the Bill.

Some 10 days ago a seminar was held at 10 Downing street on the greenhouse effect. Can the Minister or the Secretary of State confirm that if the Government chose to use the argument that the only way to hold back the greenhouse effect is to switch to nuclear power, 24 nuclear power stations would have to be built by the year 2020—something the British planning process could not possibly provide? Do they agree that it is shocking that when the alternative proposal, supported by most scientific and technical opinion—that energy conservation is a far better way to hold back the greenhouse effect—needs to be pressed on the Prime Minister Jimmy Goldsmith, a friendly neighbourhood billionaire, must be called in and asked to use his influence with the Prime Minister, rather than the Secretary of State?

The hon. Gentleman answered his own question about the planning constraints involved in the construction of 24 nuclear power stations. We envisage that there will be four new PWRs and that each one, with a capacity of 1·2 GW, will reduce CO₂ emissions by about 6 million tonnes per year, or about 3 per cent. of the total emissions. That is pretty good.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there seems to be a notion about that if a Labour Government come to power, coal will be burnt extensively without any adverse effect on the atmosphere? Will he confirm that 1 million tonnes of coal burnt will produce 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, whether a Conservative or Labour Government are in power, and that chemistry is impartial in terms of politics?

My hon. Friend's logic is impeccable as, I am sure, are his figures. Certainly, the logical implication of the Labour party's policy is that, for the foreseeable future, it intends to base the entirety of our energy on coal technology. That will have a grave impact on CO₂, emissions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has plans to increase the size of its nuclear power programme.

No, Sir.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is apparently determined to rely entirely on nuclear power in the future to combat the greenhouse effect, would it not be more realistic to start installing flue scrubbers in coal-fired power stations such as Fiddler's Ferry as an additional weapon in our fight against the greenhouse effect?

At the end of last week, the Prime Minister repeated the Government's position, which is that we wish to see four PWRs built to replace the Magnox stations that will be phased out between now and the year 2000. The Prime Minister also said—and it is a remark that I have repeatedly made in the House—that she believes that the argument is gradually turning in favour of nuclear power. Therefore, that number may turn out to be the minimum, but the Government's present plans envisage four PWRs being built.

Oh, a minimum?

I have said that before, too. The hon. Gentleman should listen occasionally. The first orders have been placed for Drax and we are committed to a reduction of 60 per cent. in sulphur dioxide emissions by the year 2003. That will mean more retrofitting and it is for the CEGB and its successor companies to decide which stations will be retrofitted.

In view of my right hon. Friend's previous and excellent answer, what specific measures is the Central Electricity Generating Board taking to ensure that the existing, advanced gas-cooled reactors give the maximum output?

A Labour Government originally ordered them and we have presided over their development. Therefore, it should be encouraging to all hon. Members to know that at long last the AGRs appear to be working better. Last year was their best year for production. Torness and Heysham B have every possibility of being successful, therefore, good progress is being made.

Has the Department made any real assessment of the cost to the consumer of its programme of nuclear energy? Is the Secretary of State aware that Torness, which came on stream in Scotland on Saturday, led to £2 billion debts for the South of Scotland electricity board which, along with the servicing of that debt, will pass on to the consumer a bill of about £170 per year? Does the Secretary of State accept that nuclear energy is unwelcome to the population, and that Saturday was an example of the great white empress opening a great white elephant?

I congratulate the hon. Lady on thinking up that well-thought-out remark so spontaneously. We believe that nuclear power has justified its existence in this country on at least three occasions in the past 15 years: during the oil price explosions and during the miners' strike. I did not notice the critics of nuclear power complaining that their lights came on even though the NUM did its best to turn them off. There is a price to be paid for security, and we are prepared to pay it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most dangerous things we can do when judging the greenhouse effect and its policy implications is to oversimplify the whole matter? If world reductions of carbon dioxide are to be achieved in the amounts that science suggests, we shall need every contribution we can get, not only from energy conservation and efficiency and a reduction of demand for electricity, but from nuclear power, too.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one suggests that nuclear power is an alternative to conservation or that we should stop conservation. No one suggests that there is only one answer.

If the Secretary of State has no plans to increase nuclear power, is he happy that his diversity argument will also be used now about foreign coal? The question that we asked earlier is important. We understand that negotiations are going on for 15 million tonnes of foreign coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department happy that that should take place in the next two months—yes or no?

I am not in a position to settle the negotiations between the CEGB and British Coal; they are going on now. Opposition Members do not realise that they are being used by proponents of one side of the argument to prevent proper negotiations from taking place. We have given the two sides permission to negotiate freely and we have made it clear that we shall not dragoon them. We have also put the British coal industry into a better position in which to compete than ever before and we believe that, based on its recent performance, it will get most of the business. We do not accept that British Coal can find customers only if they are dragooned into buying from it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members are talking a load of scientific nonsense and that it is high time that Labour Members learnt from Socialist France that nuclear power is a positive and effective way of generating electricity?

I cannot see why my hon. Friend felt it necessary to qualify his "nonsense" remark with the adjective "scientific".

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many offshore installations have shut down in the last 12 months; and what was the total loss of production of (a) oil and (b) gas.

Seventeen million tonnes of oil production has been deferred, not lost, as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster and other accidents in the past year. Apart from Piper Alpha, the operators expect the majority of fields currently out of production to be back on stream by the end of this month and the remainder by September. The loss, or deferment, of gas production was minimal; the total capacity of the North sea and Morecambe hay remained well in excess of demand.

That is an appalling record. Does not the Minister think it ironic that the Tern Eider field is being opened almost as we speak, yet these fields are being shut down because of the closure of the Brent pipeline system? Given the serious consequences of these failures of safety —the loss of life and the effect on the economy—does he accept now that safety in the North sea is far too important to be left to the Department of Energy?

That exciting list of statements led nowhere, but it allowed the hon. Gentleman to run one of his favourite hobby horses at the end, which was interesting. No one could draw his conclusion. Until the day after Piper Alpha, not a single Labour Member had ever asked me a question about North sea safety, and I was never asked about the better performance of Norway, for the simple reason that its record until that time was a great deal worse than ours.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Health and Safety Executive and Commission have a pretty good record of work generally? That being so, why, after all these incidents, does he resist so strongly extending their powers properly to cover this whole area?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that our present arrangements were the direct result of a study by the Burgoyne committee set up by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That committee reported to us and recommended the arrangements that we now have. The arrangements were put in place as a result of the study by an independent committee. We have already made it clear that if Lord Cullen of Ashbourne feels that he wishes to make any comments on those arrangements and to express a view about seeing them changed, we shall be happy to consider it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the accidents in the North sea bring home to consumers the question of interruptible supplies of gas. Will he consider suggesting to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that if we are to retain a horticultural industry the increase in gas prices as a result of the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report should be looked at again? Will he have discussions about that matter with the chairman of British Gas?

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, my Department has no standing in this matter. It is now a matter between British Gas, the regulator and the Department of Trade and Industry which is responsible for consumer affairs.

Who is responsible?

Not the hon. Gentleman, thank God. I note what my hon. Friend has said and I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Will the Secretary of State consider that the Burgoyne report was issued 14 years ago? The Labour Energy Minister at the time decided not to bring energy and oil work within the scope of the Health and Safety Commission. That was a long time ago, and in view of the accidents that have taken place, is the Secretary of State saying that he is completely happy with the arrangement made following Burgoyne? Would it not be better to think again?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that Burgoyne was 10 years later than he suggests. The arrangements have not been in place since 1971. I think they have been in place since 1981. We have already made it clear that we are not interested in defending the status quo. We are interested in North sea safety. Lord Cullen is looking at the whole background to the Piper Alpha disaster, and if he makes any recommendations we shall take them very seriously indeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is currently available to his Department on low-temperature nuclear fusion.

Different groups of scientists claim to have observed nuclear fusion in simple apparatus at room temperature. Experiments are under way by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and in laboratories and universities worldwide, to reproduce and understand the effects that have been reported.

Will my hon. Friend consider diverting some of the huge amounts of Government money that are spent on research into high-temperature fusion into low-temperature or cold fusion, on the understanding that although there is no clear result yet, any such result would unlock a source of energy which would be vastly cheaper, safer and more usable for future generations than the present nuclear fusion?

We have yet fully to assess the findings of Professors Pons and Fleischman. However, I understand that early attempts to reproduce any form of nuclear reaction have been disappointing. Some explanations suggest that the two scientists created a chemical rather than a nuclear reaction. Scientists at Harwell have yet to give their conclusions on the matter and until they do it is difficult for me to argue that any extra resources should be diverted to this research project.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many nuclear power stations he envisages being decommissioned in the next five years; and what provision is being made for the eventual demolition and disposal of the constituent parts.

Decommissioning of nuclear power stations is an operational matter for the CEGB. The board makes appropriate provision for decommissioning in its annual accounts. This amounted to £568 million at 31 March 1988.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, inevitably, when power stations are decommissioned there is radioactive waste, and that it is only logical that Conservative Members who support nuclear energy should also support the creation of repositories for nuclear waste? So that new orders can be placed for further power stations, will my hon. Friend ensure that a site for a repository is found quickly, so that it can be built without any undue delay?

Like my hon. Friend, we recognise the need for progress to be made in the development of a repository, but I am sure that he will agree that this must be on the basis of a proper assessment of the safety and environmental factors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed on 21 March that the Government have accepted Nirex's recommendations that the repository should be in the form of a mine under the land, and that further investigation should be carried on at Sellafield and Dounreay. This work is expected to take about 18 months to complete and until then, Nirex will not be in a position to submit proposals or to seek the necessary approvals through the normal planning procedures.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions since his appointment he has answered oral questions in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

By the time that I have finished this sentence, two.

Should the Chancellor be abolished as obsolete, or would he prefer more questions to be addressed to him—for example, questions about the appointment of magistrates to enforce the poll tax? will not his JP appointee be making large sums out of the poll tax while clipping the wages and benefits of, and perhaps sending to prison, people who will lose hundreds of thousands of pounds? Is not the best way forward the abolition of both the Chancellor's post and the poll tax?

I am not sure that I would welcome more questions like that one. I would welcome any assistance that the hon. Gentleman cares to give me in fulfilling my duty and my clear purpose in ensuring a fair and balanced administration of justice, and in appointing magistrates, in the areas for which I am responsible.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is very jealous of his Duchy. Can he explain to the House how it is that the European Community has acquired competence over the quality of water in Blackpool? I should have thought that this was a matter for the people of Blackpool, if they want to secure a decent tourism trade, or, if not, for this House. Could my hon. Friend tell the House how we are to get that competence back?

I should perhaps first make it clear that it is not my Duchy but that of Her Majesty the Queen, who is also the Duke of Lancaster. As to the quality of water, I would regard my interest as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as being the same as that of anyone concerned with any other part of the country, which is to ensure a high quality of water. That is the aim of the Government's policies.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many women are employed by the Church Commissioners.

There are 139 women on the Church Commissioners' staff.

Is there not scope for women to serve the Church in other ways? Is it not high time that a decision was made over women priests, especially as women are effective preachers and are likely to be even more conscientious than men in their pastoral duties?

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's championing of the cause of women in the Church of England ministry. He will know that there are already about 500 women deacons in post in the Church of England, and they do marvellous work. However, the ordination of women measure is unlikely to come before the General Synod until 1992, which will be after the next General Synod is elected in 1990.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is (a) the salary of the highest paid official employed by the Church Commissioners. (b) the average per capita salary of employees and (c) the average clerical stipend.

The highest salary paid to a full-time officer of the Church Commissioners is currently £50,600, equivalent to Civil Service grade 2. The average salary of the Commissioners' 350 full-time employees is £14,800 and the average stipend of clergy of incumbent status in the Church of England is £8,900 plus largely tax-free benefits in kind averaging around £5,750.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is some inequity? Bearing in mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury is paid £31,870 and the Bishop of Durham £22,745, plus palace—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too much."' Some of my colleagues say, "Too much." Will my right hon. Friend undertake to persuade the Church Commissioners to examine these matters with a view to considering whether they are using their assets equitably and fairly, bearing in mind that the parishes alone will pay the new general secretary of the Synod £50,000? What about setting up advice centres for bishops such as the Bishop of Aston, who has fallen on his nose in a rather tragic way while trying to organise a visit for Archbishop Tutu? Should not the Bishop of Aston have help arid could not the commissioners provide such help?

My hon. Friend must keep these matters in reasonable proportion. It costs about £400 million a year to keep the Church of England running. That sum is largely contributed by people from the parishes, as well as past donors and benefactors. The scale of renumeration for the top administrators, either in the General Synod or the Church Commissioners, is not out of scale given the extent of their responsibilities and the budget that they have to administer.

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

The Commission last met on 6 December when, as I have previously informed the House, the main business was consideration of the estimates of the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office for 1989–90. The House may wish to know that the Commission's next meeting will be held tomorrow.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the request of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office is examining the Government's advertising expenditure and the abuse or use of money to further the Government's aims. I now read in the newspapers that the National Audit Office is considering an advertising campaign to polish up its own image. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the National Audit Office campaign is better value for money for the public than the current Government campaign?

I cannot comment on the Government's publicity. I understand that the National Audit Office has recently engaged the services of consultants to give advice on its external communications strategy, especially to assist in its recruitment effort in a highly competitive market. If I may say so, it is essential that the National Audit Office should be able to call upon good and qualified staff in the same way that every other major organisations can.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he or the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee receives any communication from whatever quarter suggesting a matter for inquiry by the National Audit Office, or making allegations of fraud, corruption, bribery or anything else, it is absolutely the standard practice on receipt of such communications for them to be referred directly to the NAO? Does my hon. Friend agree that when The Observer attaches such great importance to allegations sent by a senior privy councillor to the NAO about commissions paid as part of the Tornado contract, it wildly exaggerates the significance of something that the Chairman of the PAC does with every allegation of this sort that he receives?

I can only confirm that all serious matters concerned with fraud and allegations of that sort are referred to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have no knowledge of the specific matters that my hon. Friend has mentioned and they would seem to be more matters for the Chairman of the PAC.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask that the issue of articles that appear in The Observer relating to the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee be placed on the agenda of the Commission? Is he aware that The Observer has fabricated articles about the proceedings of our Committee? It has been warned that what it is saying is inaccurate yet it has persisted in printing. Even as late—

Order. Is this a matter for the PAC or the Commission?

The Commission, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the credibility of the Committee.

I do not like to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that the Public Accounts Commission deals with very mundane matters such as salaries, terms and conditions of the staff of the National Audit Office, and so on, whereas the exciting things go on in the Public Accounts Committee of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is Chairman, and who is in a better position to answer such questions than I am.

Subsequent to the second question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), does my right hon. Friend agree that if by spending money on advertising the sale of privatisation share issues, the price of those issues is increased by more than the cost of the advertising, that is good marketing? If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is against marketing, why does he sport that wretched red rose all the time?

Such matters are far outside the very mundane considerations with which the Public Accounts Commission has to deal. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House heard my hon. Friend's question and will answer it in due course.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many private Members' Bills presented (a) as a result of a Member being in the first 20 in the ballot for private Members' Bills and (b) behind the Chair have been enacted in each of the past five Sessions; what were the figures for 1979–80 and 1969–70; and if he will make a statement.

As the full answer is in the form of a table and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report. I would add, however, that in each of the Sessions mentioned in the question the number of private Members' ballot Bills enacted has exceeded the number enacted following introduction under Standing Order No. 58.

Has not the time come to devolve more power to the Back Benchers of this House, bearing in mind that there are about 4,000 laws on the statute book, almost exclusively contributed—if that is the right word—by the Government? In particular, could the private Members' Bill procedure be more open, and would my right hon. Friend support the requirement that those right hon. and hon. Members who object to private Members' Bills stand in their place and say "I object" loud and clear?

Procedural changes such as my hon. Friend suggests are for the Select Committee on Procedure to examine and it is not for me to make off-the-cuff suggestions at the Dispatch Box. Objection at 2.30 pm on Friday, which is contentious, is objection to a Bill being given a Second Reading without debate. That point is significant and should be borne in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more private Members' Bills would stand a chance of progressing on to the statute book if non-contentious, non-party-political Bills having all-party support—such as the Control of Litter (Fines) Bill—were not objected to on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is a member of a political party that says it cares about the environment?

Yes. I appreciate my hon. Friend's disappointment, but the procedures are well known to right hon. and hon. Members, many of whom accept that no one should object if a Bill dealing with a contentious matter is opposed at 2·30 pm on a Friday, when its principles have not been debated. However, I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would be supportive of any measures to tackle the problems of litter—as are the Government, subject of course to consideration of their practicalities.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the bulk of Bills to which objection is made from a sedentary position every Friday are objected to by a Government Whip who is deployed to do that—usually the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that it would be better if right hon. and hon. Members were required to rise and declare their identity when objecting to a Bill?

The hon. Gentleman seeks to squeeze in a party point where there is no party point to be made.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) did so.

That is right, but I expect the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to be different from that of right hon. and hon. Members who are disappointed that their own Bills will not pass. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the procedure for objecting to Bills under the present Government is exactly the same as it was under the Labour Government.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he now has any plans to recommend changes to the private Bill procedures; and if he will make a statement.

We had a useful debate on this subject on 20 April, during which I said that the views expressed would require detailed and considered reflection. As a result I will be considering with the usual channels and others the scope for an agreed package of procedural changes which might be brought forward in time for the next Session.

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is recognised on both sides of the House that there is now widespread abuse of private Bill procedure to get through legislation that would otherwise fall foul of planning laws and inquiries at local government level? In some instances, junkets are being arranged. Members of Parliament—on one occasion, many Tory Members—are called upon to vote and then go to a beanfeast. Almost the entire Cabinet went into the Lobby to support the Associated British Ports (No. 2) and North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bills, including the Prime Minister, who turned up in her carpet slippers at 10 o'clock.

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers, but, having done so, he should have read the correction that appeared a few days later.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the case of a private Bill to be introduced reasonably soon, there is considerable disquiet at the possibility of compulsory purchase procedures being used for the purchase of more land than the proposers strictly need? There is a danger of that land being sold on at a profit, when any profit rightly belongs to those whose land has been compulsorily expropriated. When he considers private Bill procedures, will my right hon. Friend take that carefully into account?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but the Bill that he has in mind will probably be debated at length and he will no doubt make his point then.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the debate to which he referred revealed widespread agreement on both sides of the House about three matters: first, that a private Bill's preamble must be approved; secondly, that it must not raise issues relating to public policy and purpose; and, thirdly, that preliminary proceedings of an appropriate kind should be completed before the Bill is presented?

I agree with part, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already said that. I will consider those matters. I agree that there have been instances of promoters trying it on, but that is not to say that I think that the private Bill procedure should never deal with planning matters. When statutory changes are to be made, it seems to me sensible that some planning matters associated with them should be dealt with at the same time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private Bill procedure is more democratic than any planning inquiry? Does he consider it significant that Opposition Members wish to give up powers and cede influence to planning inspectors?

I would not like to draw a comparison, but those who say that the private Bill procedure is necessarily less fair than a planning inquiry are selling the private Bill procedure short. I believe that by and large it does a very good job.

Since it seems to be part of the right hon. Gentleman's original complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) turned up a little late on one of these occasions, could he not arrange that we would never start private Members' business without my hon. Friend being given the chance to be here to assist in the proceedings?

That is one of the most constructive suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has made in the House for a long time.

Surely the Lord President agrees that in the case of the Felixstowe dock Bill the whole thing was a fix. The promoters of the Bill were very large contributors to the Tory party. The Member of Parliament for the area was then the chairman of the Tory party. The champagne reception at the end was quite clearly organised as a treat for those who supported the Bill. Surely the Lord President agrees that our Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure said that there was widespread abuse of the system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out. Apart from any other consideration, objectors to Bills are at a grave disadvantage compared with the promoters. Furthermore, the taxpayer is losing vast sums of money. The promoters are being charged only a very small amount of money for bringing their Bills before the House instead of the £10,000 that each promoter should be paying, as recommended by the Committee.

To take the hon. Lady's last point, which is the only point on which I agree with her, the charges need to be looked at. That is one of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. I reject entirely her other suggestion. One of the reasons for the Select Committee's report was that it was inconvenient for certain hon. Members to serve on Private Bill Committees. That presented us with a problem. I think that the hon. Lady knows about the point to which I refer.