Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to set a date for the privatisation of the electricity industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the restructuring of the electricity supply industry to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

The Government intend to implement the new structure of the industry at the end of March 1990 and to complete its privatisation within this Parliament; the area boards will be offered for sale in autumn 1990 and the two generating companies will be offered for sale in the first half of 1991.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new-found enthusiasm for the mixed economy, but I warn him that he still has some way to go. Does he agree that the decision to abandon the privatisation of nuclear power should have been taken 12 months ago by his predecessor, and that if it had been, he would not have been left with this shambles?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—[Interruption.] It is not very far. If the decision had been taken before I would not have been involved in dealing with the matter when I arrived. However, it was not until the late summer and the beginning of autumn that the terms which the private sector wanted for the privatisation of nuclear power became apparent and those terms, as I reported to the House on Thursday, I was unable to recommend.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the statute under which he exercises his responsibilities, which was passed by the coalition Government in April 1945, requires him to be personally responsible for promoting economy and efficiency in the supply of energy? Will he now institute a public inquiry into how it was that successive chairmen of the generating board misled successive Secretaries of State on the true costs of nuclear power, at a cost to the taxpayers and electricity consumers of many billions of pounds? In those circumstances does he think it right that Lord Marshall should be compensated when he leaves the generating board?

I do not believe that an inquiry is necessary. The principal concerns about the price of nuclear power arose because of the high capital charges and the return on investment and not so much, as some have suggested, because of the decommissioning costs and fuel service charges. I believe that those concerns arose, as I told the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) a few moments ago, in the summer of this year—that was why I was faced with a difficult decision.

Now that nuclear power is excluded from the privatisation is there not an overwhelming case for adjusting the imbalance between National Power and PowerGen to create a more competitive climate among producers?

I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that a competitive market is developing and the proposals that I have made will ensure fair competition between the generators, whatever their size, especially the independent generators which will strongly enter the market. To change the allocation of stations at this stage would risk failing to complete privatisation in this Parliament and that would not be in the consumers' interests.

Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement last Thursday, like the 13th chime of the clock, cast doubt on all that had gone before? Is it not true that no one believes any of the figures quoted by his Department in furtherance of privatisation? Does he agree that it would be better, particularly as the Government are blaming the advisers and the generating board for those figures, if the Government published a White Paper spelling out all the advice that they have received on costs and prices and projections of costs and prices for oil, coal and nuclear power stations? Would not that permit rational discussion of what is happening and some rational decisions to be taken? In short, would it not be best if the Government came clean on figures?

One problem in the past has been that some of these costs have been hidden away and we have not fully realised what they are. We believe that by our creating an electricity generating industry that is highly competitive, the market will determine the best costs, and the Government will welcome the competition that follows.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the setting up of independent generation companies after the restructuring of the electricity supply industry.

There are approaching 20 independent projects in prospect, which will provide up to 15 per cent. of present capacity in England and Wales. The first new independent generating company to be established as a result of our privatisation proposals is Lakeland Power, which has just signed a contract with the North Western electricity board for 220 MW of gas-fired generation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that without the privatisation programme we might not have heard the true cost of nuclear power and that, therefore, good has come of it? Does he also accept that the rationale behind splitting the CEGB into only two companies—of which one, National Power, will produce 70 per cent. of the electricity—was nuclear power? As that rationale has now disappeared, does he agree that competition to keep down the cost of energy is most important and that there should be more than two generation companies, possibly four or five, so that people can see that privatisation is for the good of the consumer?

I agree with about three quarters of that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that competition is the force which will bring down costs. Of course, that competition is absent in the present structure in which the monopolist sets up the costs and passes them straight to the consumer. I part company with my hon. Friend when he says that to generate competition it is necessary further to sub-divide the two major companies. There will be a multiplicity of companies and company sizes and, as I said in my initial answer, we know of 20 independent projects coming to the market representing about 15 per cent. of present capacity. That means that there will be a multiplicity of competition.

Why is the Minister so confident about the cost of electricity when a document from his Department to the Cabinet said that, on privatisation, electricity prices would rise by 15 per cent. for domestic consumers and by 25 per cent. for industrial comsumers?

I shall not comment on leaked documents, and old documents at that. There is no doubt that the competitive pressures that will exist in the industry as a result of privatisation will put downward pressure on costs. As I said, a multiplicity of new projects have been proposed with cost structures considerably below those of the present industry. New types of generation, for instance gas-fired generation, are coming forward. They have much lower cost structures and that will have an effect on prices.

In view of the statement last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the future of the nuclear generating industry, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to promote more strongly and quickly the environmentally friendly mini-power stations to take advantage of the cheap coal that is produced in Nottinghamshire?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the Nottinghamshire UDM pits have been increasing their efficiency quite remarkably. They are now among the highest productivity pits in the country. If those pits continue to improve their present rate of productivity and increased efficiency, there will be a great future not only for Nottinghamshire but for the coal industry as a whole.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the oil industry and the gas producers have invested heavily with a view to entering the electricity generating market with a cleaner fuel—gas. Given the present shambles of electricity privatisation, what are the prospects for that investment proceeding?

That is a non-sequitur. The gas-fired generation proposals are made possible only because of privatisation and because of the competitive pressures that that will place on the industry. Far from its being a shambles, we are setting up a whole new structure that will remarkably increase the pace of competition in the industry and the downward pressure on costs. Those things will benefit the consumer.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the plan to place National Power's headquarters in Swindon and those of PowerGen in Birmingham. That will result in Europa house, a regional headquarters in Stockport, being phased out and 600 or 700 jobs being lost or relocated. When the new nuclear company is formed will my hon. Friend consider basing it in Stockport where there already is a dedicated, experienced and hard working staff—especially of women who cannot move elsewhere and who, if they were in the south, would be worth their weight in gold? The present plan is for a headquarters in the midlands and one in the south, and a headquarters in the north-west would be very welcome.

I know that my hon. Friend has been pressing me hard on behalf of his constituents, whose jobs are at risk. As to whether, under the new arrangements, a headquarters will be placed in his constituency, I cannot give him a definitive answer, but I am sure that his points have been noted.

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

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

Did the Secretary of State recently discuss the suggestion which appears to have been put to the Cabinet, that between 12,000 and 30,000 jobs will be lost in the coal industry over the next three or four years? Will he confirm that those job losses will have to be met by compulsory redundancies?

No, I did not discuss it in those terms. Coal contracts are a matter for commercial negotiations between the parties. Those are still in progress, and it will be for British Coal to decide what manpower it will require in the light of the tonnage that it can profitably produce and sell in competition with other fuels. I hope that it will get a large slice of the market.

When my right hon. Friend next talks to the chairman of British Coal, will he point out that although his announcement last week may not have been very good news for the nuclear industry, it is potentially extremely good news for the coal industry and for the future of new coal technologies? Will he point out that the coal industry has everything to gain from increasing its competitiveness and further intensifying its productivity?

The chairman of British Coal is a wise and experienced person, and I am sure that he has already taken those points on board. I have no doubt that when I see him again shortly, I shall discuss these matters. My hon. Friend is right—there is a good future for British Coal if it can produce coal at prices that meet those of the competition. I have every reason to believe that it can produce a substantial part of our basic fuel requirements.

Is the Minister aware that it would be disadvantageous for Britain if we became dependent on foreign coal supplies? Does he accept that a number of foreign coal suppliers are already prepared to sell coal to Britain at a price cheaper than that at which it is available in Europe? Is that not an extremely dangerous position, and one which he would do well to advise the country not to accept, as dependence on foreign coal is strategically unwise, and would become enconomically foolish?

Dependence upon any form of fuel would be unwise. We require a diversity of supply. As I said in a reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Thursday, British Coal must make itself competitive against not only imported coal but oil and natural gas. That is the challenge for it, and I am sure that it will rise to the occasion.

As there is likely to be a shortage of electricity in the late 1990s, particularly with the elimination of the three nuclear stations in the programme, how does my right hon. Friend propose to take up the shortfall? Has he discussed this with the chairman of British Coal?

I have satisfied myself that there will not be a capacity shortfall. Already, a substantial number of independent projects are coming forward. There is potential for life extension of some plant, and I am wholly confident that our privatisation proposals will ensure that capacity demands are met.

Given that, last week, the Secretary of State announced that the Government would protect the nuclear industry via the British taxpayer, is it fair that the British coal industry, which over the past four years has cut costs by 30 per cent., improved productivity by over 90 per cent. and suffered job losses of 140,000, should lose jobs because of the importation of foreign coal?

We are not protecting the nuclear industry in the sense that it will be cash-positive from the day that it is set up. The hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the industry, was less than fair in the way in which he put his supplementary question. He did not mention that the taxpayer has financed over £6·5 billion of investment and provided over £10 billion of grant since 1979. That shows an unrivalled commitment to the coal industry by the Government.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the environmental impact of fossil fuel power stations on our ecological system? Did he see "The Money Programme" on BBC2 last night, during which we were told that an American power station has been set up which is energy efficient and, as far as possible, emission proof? The cost of taking out the CO₂ has been passed over to a South American country in the form of a grant to plant millions of trees to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sensitive approach and one which should interest British Coal?

British Coal is well aware of the need to improve the environmental acceptability of coal as a fuel, as are the generating companies that will use the fuel. I have no doubt that British Coal will take note of what my hon. Friend said. I do not watch television very often. I feel like my right hon. and noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley: I seem to appear on television more than watch it these days.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board; and what matters they discussed.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board regularly and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the East Midlands electricity board, Mr. Harris, and the local manager for the area, Mr. Huddleston, are open, honest and above board? Why has a scandalous document been leaked from the Cabinet? It is all right for the Minister to say that everything is lovely in Nottinghamshire, but we want some honesty, not flannel. The document has the name of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) written all over it. We want some honesty at the Dispatch Box. What jobs will be protected in the Nottinghamshire area—the area that I represent?

The hon. Gentleman had a good week last week and I hope that he will not push his luck by going completely over the top this week. The substance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is why did the document leak. The answer is that I have no idea.

Is it not a fact that the East Midlands electricity board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Harris, is one of our most efficient electricity boards? Is that not because of its dependence primarily on coal? Can my hon. Friend reassure the board's members that it will be given every encouragement to produce a diversified electricity supply?

I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). The East Midlands electricity board is extremely efficient and a very good board. It relies largely on coal for its electricity. So far this year we have allowed £55 million worth of investment in the Nottinghamshire coal pits. Last year we allowed £73 million worth. With that investment and the increased productivity that the pits are showing, there should be a great future for coal from Nottinghamshire.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman the South of Scotland electricity board; and what matters were discussed.

I have met Mr. Miller informally.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Mr. Miller, almost single handedly, has attempted over the past two years to destroy the Scottish coal industry on the altar of buying cheap imported coal from South Africa, Colombia and elsewhere? Given his fetish for nuclear power, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what discussions he intends to have with Mr. Miller on who is to buy expensive ring-fenced nuclear power?

These are matters for discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, Mr. Miller is a very successful chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board. The nuclear industry in Scotland does not suffer from the same disadvantages of cost that were apparent in England.

While I am sure that Mr. Miller did not welcome the Secretary of State's announcement last week, I certainly welcome his rather belated rendezvous with reality. Will he be discussing with Mr. Miller and others responsible for the generation of electricity how the Government intend to plug the hole which must now appear in the Government's energy policy, having predicted 10 nuclear power stations in their 1979 manifesto? Will the right hon. Gentleman be increasing resources for the development of alternative fields, renewable resources and energy efficiency, and in particular reversing the cuts in his own energy efficiency office?

The biggest single step that any Government could take to improve energy efficiency is to complete the privatisation of the electricity supply industry because the efficient use of energy and the pressure on costs which that will produce will be the most beneficial effects of all. I am perfectly satisfied that there is sufficient capacity for the present and for the future. Substantial numbers of independent projects are coming forward and I believe that they will be highly competitive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what incentives there will be to develop renewable sources of energy after the reconstruction of the electricity industry.

Renewables will benefit from the non-fossil fuel obligation in general and in particular from the 600 MW of capacity that we have reserved exclusively for them. There are already clear signs that the obligation has provided a considerable encouragement to the development of renewables.

What steps are my hon. Friend and his Department taking to encourage the exploitation of landfill gas?

A lot is going on with regard to landfill gas. At the moment 30 landfill gas schemes are operational and a further 30 in the pipeline. Thirteen are generating electricity with a capacity of 16 MW. We expect them to generate 50 MW by 1992 and 150 to 175 MW by the year 2000. We are spending £1 million a year, and we have just produced a video explaining the considerable economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas.

Will the Minister report progress on the plans for the construction of wind generation stations, particularly in Wales? Do the Government intend to increase the megawatt reserve for renewable sources of energy?

So far as the non-fossil fuel obligation is concerned, we consider that the 600 MW special tranche is adequate at the moment. In future, the Secretary of State will have the power to increase that, should the need arise. Research into wind generation is a major item of expenditure. We are spending £4·5 million on wind development. We expect the wind farm in south Wales to be completed by 1990. There will be one in Cornwall in 1991 and one in the north-east by 1992. Those three experimental wind farms should be operational by those dates.

Is the Minister aware that the discovery of the cost of nuclear power did not happen last week or in the past year but has been pointed out at public inquiries into Sizewell B and elsewhere by environmentalists and those who are committed to renewable energy sources for at least a decade? Will the Minister invest the same amount of money in renewable energy sources as the Government and their predecessors have invested in their obsession with nuclear energy?

The two are totally non-comparable and are two different items of expenditure on research. We have said quite categorically that we shall spend on renewable research what is appropriate to developing that programme as fast as is practicable in terms of market application. We are spending more than ever before on renewables and the budget is rising.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal reasons for the privatisation programme was to enable different sources of energy to have the freedom to raise the capital that they needed in the market? Does he agree that the greatest incentive for renewable energy sources is that as a result of last Thursday's announcement they will find it much easier to raise money in the market?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. He rightly says that one of the advantages of privatisation and of the structure that we have set up for the industry is that it encourages renewable and other sources of energy. We have given renewable resources special protection. As there will no longer be 3 GW of PWR capacity, it will be filled by other sources, including renewables.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what response he will make to the general report on the Severn barrage project by the Severn barrage study group; and if he will make a statement.

Over the next two years, further work on the Severn barrage will be undertaken. This will include some site-specific environmental work and a study of the organisation and financing issues for a barrage.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at an estimated 5·5p per KW hour, tidal power electricity is not yet competitive, at least in the short-term, but is environmentally much more acceptable than electricity from coal, gas, oil or nuclear sources? As it has infinite life and no decommissioning costs, it could become much more competitive. Does he therefore agree that it is the sort of project that should attract public and private funds?

I half agree with my hon. Friend. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the greenhouse effect, but I hope that he will agree that further inquiries into the environmental impact of a project of this magnitude—it would be vast—should be made. An environmental impact statement, which would cost another £5 million or £10 million, would be necessary before any further decision to go ahead could be taken.

Does the Minister agree that if the CEGB and the Government had not successively deceived the public about the true cost of nuclear power we would already have a range of tidal barrages around our coast producing the cheapest electricity in the world, in the same way as the power station at La Rance in France is now doing? That distortion was described in the latest statement from National Power, which said that the only reason why it planned to invest in nuclear power was the Government's privatisation proposal and the obligations under that? Will he give an assurence that local authorities in Gwent and other areas will be compensated by the Government for the money that they spent opposing the PWRs at Hinckley point and Wylfa B, because it was entirely the Government's fault that they spent it?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that he heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier in Question Time about nuclear power.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to encourage further the insulation of homes, offices and factories to promote the conservation of energy.

The energy efficiency office will continue to encourage the adoption of improved insulation and other energy efficiency measures through its best practice programme and other initiatives.

Will my right hon. Friend give fresh consideration to the need to conserve energy by better insulation of local authority housing? Will he discuss that matter with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment'? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many tenants living in cold, damp homes would benefit considerably from better insulation and better conservation of energy? Does he agree that this matter should be kept under review and discussed by his Department and the Department of the Environment?

I assure my hon. Friend that discussions take place between the Secretaries of State for Energy and for the Environment about precisely the point that he raises. I refer my hon. Friend to the fact that community insulation projects have managed to do precisely what my hon. Friend would like for several hundred thousands households, most of which are in the public sector.

Does the Minister agree that his reply seeks to hide the total hypocrisy of the Government on energy efficiency? Does he agree that today's news that sales of energy efficiency products have fallen by 12 per cent. in the past year compared with the previous year shows how mistaken the Government's policy is on energy efficiency? Does he agree that it is similar to the divide in the Government's policy on nuclear power, which was praised to the skies by the Prime Minister last Wednesday, buried by the Secretary of State on Thursday and resurrected by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on Friday in the debate on global warming? Nobody knows what the Government's policy is any more.

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Government's position. If he had read the newspapers, he would be aware of references to energy efficiency on virtually every page of every newspaper. That is entirely thanks to the Government putting it at the top of the list of priorities some time ago. Our campaign has worked successfully. That is why hundreds of thousands of people take energy efficiency far more seriously than ever before.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the constituency of Hyndburn in the county palatine.

In my capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster I have no plans to visit Hyndburn at present.

That is a disappointing reply, although I realise that the last time my right hon. Friend accepted my invitation to visit Hyndburn it cost the Department for which he was then responsible a great deal of money. I ask him to reconsider his reply so that he can see how we spent the money that he allocated to us and how Government money has assisted us in creating new jobs and industry and attracting the Zeri project to Hyndburn, with 2,700 jobs in the pipeline. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that, in this new situation, services at Accrington Victoria hospital are not diminished?

As my hon. Friend well knows, I have visited Hyndburn in many capacities. I remember canvassing for him in the 1983 election, when we won the seat against the odds, and I remember supporting him in 1987. I look forward to supporting him in 1991 or 1992, when he will be returned again as the Member for Hyndburn. One reason why he will be returned is that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by some 56 per cent. over the past three years.

If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to go to Hyndburn, how would he explain to the people of Lancashire and Hyndburn the poll tax bills that they will have to pay, given that more than 70 per cent. of the people in the terraced houses in north-east Lancashire will lose considerably?

The hon. Gentleman should remember that in the first year of the community charge some £700 million will flow to those authorities in receipt of safety net money. In addition, £100 million will flow to those areas which have a low level of domestic rates and there will be £300 million in transitional relief. Many people in Lancashire will benefit from that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any responsibility for heraldry in the duchy.

I have no responsibility for heraldry.

That is a great pity, because a bunch of people are wandering around the country masquerading under the red rose of Lancashire and of St. George. Should not that scandalous state of affairs be reported to the College of Arms, which could then devise a legitimate heraldic device for the group in question—a windbag rampant, perhaps?

Many people in Lancashire bitterly resent the fact that the symbol of Lancashire, the red rose, has been hijacked by the Labour party. The red rose of Lancashire is a symbol of unity, not of division, so its use in that, way is a complete charade because the Labour party has not changed its policies. Its symbol remains the red flag, as was shown by the fact that 10 days ago Labour Members stood up in the Chamber and sang it.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last reviewed the level of economic activity on lands owned by the duchy.

The level of economic activity within the Duchy of Lancaster estate is under constant review.

My right hon. Friend will know from his assiduous attention to the economic activity within the county of Lancashire that that activity is under threat due to the irresponsible action by aerospace workers at the British Aerospace Strand road site in their misguided pursuit of a 35-hour week. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this action, which will ruin the productivity and competitiveness of one of Lancashire's most important industries?

I completely support my hon. Friend. With wage demands of that kind, one has to be aware of what will happen to the competitiveness of British industry, which has been improved enormously in the past 10 years in Lancashire, as elsewhere. In the north-west, there has been a 10·4 per cent. increase in the number of businesses since we have been in office, which has added to the prosperity of the north-west. I hope that that will not be weakened or threatened by such irresponsible claims.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average number of hours per week he spends on the business of the Duchy of Lancaster.

As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I spend up to one quarter of my time carrying out my duties as a member of the Government.

In view of the present turmoil of Tory politics, would it not be more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to spend more time on the affairs of the Duchy? Does he not consider it appropriate at this stage to pluck up the courage to stand for the leadership of the Tory party? He might even win, and thank me afterwards.

I looked carefully at all the questions asked of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over the past 10 years, and especially those asked of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he held the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster and also the chairmanship of the Tory party. I found that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked almost exactly the same question three years ago. He was saying that that we would not win the 1987 election, but we did. Now he is saying that we shall not win the next election, but we shall—not least because the hon. Gentleman has a very small majority and I look on the constituency of Walsall, North as a Tory gain.

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

The commission last met on 16 May when among the subjects discussed was a report by the National Audit Office auditors on accommodation arrangements at the NAO headquarters building.

Has the Chairman met Dr. Bill Jack, the new Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, and, if so, has he discussed with him the levels of staffing and remuneration for that office? Has he had a chance yet to look at the estimates from the Public Accounts Commission?

We have not yet had a chance to meet Dr. Jack since his appointment. However, we were able to meet him before then. On behalf of the House, I congratulate Dr. Jack on his appointment and also to pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Calvert, who bore the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Northern Ireland very well for nine years. The Public Accounts Commission expects to consider the estimates for next year on 12 December.

What steps is the Public Accounts Commission taking to ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions or impediments to the National Audit Office employing the best possible staff at all levels? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Comptroller and Auditor General in particular and his staff generally are paid the proper rate for the job?

The commission is satisfied that the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General are paid at competitive rates and also have the benefit of extra earnings for merit awards. I regret to say, however, that that is not the case for the Comptroller and Auditor General himself or for the Comptroller and Auditor General Northern Ireland. We have made representations on that to the Government and propose to do so again.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when last he visited the county palatine; and what were his official engagements there.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 2 November.

Has my right hon. Friend been able to assist some of the residents of the county palatine? Has he found, as I have found in my constituency, that although people are clear about the Government's defence policies, they are thoroughly confused about the Opposition's defence policies and wholly ignorant of those of the Social Democrats?

Order. Supplementary questions must have some relevance.

I am not at all surprised at that——

Order. That topic is way beyond the scope of the question.

When the Chancellor is next in Lancashire, will he consider the appointment of justices of the peace? Does he accept that justices of the peace in the whole of the area for which he is responsible show a preponderance of people from middle-class and Right-wing backgrounds, rather than a good balance across the community? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave a clear commitment in the House to ensure that more JPs came from working-class backgrounds within the area for which he was responsible. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that commitment is carried out?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism, because it is unfair. That aspect of my responsibilities is important. I presided at a magistrates meeting in the Wirral and I am anxious that people appointed to the honourable and important role of justice of the peace represent broad bands of society. I make every effort to ensure that that is the case, as do my advisers.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the cost to the Commissioners of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent visit to Rome.

The archbishop's expenses are reimbursed by the Church Commissioners on a quarterly basis. No claim has yet been made in respect of the period in question, but the archbishop's private office was kind enough to tell me informally, in advance of submitting a claim, that the cost was in the region of £8,500.

As one of the results of the archbishop's visit to Rome was to give comfort to those whose activities will cause schisms in the Church of England, will my right hon. Friend consider giving similar resources to those who oppose those activities?

My hon. Friend singles out just one of the matters that divide the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Many sections of the Church of England have expressed gratitude and received encouragement as a result of the archbishop's visit to the Pope.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to allow hon. Members to have the same facility as some outside organisations in receiving the televised picture of the Chamber in their own offices.

No, Sir.

The Lord President will be aware that more than 40 organisations outside the House will be able to receive the live television pictures, including South African television, Israeli television and Government Departments. At this very moment, Mr. Bernard Ingham—he who must be relayed—may well be receiving the television picture live. For all we know, he may be whispering into the Lord President's ear a startling and direct reply to my question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to extend the facility to hon. Members in their offices?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is essentially a matter not for me but for the House. Sound broadcasting access is accorded to several organisations outside the House and to certain Departments of State. It has been decided that the television feed should be similarly available to those organisations and people. The Select Committee on Broadcasting and subsequently the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House decided that no such facilities should be provided for hon. Members, save in the Lobbies. The reasons given were, first, that it would be expensive—perhaps not the most important reason—secondly, that it would be intrusive to hon. Members who share rooms and, thirdly and most importantly, that it would diminish the likelihood of hon. Members being present in the Chamber. The latter reason impressed the Select Committee and that is how the matter stands.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be a bad idea because, as my right hon. and learned Friend inferred, it would keep hon. Members away from the Chamber? The House has consistently avoided sound radio broadcasting of the proceedings in hon. Members' offices for just that reason. However, as hon. Members in various parts of the House will need to see what is happening in the Chamber, would it not be a good idea for my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss with the House authorities the provision of an adequate number of monitors in various locations?

I suspect that the provision of monitors may have the same effect, although on a smaller scale as provision in hon. Members' rooms. The Select Committee may consider the matter again in the future, but it was unanimous in recommending against provision of facilities beyond those currently available.

Will the Lord President of the Council keep an open mind on the matter? Why should we not review it at the end of the experimental period? Is it not rather curious that we are to provide the facility for people in the media and others—who, for all I know, may include press officers in Government Departments—but deny it to hon. Members? Can we not consider the matter again when the experiment is over?

Both the hon. Gentleman and I will have to keep an open mind because we serve on the Select Committee which will be reviewing developments in the months ahead. The matter was considered by the Select Committee, which reached a unanimous conclusion. The burden of proof in the opposite direction must therefore be discharged.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that if Sky Television provides full coverage of the House, as it intends to do, hon. Members will be able to provide facilities in their offices for themselves?

I am not sure that the technicalities would allow that. The matter would have to be considered by the Select Committee in the light of developments.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the fact that, from next Tuesday, the many organisations that will have access to our televised proceedings, will be able to witness the trivial banter that we have just heard, which is known as questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect on the question rota, bearing in mind the fact that we have to go through that exercise but have no opportunity to address questions to Scottish Law Officers?

I shall certainly consider that matter with the seriousness that it deserves, but I repudiate absolutely the allegation that viewers would be unimpressed by the splendid performance of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the circular reminding right hon. and hon. Members about the need to provide contracts of employment to the Fees Office in respect of staff to be issued.

The Accountant hopes to issue reminder letters to Members later this month.

Will the Lord President confirm that staff employed by hon. Members and paid by the Fees Office are supposed to have contracts of employment lodged with the Fees Office but that on 30 June this year only 709 of the 1,287 staff paid by the Fees Office and employed by hon. Members had such contracts lodged? That is simply not on. Hon. Members are not famed for being good employers and I hope that the Lord President will pursue the matter after the issue of the circular to make sure that the laggards toe the line and become decent employers.

The number of hon. Members who have complied is broadly in line with the figure given by the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the relevant resolution of the House passed on 21 July 1987 makes arrangements requiring a statement to be lodged by hon. Members who use the Fees Office to pay their staff. That followed the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body some time before. The fact that a reminder letter is to be issued later this month shows that the matter is being taken seriously.

The news that the Lord President has just given will be greeted with some concern. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the omissions include staff employed for longer than two or three years? If so, does he agree that that is all the more scandalous?

In general terms, the documents have been lodged more regularly on behalf of newly employed staff because both employer and employee have been made familiar with the requirement at the start of the contract period, whereas the obligation has not been complied with significantly in respect of longer-serving staff who may well have been accustomed to operating in a more informal world. That is the reason for the difference in the figures.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average annual expenditure of his office on press and public relations.

The Privy Council Office has no budget allocated specifically to press and public relations, and employs no press or information staff. A very small proportion of the office's staffing and administration costs arises from the handling of such matters but it could not be accurately quantified.

Does the Lord President consider that if he had more to spend on press and publicity he would be on a more equal footing with Mr. Ingham, who is increasingly being seen as the real deputy Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman is joining the modest band of those obsessed with that proposition. I invite him to repudiate his obsession.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will review the procedures for testing Division Bells.

No. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 24 October. I am not aware of any general concern over our current Division Bell testing procedure.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend see what he can do to avoid the disturbance created by testing the Division Bells at 9 o'clock every morning when hon. Members are at their desks trying to work and make telephone calls? What is the statistical justification for testing the Division Bells every day? Could not the engineers test them just as well at 2.30 pm as at 9 am?

The habit of testing the Division Bells by this physical means has been in place for a long time. It has been found to be convenient for that relatively unadvanced piece of technology. It seems to work satisfactorily and it does not disturb as many hon. Members at 9 am as it might later in the day. My hon. Friend is among a relatively small minority of hon. Members to be found on the premises complaining about the early testing of the alarm systems.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to improve facilities in the House for the Prime Minister's press secretary.

None, Sir.

As one of the House of Common's best remembered Law Officers, does the Lord President think it proper that we should give House room to a civil servant whom Leon Brittan tells us behaved totally improperly in the matter of the Law Officer's letter—unless, that is, the Prime Minister on 27 January did something which, were I to name it, would lead to my being suspended for 20 days?

The hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member who continues to have that particular obsession, although the House may be glad that it has replaced the Belgrano in his mind. I invite him to give up this obsession as decisively as he gave up the other.