To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the earliest year in which the nuclear levy could be abolished; and if he will make a statement.

I announced on 12 February that the initial non-fossil fuel obligation would be set for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. The fossil fuel levy will be required for at least the same period, although I expect the rate to decline significantly over that time.

How does the Secretary of State hope to reduce the subsidy, let alone abolish it? How will greater efficiency be introduced into the nuclear energy industry, which is secretive, bureaucratic, technically complex and highly dangerous? Will it be done by reducing safety standards?

First, it will not be achieved by a reduction in safety standards. Secondly, whatever may have been the practice in the past, the arrangements that we are bringing into force will be much more open, allowing for greater public scrutiny. Nuclear electricity is vital to ensure security of supply. As nuclear power still costs more than fossil power, the levy is needed so that the extra costs can be identified and fairly shared out.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that critics of the nuclear levy should bear it in mind that in the past, perhaps for very good reasons, coal has been subsidised? If subsidies were beneficial to that industry, is not a subsidy for the nuclear industry appropriate now?

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. The nuclear industry is required, properly, to pay the costs of disposing of its own waste, so it is not quite on a level playing field with other energy producers. It is important to make a proper comparison.

How does it benefit electricity consumers for the right hon. Gentleman to insist that nuclear power stations —the most expensive in the system —must run continually?

Anyone who knows about the electricity industry, as the hon. Gentleman does, will appreciate that nuclear power stations, being base load capacity, are more economic if run full time. The major part of the cost of a nuclear reactor is its capital cost rather than its running costs.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he included the nuclear levy in the price increases that he announced recently? With distribution and transmission costs varying across the country, will boards need to impose a range of electricity price increases in the future?

Yes, I can confirm that, as I announced recently in the House the average price increases for all customers will be below the rate of inflation and will include customers' contributions to the nuclear levy. My hon. Friend is right that there will be a variation in the prices levied by area boards, but that is a matter for them. Prices will vary from area to area, as they have in the past. Some boards have greater costs because their customers are few and far between and a large cable network is expensive. Other boards have a traditionally low rate of return and have further to catch up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the fossil fuel or nuclear levy in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

The rate of the levy will depend on the terms of the nuclear contracts. Those will ensure that the nuclear levy follows a declining profile. I therefore expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years.

In relation to contracts, is it true that the nominee directors of Nuclear Electric have been advised not to start trading as a plc until they have some guarantee from the Treasury about the costs of reprocessing and decommissioning?

That is not a correct statement of affairs. Any director of any company has to satisfy himself that the company conforms with all the requirements of the Companies Acts before it starts trading, and the nominee directors of Nuclear Electric are no exception. They will want to see that Nuclear Electric is set up on a proper basis, as I do. All will be revealed in due course.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in calculating those levies we must compare the cost of generation by nuclear power with the cost of coal or other fossil fuels? Nuclear power generation involves long-term costs, but we shall know the cost of coal generation only at the end of the three-year contracts with British Coal. When my right hon. Friend makes that comparison, will he take into account the cost of flue gas desulphurisation, during the next three years at least, and the possible cost of cheap coal from overseas, which is low in sulphur?

The question of which fuel the generators use to generate electricity and, in practice, which mix of fuels will be a matter for them at the end of the period. Obviously, there will be competition between British coal, gas and oil and imported coal. The Government are committed to the implementation of the European directive on desulphurisation, and they will ensure that the fossil fuel generators, when they are floated, will be able to meet their obligations under the directive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish a decision on whether the Mersey barrage will be constructed.

The Mersey Barrage Company's application for the non-fossil fuel obligation is under consideration by my Department.

I thank the Minister for his personal commitment to the project. Does he intend to include the barrage scheme in the non-fossil fuel obligation? When is a decision likely to be reached? Will he confirm that of all the candidates for barrage schemes, his Department's findings show that the best location would be the River Mersey?

To answer the hon. Gentleman's first point, he and the whole House will be pleased to hear that, under the non-fossil fuel obligation, about 300 applications have been handed by the distribution companies to my Department. A considerable amount of work remains to be done to discover which fit the criteria. The hon. Gentleman knows, because he came to see me in the Department, that I should like progress to be made on the Mersey barrage scheme. As for the difficulties of the scheme——

Mañana man.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is interested in the Mersey barrage. The difficulties are commercial and environmental, and they will have to be considered carefully.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that £1 million worth of clear, renewable electricity could be generated each week by the scheme? Would not it be a most valuable and important precursor to a Severn barrage?

I cannot confirm the precise amount to my hon. Friend, but it is certainly considerable. I am sure that, if it went ahead, the Mersey barrage would be a precursor to the Severn barrage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the potential for expanding the size of the United Kingdom fabrication capacity; and if he will make a statement.

Consideration of the potential for expansion of capacity in the fabrication industry is a matter for the private sector, and will depend on the commercial judgment of individual yard owners.

I thank the Minister for that opaque answer. There has been some discussion, at least in Scotland —as the Minister will know—about the number of fabrication yards and whether there is any possibility of expanding them. I am thinking in particular of the former Kishorn site in Wester Ross which went into receivership; there has been talk about its future.

As the hon. Gentleman will remember, it was only two years ago that he and other hon. Members who represent yards in the north and north-east of Scotland were coming to me and asking —understandably —where the work would come from. Now we are in a different position, with different challenges. It may be opaque to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the market place that decides.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage energy conservation in the home.

My Energy Efficiency Office continues to promote energy efficiency in the home through a number of programmes.

Many of my constituents, especially the residents of Hinckley, will welcome the new scheme for insulation in low-income homes. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to support the proposals when they come before the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Bill, and has he any proposals for advertising to encourage people to be more energy conservation-minded in the home?

Clause 10 of the Social Security Bill, which is being piloted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, is part of the grand design of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall give it every support that I can. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) knows, last week I issued a consultation paper; we are waiting to hear any ideas that he and no doubt many others may have.

As vice-chairman of the Conservative party, does the Minister believe that his Energy Efficiency Office is any more efficient than the Prime Minister's Office, whose costs have risen by 20·6 per cent?——

Order. That is well wide of the question. If the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the question on the Order Paper, I am sure that he will receive an answer.

Would not the Government set a much better example to those who should be saving energy in their homes if they were better at saving electricity costs by economising on lighting and heating? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, all over the country in public sector buildings lights are on at noon on bright days and that they are also far too hot? Will he do something about it?

My hon. Friend may not be aware that I chair a committee, at which a Minister from each Department is represented, whose aim is to achieve precisely those objectives. If he visited my Department, my hon. Friend would see energy-efficient lamp bulbs that use only one fifth of the electricity normally used by lights. I am sure that he would like other Departments to be shown that example.

As Chairman of the energy conservation committee which oversees all those Departments, will the Minister take a look at the figures relating to central heating in the Houses of Parliament? Every year that I have been a Member of Parliament, the organisations concerned have spent a small fortune every recess trying to get it right, and they have not succeeded yet. I should like to know how much the bills amount to: my guess is that the figure is well over £20 million.

The hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most prominent Members of the House will no doubt realise better than I that the House of Commons (Services) Committee will look into that matter. It is not a matter for a Government Department. Perhaps an approach by the hon. Gentleman and myself to the Committee —although an unholy alliance —might work. I shall consider every aspect of the cost of energy as far as it is within the province of this Department of state.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that according to well-informed opinion, PowerGen, National Power and the other generating companies could spend their money better if they subsidised home insulation instead of building more power stations?

My hon. Friend will realise that the electricity and gas industries are required, after privatisation, to provide energy efficiency advice. They were not required to give that advice when they were nationalised.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the area electricity boards; and what matters he expects to discuss.

I meet area board chairmen regularly to discuss various matters.

When the Secretary of State next meets the area board chairmen will he ask them whether they agree with John Bailey of National Power that domestic consumers should get through 1990–91 without an increase in domestic electricity rates? Or is it the case, in a newly privatised industry, of "Excused boots" during the fight against inflation?

I do not know the Mr. Bailey to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the electricity boards, will he impress on them that the greatest wish in the nation is for security of supply to keep the lights burning at home and the factories working? Will he also impress upon them that we must go for all options, whether they be coal, oil, gas or nuclear? All those options must be open to us if we are to keep the lights burning and the factories working.

My hon. Friend is right. Under the terms of the privatised electricity industry, there will be a legal obligation on area boards to offer terms to any customer. Under their licence conditions, they must have the capacity to meet any likely requirement. There will be substantial penalties if they do not meet those requirements.

I share the concern that people should be reasonably warm and that the wheels of industry should turn, but does the Secretary of State accept that the price of electricity should command more attention and priority than it seems to? In addition, when he meets the chairmen of the area boards, will he advise them that although the licence under which they will operate after privatisation may allow them to run funeral parlours and second-hand car showrooms, and other activities in the service sector which may be even less attractive, their overwhelming concern must be the maintenance of an electricity supply?

I have no doubt that the area chairmen require no lectures from me, or even from the hon. Gentleman, about their responsibilities. The area boards will be public limited companies of substantial local significance. They will be big employers in their areas and will have big responsibilities. In my opinion, they will be very well run and will be very good members of the community that they serve.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairmen of the boards, will he outline to them some of the plans for allowing employees in the industry to buy shares after privatisation, particularly in the north-west of England? When the water industry was privatised, over 90 per cent. of the employees took shares in it. My right hon. Friend can expect a willing and eager response from the people who live in my constituency. They want to involve themselves in this newly privatised industry.

Absolutely. We very much hope that a large number of the employees in the privatised companies will take advantage of the opportunity to have shares in their companies. The necessary arrangements will be announced in due course.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of the area boards, will he ask them whether they agree with John Baker, the chief executive-designate of National Power, that, in economic terms, there is no need for an increase in domestic electricity prices from 1 April? For the third year running, the Government are imposing an increase in domestic electricity prices at least twice what was requested by the industry. Are the Government jacking up electricity prices as a form of taxation, to use the price of fuel to encourage conservation —one might call it an insulated roof tax —or do they simply wish to increase the rate of return, which is not high enough for the Government's friends in the City?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The price of electricity must be determined at a price which is accepted and enables the industry to earn a reasonable rate of return.

Answer the question.

I will answer the hon. Gentleman. The rate of return that a privatised industry will earn will be slightly less than the 5 per cent. return on assets that would have been required under Labour party policy had the industry remained in the state sector. The deduction that any reasonable person could make is that the price of privatised electricity will be lower than it would have been under a Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of privatised power shows that investment is greater and prices are lower than they would have been had the industry stayed in the public sector?

The record is there for all to see. The electricity industry will be run more efficiently and I hope that investment will be better directed than it sometimes has been in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Grid Company; and what matters he expects to discuss.

My right hon. Friend and I meet and will continue to meet the chairman-designate of the National Grid Company from time to time to discuss a range of matters relevant to the company and the electricity industry as a whole.

Does not the incident at Hinkley B power station two weeks ago demonstrate that nuclear power stations are more vulnerable than conventional power stations because when storms affect the nearby grid lines, the entire station has to be tripped out? In the light of that, how can the Minister keep asserting that nuclear power stations guarantee security of supply?

Nothing happened at Hinkley B which was in any way untoward, and it is highly irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Nuclear electricity makes a significant contribution to diversity of power supplies in Britain and will continue to do so.

Will the Minister look into a matter that causes me some anxiety —the transmission of electricity across the country by high transmission lines on pylons which create an electric charge? Current research in the United States shows that when they go past housing estates they could be a hazard to people who live beneath them. I should like to think that there is no hazard, but I should be grateful if the Department would look into the matter.

If my hon. Friend will write to me on that I shall make sure that his anxieties are thoroughly investigated.

The Minister will be aware of the increasing concern at the number of gas burn generating schemes that have recently been announced. Will he raise the matter when he next meets the chairman, and in particular will he let us know whether the Government welcome the explosion in gas burn schemes? Is it part of a planned policy and has consideration been given to the effect that it is likely to have on other forms of electricity generation?

It is and always has been the policy of this Government —and, I think, of the Labour party when it was in government —that there should be diversity of electricity generation based on coal, gas and nuclear sources. I find it a little difficult to reconcile the hon. Gentleman's question with my meetings with the chairman of National Grid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the rate of improvement in energy efficiency since 1979 (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European countries.

Energy consumption in the United Kingdom is virtually unchanged since 1979, although our gross domestic product has risen by 20 per cent. The average reduction in the United Kingdom's energy intensity between 1979 and 1987 was 2·5 per cent., comparing favourably with the European average of 1·6 per cent.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging figures, but does he accept that continuing improvements in energy efficiency are the best means, if not the only means, of reconciling the needs of economic growth and of the maintenance and protection of our environment? Will he assure the House that, if possible, our relative improvement compared with other countries will be sustained in future years?

The simple answer is yes and yes. We believe that energy efficiency remains important, and we shall do all that we can to strive to ensure that we out-perform other countries.

In the light of that reply, will the Minister reconsider the regulations, under which assistance for district heating schemes can be obtained only by users of more than 25,000 therms of gas per year? Derwentside district council has made representations to the Minister on that because, having managed through energy conservation to reduce its consumption to less than 22,000 therms a year, it is losing grant aid and support for its schemes. Is that not a scandal, and does it not go against everything that the Government preach?

No, it is not a scandal. I am prepared to look at any scheme according to the rules laid down, but it certainly is not a scandal and it does not go against the need to continue our efforts to achieve energy efficiency, as demonstrated by the 300 applications under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest spurs to energy efficiency is an increase in the cost of energy? Does he agree that it is not entirely realistic to compare our energy efficiency record with that of our continental neighbours without also comparing the average cost of electricity? Does he further agree that the greatest barrier to energy efficiency is the low cost of electricity in this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend that international comparisons must take many factors into account, but neither he nor I would be popular with hon. Members if we advocated a policy of high energy costs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of oil and gas pipelines constructed in the United Kingdom continental shelf in each of the last five years.

In the years 1985 to 1989, the numbers of oil pipelines authorised for construction on the United Kingdom continental shelf were 28, 16, 10, 37 and 30. The corresponding figures for gas pipelines were 29, 18, 15, 24 and 30.

I am sure that the Minister shares our concern for the future of British Steel. What action is he taking to promote its involvement in the construction of those pipelines and to increase the British contribution to them?

I want British Steel to be as successful as the hon. Gentleman does. A significant number of pipelines have been approved in the past five years. Subject to being able to predict the future, we expect as many approvals in the next five years. That offers a significant market opportunity for British Steel which I hope that it will take.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what reports from PowerGen he has received about energy-saving proposals.

I have received no specific reports from PowerGen about energy-saving proposals, but I am aware of its interest in the subject.

I am disappointed. Perhaps my hon. Friend has not seen recent press reports on PowerGen's suggested initiative to save energy by insulating existing properties and factories rather than building new power stations. Perhaps he will evaluate that proposition, make public his findings and also publicise the benefits of insulating existing housing rather than concentrating simply on new build.

If PowerGen is considering energy-saving proposals, that is entirely a matter for the company to decide. I applaud the company's business acumen in investigating the potential of energy efficiency. Everyone must have an interest in using energy as efficiently as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement his Department has given to the development of landfill gas schemes.

My Department took the lead in exploring the potential of landfill gas and has spent some £2 million on research, development and demonstration projects to encourage its exploitation as a fuel.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pouring rubbish into large excavations in the fields owned by the London Brick Company and in other parts of the country will result in a great advantage to the environment? Is he aware that, although this source will contribute greatly to electricity production, a hazard exists and if houses are built on the sites, strict regulations, which I believe already exist, must be observed to ensure that they are protected?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the significant advantages to be gained from landfill gas. I am delighted that about 50 of the 300 non-fossil fuel obligation applications relate to landfill gas. I agree that the correct regulations must be taken into account both when the gas is used and afterwards.

Although, on the face of it, this seems an unlikely energy source, is it used overseas for useful purposes?

In short, yes. I will provide my hon. Friend with the detail if he wishes.

Does the Minister accept that the putrefaction processes involved in the generation of gas in landfill sites lead to considerable contamination of groundwater in many sites? In conjunction with the projects that his Department runs, will he ask the Department of the Environment to consider the impact of landfill sites on the general environment?

The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the environmental aspects of landfill gas. That is why it is important to carry out a great deal of research and development. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would welcome the initiatives that have been taken, not least because such projects involve recycling and contribute greatly to tackling the greenhouse effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had with the officers of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and what matters were discussed.

I have met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and we discussed a number of issues affecting the coal industry.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, at that meeting, the leaders of the UDM and the right hon. Gentleman discussed the possibility that if the Tories were re-elected they would introduce privatisation arrangements for British Coal and money would be laundered to the UDM not only to set up companies in advance to buy into British Coal but to use taxpayers' money in the form of actual cash or of departmental expertise? Given the press comments to that effect, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House that no taxpayers' money has been handed over in any form to the UDM and will not be handed over in the event of privatisation?

I know of no taxpayers' money that has been handed over to the UDM. The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that he knows what went on at my meeting with the president of the UDM. It was a very interesting meeting and I told him about the Government's position on coal privatisation. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I will repeat what I said. I said that the Government were committed to privatising the coal industry in the next Parliament but had not determined the best way for that to be done. I said that I would welcome the president's suggestions of what he thought would be the best way for it to be done and I await his suggestions in due course.

When my right hon. Friend met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, did he discuss the fact that as British Coal is the largest power supply user in the country —the environmentally friendly mini-power station at Bilsthorpe —will be subject to the nuclear levy?

Negotiations about that power station are still in progress. The levy is paid by consumers of electricity and not by power stations and is based on an order that has been presented to the House.

When the right hon. Gentleman met officials of the UDM, was he candid and frank with them? Did he tell them that if the Government continue to pursue their policies there will be a correspondingly large contraction of coal mining in the Nottinghamshire area as he has already intimated that the Government propose to give the go-ahead to the import of low-sulphur coal and as desulphurisation has a lower priority on his Department's agenda?

I do not think that that matter was raised when I spoke to the president of the UDM. Had it been raised, I should have confirmed that the Government are fully committed to the European directive, so there has been no change in that policy. I should also have mentioned that, in accordance with the policies of our predecessors, the Government do not seek to restrict the importation of coal.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the community charge on the revenues from his properties in Lancashire.

The community charge will have no effect upon revenue from Duchy property in Lancashire.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Duchy residents are suffering the worst case of pillage since the Viking era in the unnecessarily high community charge that they will have to bear as a result of overspending by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council? Does my right hon. Friend agree that their position could be helped if the county council adopted the Conservative group's suggestion of a charge £60 less than that proposed by Labour? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Conservative group on its initiative?

I was in Lancashire on Friday and I met many people who were angry with Lancashire county council, whose expenditure has risen by 17½ per cent. —a massive £123 million —with the result that the community charge figure will be very high. If the rating system had continued, the rates in Lancashire would have risen by 32 per cent. this year. I warmly congratulate the Conservative group on Lancashire county council on advancing proposals setting out in detail how they would reduce the community charge by £60 per person in a full year.

Is not the fixing of budgets for the education of our children, the care of elderly people, the provision of social services and the meeting of housing needs far too important a matter to be affected by arm-twisting, bullying and intimidation from the chairman of the Conservative party? Whatever happened to the concept of the poll tax bringing more accountability to local government? That idea seem to have gone out of the window now that Ministers and the chairman of the Tory party have been ringing up leaders of authorities to threaten them. Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seen the denunciation by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy of the fictitious figures used by the Prime Minister in the House last week to manipulate public opinion? As he is talking about the effect of high poll tax figures, why does he not deal with the situation in his own county of Surrey?

Order. The question is about Lancashire.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman compare Lancashire with Surrey? Working is 56 per cent. above the Government figure, Fareham 49 per cent., Eastleigh in Hampshire 48 per cent. and Dover in Kent 48 per cent. What is he telling his Tory constituents in Mole Valley?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman the difference between a Conservative-controlled authority and a Labour-controlled authority and I have not been ringing up the obvious Conservative councils. A Conservative authority looks for value for money and tries to find ways to reduce the community charge whereas a Labour authority looks for ways to increase expenditure. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to raise these questions. He is the author —the sole author, as I understand it —of the roof tax and local income tax. My constituents in Mole Valley want to know what they would pay under the Cunningham roof tax and local income tax. The hon. Gentleman announced his proposals with a great flourish of trumpets last year, but the shadow Cabinet panicked when it saw them and he was told to say nothing more about them. The Labour party will have to come clean by 3 May about its alternative to the community charge. It would be fundamentally dishonest for the Labour party to campaign without a specific alternative as electors would not know how they would be affected. If by 3 May the electors do not know how they will be affected, the Labour party will have been cynical, dishonest and hypocritical.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy's properties in York.

I plan to visit York on 1 May, although not in my capacity as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

In anticipation of my right hon. Friend's next visit to York, will he note the buoyant state of the economy there and that it is enjoying an unprecedented decline in unemployment in line with the national trend? Will he confirm that that is in stark contrast with the years when York, like the rest of the nation, was unfortunately under a Socialist administration?

I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In the past year unemployment in Yorkshire has fallen by a fifth and in the past three years it has fallen by half. That will be welcomed by both sides of the House. I commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI who in November 1989 said:

"Business in the region is in much better shape to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond than anyone would have dared forecast at the beginning of this decade."

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on his recent correspondence with the hon. Member for Bolsover on insurance contributions paid by employees.

This is not a matter for the Public Accounts Commission strictly. I can confirm what I told the hon. Gentleman in correspondence. The Comptroller and Auditor General has significant doubts about the effectiveness of controls exercised by the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue acting on its behalf to ensure that employers have properly calculated and paid all contributions due to the national insurance fund. As a result, he has qualified his certificate for the 1988–89 national insurance fund account which is due to be published early in March. He has also told me that he intends to carry out a major study of this area, which would examine whether the Department's mechanisms for ensuring that contributions have been received from the maximum number of eligible persons operate in an economic and effective way.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Comptroller and Auditor General that we are pleased that the investigation is going ahead? Will he also tell him to be aware that some companies say that they employ only a small number of people when in fact they have a larger number on the books?

The Comptroller and Auditor General is examining the system of controls at the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. There is no evidence from his investigations to show that there is widespread abuse. If any such evidence comes to light, the Comptroller and Auditor General will report it to the House and I have no doubt that it will be examined by the Public Accounts Committee.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 99·9 per cent. of British companies collect national insurance contributions and pay them to the Treasury in the proper way? Does he further agree that unscrupulous companies should be rooted out, booted out and taken to court?

I do not know what the proportion is, but I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

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

As I informed the House in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 15 January, the Commission last met on 12 December 1989. Among the subjects discussed at that meeting were the estimates for the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office for 1990–91, and the corporate plan for the National Audit Office to 1994–95.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one reason why the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to discover and investigate scandals such as the national insurance scandal is that he has, and must maintain, adequate levels of staff? Will he make every effort to ensure that the wage levels paid in the National Audit Office are at least comparable with, if not better than, those paid in the private sector so that the multi-million and possibly billion-pound scandals that have come to light will continue to be revealed to the House?

Recruitment to the National Audit Office is proceeding well and the Comptroller and Auditor General is quite satisfied with that.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when the Commission last met it had before it the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the House of Commons Refreshment Department? That report highlights the fact that the Refreshment Department has almost £2 million in reserve, yet it pays some of the lowest wages in the country to those employed in the Dining Rooms of the House. Is that not a matter——

Order. I am not sure that that is a matter for the Public Accounts Commission.

It is a Commission report. Why cannot I ask my question without interruption?

These questions relate to the Public Accounts Commission, not the House of Commons Commission.

It is a Commission report.

I read the National Audit Office annual report with great care, but I can remember nothing about the kitchen committee's report in it. No doubt it is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will wish to raise with his right hon. Friends.

To ask the Lord President of the Council over the last 12 months how many European Economic Commission directives emanating form the Commission were considered by the House before and after 10 o'clock; and how many were not considered by the House at all.

All the legislative proposals issued by the European Commission are considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation, which decides whether to recommend them for debate. Including non-legislative documents, 751 EEC documents were deposited in Parliament in 1989. A total of 96 documents were debated—32 before 10 pm, 40 after 10 pm, and 24 in Standing Committee.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a major democratic problem when floods of legislation affecting all our constituencies pour out of Brussels but in many cases are not fully discussed by the House of Commons? Should not further action be taken to ensure that legislation affecting our constituents is properly discussed in the House before decisions are made in Brussels? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the worst solution of all would be to refer that flood of legislation to tame Committees?

My hon. Friend must understand that delegated legislation, national or international, has long been a feature of parliamentary government, particularly unitary parliamentary government such as our own.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the significance of many of the documents, particularly many of the 90 that we discussed last year, is becoming much greater? Does he therefore agree in principle with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that it would he better for the Select Committee on European Legislation to be able to put those important documents in a wider context? Does he agree with analogy that the EC Scrutiny Committee already has binoculars at its eyes but is asking the House to give it radar?

Of course the Government attach importance to continuing proper scrutiny of legislation of this kind. That is why we are studying closely the recommendations of the Procedure Committee report, which found that the scrutiny machinery of this Parliament was at least as effective as that of any other member state. It is right that we should give detailed consideration to the Committee's report with a view to early implementation of any changes that the House agrees are necessary.

As we get closer to the EC, which is entirely desirable in most respects, would not it ensure that a higher political priority were given to such important scrutiny if the power to initiate legislation came from Ministers rather than from the European Commission? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that would he a much better way to run the EC?

My hon. Friend will understand that the process whereby legislation takes shape depends on the relationship between the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The Commission often takes on board proposals from various member states or Ministers. Those proposals, wherever they originate, are carefully considered by the Council before being subjected to consideration by the European Parliament as well as by national Parliaments.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to meet Members of Parliaments of Warsaw pact countries to discuss parliamentary and democratic procedures.

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been a huge increase in contacts with parliamentarians and others in eastern Europe following the dramatic and most welcome developments there in the past few months. Naturally I have played a full part in that and I look forward to maintaining such contacts.

How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to those parliamentarians that while their countries are, we hope, beginning to establish the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, in Britain the Tory Government have taken away the right of many people working in local government to stand for election in another local authority, to stand for election to Parliament or to take part in any political activity? How can he justify his action of six years ago, when he took away the right of people to belong to a trade union if they happened to be working at GCHQ? Is it not odd that while east European countries are heading towards democracy, our democratic process is being undermined?

The oddity is entirely in the hon. Gentleman's perception. The decisions taken by the Government in relation to trade union membership at GCHQ have been tested and upheld in many places. The decisions taken about the relationship between local government membership and party-political representation were strongly debated in this House and further debated in the other place. The conclusion that emerged was the result of proper consideration in both Houses of a democratic Parliament.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that people emerging from a Socialist paradise in the East are unlikely to want lessons on parliamentary democracy from Socialists in the West?

I have noticed that they tend to look toward the Government for instruction in these matters.

Following the announcement last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs that funding would be available to political parties in this House which they would be able to make available to parties in eastern Europe, can the Leader of the House say how much money will be available? Bearing in mind that elections are already under way in eastern Europe, will he give us the timetable? Are the organisations that the Government have in mind similar to foundations such as the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the FriedrichNaumann-Stiftung in West Germany?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that such help is being given in a number of different ways, ranging from the Inter-Parliamentary Union to the Great Britain/East Europe centre; a know-how fund for Poland and other countries is also available. I will put the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a good idea for people from eastern Europe to explain both to Socialists in this House and to the British public why they are getting rid of nationalisation, high taxation and a bureaucratic state and looking towards the British Government's privatisation policies as the way forward for a free society?

I think that Conservative Members are certainly of one mind with my hon. Friend. The process of privatisation has been undertaken not just in eastern Europe but in countries around the world, following the example set by the Government of this country.

Welcome though the contacts with developing democracies in eastern Europe will be, will the Leader of the House say whether his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have advised the new democratic Governments to introduce more than 50 Acts of Parliament taking away powers from the local level and giving them to Ministers? Have they been advised to abolish the existing councils for their capital cities? How many requests has the Leader of the House had from eastern European Governments about the advantages of introducing a poll tax in their countries?

One cannot but admire the one-track nature of the hon. Gentleman's mind. Certainly, one of the proposals that we commend to democratic countries in eastern Europe is for a sensible pattern of local government taxation such as exists in this country.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the washing of hon. and right hon. Members' cars in the Members' car park.

Following representations by the staff side of the House of Commons Whitley committee, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has confirmed that attendants in the underground car park may, by private arrangement, wash Members' cars out of duty hours.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but is he aware that the valuable freedom of hon. Members to have their cars washed at their own expense in the Members' car park has recently been substantially curtailed? Knowing how extremely valuable and highly regarded that facility is, will he look into the matter again to see whether it is possible to make it easier rather than more difficult for Membersto have their cars washed?

My hon. Friend will understand that the matter was considered, no doubt with the detailed attention that it deserves, by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee on 19 February. Its conclusion was arrived at on the basis that the service to which my hon. Friend refers is a voluntary service undertaken by private arrangement out of duty hours. It has been agreed by the authorities on that basis and will continue as such.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward propals to amalgamate the catering departments of the Houses of Lords and Commons; and if he will make a statement.

I have no such plans.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there could be savings in amalgamating the Refreshment Departments of the House of Lords and the House of Commons and that it would he beneficial as well as convivial for Members of both Houses to meet over meals? Does he agree that Members of this House would enjoy going to sit on the long benches in the House of Lords Dining Room, as much as the Lords would enjoy coming to the House of Commons Cafeteria?

I am not so familiar as my hon. Friend obviously is with the wide range of facilities available in the other place.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be.

That is a pleasure to which many hon. Members from both sides of the House can look forward in the distant future. There are no doubt sensible reasons for considering a higher degree of co-operation between the catering Departments at both ends of the Palace of Westminster. However, historical and constitutional separations make that process of co-operation more than usually difficult.