To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's assessment of the effect of privatisation on price rises in the electricity industry.

I believe that the competition created by privatisation will bring benefits to all electricity consumers both in the price and in the quality of service.

Does the Minister agree that, now that inflation is climbing towards 10 per cent. and is likely to go even higher, although the price index that he has concocted will mean higher profits for the few, it will mean increased prices for domestic and industrial consumers, particularly in deprived areas such as Merseyside?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Customers consuming more than 1 MW are already benefiting from competition in the market and many have negotiated large price reductions. For those who need more time to negotiate longer-term arrangements, the industry has offered a real terms price freeze this year. For customers consuming less than 1 MW, the average increase this year will be about 9 per cent., but the price controls on the industry should prevent any further real increase until at least April 1993. That is good news for those consumers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whereas privatisation usually brings down prices through competition, when new environmental protection mea-sures are to be introduced, they will incur extra costs, and the public must realise that they will add to prices?

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes some very sound points. Of course, competition will be of benefit to the customer and the consumer. It will be for the generators to determine how best to meet the European Community large plant directive, but the capital costs of flue gas desulphurisation will be taken into account in setting the capital structures of National Power and PowerGen.

Will the Minister confirm that, if a distribution company loses trade to other generators that supply power direct, its domestic consumers will find themselves making up the difference? Is not that why, under the new scheme, the Merseyside and north Wales company will be entitled in future to impose price increases of 2·5 per cent. above inflation?

Price increases vary among the different companies, as they have in the past, reflecting the fact that they have different costs and earn different rates of return. Of course, it will be for the director general to monitor and enforce the licence conditions. The Opposition would do better to refrain from any comment on electricity prices, because during the last five years of the Labour Government, in real terms industrial prices rose by 1 per cent. and domestic prices by a staggering 22 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State far Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the coal industry.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer these two questions together.

When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal, will he discuss stocks at power stations? Is he aware that, under the privatisation legislation and the office of fuel security code, the equivalent of three months' worth of coal stocks would have to be kept by a small power station whereas the same does not apply to oil and gas? Surely that cannot be right according to the hon. Gentleman's ideas of fair competition. It means that the market is rigged against coal. When the hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Coal, will he make it clear that coal will not be treated adversely compared with oil and gas and other forms of fuel. Otherwise coal will carry a handicap that it does not deserve.

I should have made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

The man's thick.

Order. Mr. Cummings.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he tell him of the worries and frustrations of the miners and community of the Easington district, which he visited 10 days ago, about the 40,000 tonnes of imported low-sulphur coal that arrived in Hartlepool a week before his visit?

Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask only one question; otherwise he is not being fair to his colleagues.

Will the Minister give those miners some support and reassure them about the future of Easington colliery?

I welcomed my recent opportunity to visit East Durham coalfield and Easington colliery in particular. It seemed to me that, if Easington colliery continued to be productive, it had a sound future.

I hope that that response has demonstrated to the House what happens if— [Interruption.] It was not the Minister's fault. He was asked a number of questions. It would help if hon. Members asked single questions.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he review with him the achievements of British Coal Enterprise, which, in the past five years, has created 1,640 jobs on sites no longer used by British Coal? In particular, will he congratulate the chairman of British Coal Enterprise on the success of Carcroft enterprise park where 60 companies now employ 500 people—more than were employed when British Coal was pursuing activities there five years ago?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only the week before last I had the opportunity to see for myself the work of British Coal Enterprise and its projects in Blyth valley and Newcastle. Through a whole host of schemes, British Coal Enterprise has helped to create several new jobs in areas that previously had coal mining industries. It is important to bear in mind the fact that coal mining is an extractive industry. Ever since the last war capacity in coal mining areas has been closing and the largest closures took place under the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970. So what British Coal Enterprise is doing is extremely constructive, in trying to ensure that new jobs replace those that may be lost in the coal industry.

Although British Coal has undoubtedly made enormous strides over the past few years and deserves to look forward to a stable future, I am concerned about that future for the east midlands. I am concerned that some of our major power stations may use gas or imported coal to meet existing and future environmental standards. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us some assurances about that?

There is a question later on the Order Paper about flue gas desulphurisation. However, it might be helpful if I try to deal with my hon. Friend's question on that subject now. It must be borne in mind that under the European Community large plant directive there are three target dates: 1993, 1998 and 2003. We know how much coal British Coal will send to the generators in 1993 because that is part of the coal contracts that have already been entered into and that is a firm contractual commitment. Under that contractual commitment, British Coal has nothing to fear from gas or imported coal because we know the amount that will be used in 1993.

How can the Minister justify importing low-sulphur coal, which has a total foreign currency content, at a time when the Government are cutting investment in the scrubbing plant that would reduce pollution from coal produced in this country? Is the Minister aware that if Common Market regulations on sulphur emissions are applied by the end of the century, the coal import bill could be getting on for £2 billion a year against a background of an appalling balance of payments deficit? That would also freeze underground Britain's greatest natural resource.

It is not the Government's policy to prevent coal users from purchasing coal from the source of their choice. However, as I have already explained, only 2·4 per cent. of coal used by power stations is imported. Restricting competition from other coal will not bring long-term security to the British coal industry. The best protection is to produce reliable supplies that are competitive in the world market.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of how much power was generated from waste incineration and landfill gas schemes in 1989.

Power generation capacity from waste incineration and landfill gas schemes during 1989 has been estimated at about 36 MW. Of that total, nearly 20 MW was from waste incineration and 16 MW from landfill gas schemes.

In view of the contribution that methane gas makes to the greenhouse effect, is not it vital that that gas is harnessed whenever possible for the generation of power? In that regard, is not the Government's policy on ring-fencing renewables within the non-fossil fuel obligation welcomed by environmentalists and electricity consumers alike and likely to lead to an even greater use of landfill gas schemes in future?

The non-fossil fuel obligation, and its renewable aspect is very important. Our estimate for landfill gas schemes is that the capacity will increase to 60 MW by 1992 and to between 150 MW and 175 MW by the end of the century.

I want the Minister to listen carefully. I agree with incinerating waste for energy purposes, but the Minister must seriously consider cancelling the landfill business because it creates a time bomb for many areas. The Minister knows what I am talking about. I hope that the Department of Energy will take my points on board, with a view to stopping that process.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully—I could hardly do otherwise. However, he and I must agree to disagree on this matter because the production of landfill gas is a useful way of generating electricity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much his Department is investing in the development of renewable sources of energy.

Energy paper 55 sets out a 10-year programme of research and development worth £360 million with costs shared between Government and industry. This year, my Department expects to spend just over £20 million on renewable energy research.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. None the less, does he agree that in the medium term, renewable sources of energy will still constitute only a small percentage of our total energy needs and that the further development of other energy sources, such as nuclear power, which is so important to the north-west, should go ahead?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of nuclear power. As I, too, come from the north-west, I know how dependent we are up there on the nuclear industry. However, the necessary development and research into renewables is the right course to take.

As the Minister will be aware, on 28 March the EC agreed to a package of aid for this country to the tune of about £2·5 billion to cover our present and future liabilities for the nuclear industry. What sort of package did the Government aim for with regard to renewable sources of energy? Is it of the same order, and if so, what sort of projects will it cover?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my reply to the original question when I talked about £360 million of further research and development, shared between Government and industry. The obvious renewable energy sources will be considered, such as wind, wave and landfill gas production.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in preparing the coal industry for privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

The coal market is being progressively opened up to greater competition. Privatisation of the coal industry is a matter for the next Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that with the closure of 90 pits, and a work force that is halving but with output remaining the same—mainly because of the 75 per cent. increase in productivity—the coal industry is moving inevitably towards privatisation? Does he further agree that the people of Great Britain will ask the Labour party time and again why it did not condemn the miners' strike in 1984–85? Is not it now apparent that the union leaders took Libyan blood money when they should have been looking after the interests of their members?

It remains the Government's firm intention to introduce legislation in the next Parliament to return British Coal's mining activities to the private sector. The way in which British Coal returns to the private sector will, to a certain extent, depend on the increases in productivity that the coal mining industry makes in the meantime. The activities of the National Union of Mineworkers during the strike are a matter for which the leadership will have to answer to its members. The future of the coal industry depends on it increasing its productivity. I believe that the industry has the investment and the technology and, more importantly, that it has the men with the skills, to make that possible.

Is the Minister aware that some of my hon. Friends will think that he was less than candid when he told us that there were no plans for privatising the coal industry? Does he accept that some of us think that plans for privatising the coal industry have already been made? Is he aware that there is great concern about the code of practice and the regulations governing safety in the mining industry and that there is little consultation between all the unions involved? The Minister should know that the Department of Energy has a joint consultative role when deciding on safety measures in the coal industry.

Obviously, I did not make myself clear enough, so for the avoidance of any doubt let me make it quite clear that when the Conservative party wins the next general election, it will privatise the coal industry. Let there be no doubt about that. But let there also be no doubt that Conservative Members are as committed to safety in the coal industry as is the hon. Gentleman, and safety in the coal industry is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that some of the best privatised industries have been formed as a result of workers' buy-outs? Therefore, will he assure the House that when British Coal is privatised after the next election, he will welcome offers from the National Union of Mineworkers to run the industry, as it seems to think that it knows better than British Coal?

As I have made clear, once we have won the next general election, we shall consider how to take forward our proposals to privatise the industry. Clearly, employee participation is one factor that it will be important to consider.

Where are the Government's policies?

The hon. Gentleman asks where our policies are. Our policy is clearly that we intend to privatise the coal industry. That is clearer than the Labour party's policies on energy generally. If The Sunday Correspondent is to be believed, even such detailed policies as the Labour party has had on energy are now being abandoned as too turgid.

The Minister seems to be giving a display of the old English proverb: When Blackadder is away, Baldrick will play. Will he give serious thought to the fact that coal privatisation has just been put back five years, in part because of the abandonment of the qualifying industrial users schemes, by which large, intensive electricity users were able to buy some of their marginal coal at cheaper world prices? One of the beneficiaries of that practice was Brymbo steelworks, the closure of which was announced this morning, with the loss of about 1,000 jobs in the Wrexham area and of roughly the equivalent of the output of one medium-sized coal mine. That will impose a considerable additional burden on all domestic electricity users in the Merseyside and north Wales area, who will have to pick up the tab for the 200 MW worth of lost electricity sales in that district. Will the Minister confirm that one of the effects of the abandonment of the qualifying industrial users schemes for large coal users has been that users such as the sadly departed Brymbo steelworks expect a rise of 60 per cent. in three years in the price that they will pay for their industrial electricity?

The proposals to privatise the coal industry have not been set back by one day. The previous Secretary of State made a clear commitment to privatise the coal industry in the first half of the next Parliament. He made that commitment in November 1988——

That was the historic pledge.

As the hon. Gentleman says, the historic pledge. That commitment to privatise the coal industry was restated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a reply on 30 April this year, and again when he was in Nottingham earlier this month. Let me make it clear, because it seems that Opposition Members have not understood it: when we win the next general election, the Conservative Government will privatise the coal industry. That will happen during the lifetime of the next Parliament, and not one day has been lost in that commitment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the growth in oil and gas production in the south of England and in the English channel.

Production of oil and gas from onshore fields, most of which comes from southern England, has increased by about 85 per cent. since 1985. The current level is expected to increase fourfold when full production from the second stage onshore development at Wytch farm starts later this year. There are no fields currently in production in the English channel.

Will my right hon. Friend assure visitors to Purbeck in my constituency of Dorset, South that when they come to that area, the site of the largest oil and gas field in the European Community, they will have the greatest ease in finding red squirrels, abundant wildlife and beautiful views, and find it almost impossible to see any sign of British Petroleum's oil extraction? Will he further reassure my constituents and visitors that, with the oilfield's expansion, his Department, in partnership with BP, will ensure that that excellent record continues?

I have been one of those visitors. I visited Wytch farm about two years ago and I was extremely impressed by the tremendous care that it takes of the environment. It goes into consultation in minute detail, and I have no doubt that for future stages it will consider everything that it hears and that the environment will in no sense suffer.

Is the Minister aware that there is just as much concern about transportation as about production of oil in the English channel? Will he have urgent talks with his colleagues in the Department of Transport to make sure that there is much better control of ships sailing under flags of convenience? Such a ship appears to have been involved in the spillage of 1,000 tonnes of crude oil in the channel over the weekend. Is he satisfied that the marine pollution control unit is doing its job properly and as quickly as possible? Above all, is he satisfied that the oil producer, or at least the transporter, will pay for the clean-up, not the poll tax payers in the coastal resorts of southern England?

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the marine pollution control unit which led me to believe that the unit and all those involved in it are very professional.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the completion of the flue gas desulphurisation programme; and if he will make a statement.

Together with other measures, the 8 GW of flue gas desulphurisation retrofits that my right hon. Friend announced last month will enable National Power and PowerGen to achieve the reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions that are required by the European Community large combustion plant directive by 1998.

As late as last November the Prime Minister said that we were keen to get rid of our "dirty man of Europe" tag and were therefore committed to a 12,000 MW flue gas desulphurisation programme. That has now been reduced to 8,000 MW. Why is that? Is it because there is a commitment to import low-sulphur coal through ports such as those on the Humber? Why are private electricity companies given standards lower than those previously agreed with the nationalised industries?

The hon. Gentleman is genuinely confused. I make it clear that the Government are determined to meet in full the European Community large plant combustion directive. The 8 GW retrofitting that has already been announced enables this country to meet in full the 1998 target. In terms of the 2003 target, the generators have not ruled out the prospect of further FGD retrofitting, but no decision needs to be taken in the immediate future for a target date that is about 13 years hence, not least because we hope that there will be continuing improvements in clean coal technology.

What does my hon. Friend expect to be the cost of extending the principle of FGD to all coal-fired capacity in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that that would make coal a more economic method of producing power?

It is straightforward. This country is determined to meet the European Community large plant combustion directive. The Environmental Protection Bill will contain powers to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution can oversee the generators to make sure that they comply with the directive. It is for the generators to decide how to comply with it. The 8 GW of FGD already announced will enable National Power and PowerGen to achieve the necessary reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions that are required by the target date of 1998.

Will the Minister answer a simple question? Why have the Government brought down the target for retrofitting FGD in Britain, designed to meet the targets agreed with EC, from 12 GW to 8 GW? What are the implications of the importation of lower-sulphur coal for our balance of payments and jobs in the mining industry? Why have the Government stood by while 49 collieries have been closed that could have supplied lower-sulphur coal to the market?

I again make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have not reduced the amount of retrofitting to take place in the industry. The position is straightforward. The Government and the country will meet the EC large plant combustion directive in full. How that directive is met will be the responsibility of the generators and they will have a legal and statutory obligation to do so. The 8 GW of retrofitting already announced by National Power and PowerGen will enable them to meet the 1988 target in full. With regard to the 2003 target, they have not ruled out the prospect of further retrofitting, but it is not necessary now to make decisions on a target date some 13 years hence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the prospects for increasing competition in the supply of gas.

I am pleased to see early signs that competition is beginning to emerge in the supply of natural gas and I am confident that this trend will continue.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that the price of gas to industrial consumers has fallen" and that the price to the domestic consumer has also fallen if one does not take into account the rate of inflation, is a direct result of competition? Does he agree that the more competition increases the more likely we are to have lower prices?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Competition has played an important part, as have the policies that the Government have pursued. That contrasts with what happened under the previous Labour Government; during their five years in office, prices increased substantially.

One method that the Government are using to increase competition in the gas industry is the diversion of gas supplies to electricity generation. As there are genuine fears that that diversion will lead to increased costs for domestic consumers and an increase in the already large import bill of 15 million tonnes of gas in equivalent terms, is that method under review? Surely such a review is necessary given the two major difficulties that the Government face—inflation and our balance of trade problems.

I do not agree with the premise on which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. Gas is being used because it is extremely competitive; it happens to be environmentally good, too.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he expects to attend future meetings of the European Community Council of Energy Ministers for discussions on energy saving and anti-pollution measures.

My right hon. Friend expects to attend on 21 May the Energy Council which will consider the Commission's communication on energy and the environment, which covers energy saving.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Although, in future, energy saving will be more voluntary while anti-pollution measures are more compulsory, does my right hon. Friend agree that a package of such measures should be associated with the creation of the single market as well as the more commercial things to be done by the Department of Trade and Industry? When does my right hon. Friend believe that we shall catch up not only with the Community average on energy saving and anti-pollution measures, but with the best examples in Germany and elsewhere?

I agree with my hon. Friend that energy saving and anti-pollution measures are not just Community matters, but worldwide ones. Therefore, it is important that Community members agree among themselves the best and most effective way ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the lead we take on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a 11 to this end, is the proper way to go about things because of their global nature.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the impact of the proposed closure of Blaenant colliery on the coal industry.

I have received no representations on this matter.

Now that the closure is inevitable, which does not seem to worry the Prime Minister as she regards Welsh people as "a load of old tripe"—her words, not mine—will the hon. Gentleman say what future the coal industry has in south Wales? What is the future of the Aberthaw power station, since the industry and the power station are dependent upon coal from Blaenant for blending?

It is for the coal industry to decide its manpower requirements in the light of the tonnage that it can properly produce and sell in competition with other fuels. Decisions on the future of individual pits are taken by British Coal only after exhaustive review with the work force and the unions. I understand that Blaenant coal has a low volatile content and needs blending with coal from other sources to bring it to the required specification. The power station at Aberthaw can be supplied with such coal from other mines in south Wales.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on staffing levels in the Crown courts.

Staffing levels in the Crown court are kept under review in the light of workload trends.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that the heavy turnover of staff in Crown court offices is unacceptable? Does not he recognise that that is partly due to the reduction in the more senior management posts which have made a career in the Crown court unattractive?

I recognise the problem, particularly in London and parts of the south-east. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the cause, and it is worth remembering that the burden on the Crown court is down, with the number of cases committed for trial decreasing from 104,000 last year to 100,000 in the year just ended. Furthermore, the Crown prosecution service has taken on the job of drafting indictments. Obviously the career structure as a whole within the Government legal service is important.

Of course, this is not the easiest time for the Treasury, but will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the excellent reforms, transferring work from the High Court to the county court, which the Government are proposing will have important ramifications for staffing and cannot take place if the resources are not available?

My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. He should bear it in mind that over the past five years expenditure on the court services has increased from £145 million in 1984–85 to £261 million in 1989–90, and that there is an extra £70 million in the current year for the Lord Chancellor's Department although not all of it is for the court service.

Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that however much the Government want to save public expenditure on the courts they will in no way assist the National Front to become a limited liability company and possibly a charity, thereby enabling it to continue to publish material that incites racism behind a legal smokescreen which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seems to be anxious to assist?

The National Front does not arise from this question. As for saving money on the courts, if an increase in expenditure of about 80 per cent. in five years, with further increases this year, is thought to be saving money, I should be interested to scrutinise the Opposition's proposed budget.

To ask the Attorney-General how many individuals were given legal aid costing £1,000 or less in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

The great majority of legal aid payments for criminal cases in the magistrates court in 1988–90 were less than £1,000. The average bill for civil legal aid in 1988–89 was £1,153, and my hon. Friend will find fuller details in the Legal Aid Board's annul report, a copy of which is in the Library.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Kray brothers should repay any legal aid that they may have received, plus interest, out of the £266,000 so disgracefully paid to them for the film rights of their evil crimes? Will he see whether more can be done for people in need of small sums in legal aid, as he has said is already happening?

In so far as any criminal has resources from any source, including the sort of source mentioned, they would be taken into account in estimating legal aid entitlement. My hon. Friend was right to suggest that there has been an increase in the amount available for legal aid. During the past 11 years it has increased from £100 million to £607 million.

Does the Solicitor-General acknowledge that one reason why legal aid payments have increased is that the number of criminals has increased under a Tory Government? Does he further acknowledge that there is a crisis in the legal aid service because settlement for legal aid practitioners has been below the combination of the earnings index and the retail prices index? Will he and the Lord Chancelor ensure that, in the next legal aid settlement, the rate of remuneration for those carrying out legal aid work will not be lower than the rate of inflation which is chosen for those purposes?

On the first point, the amount being spent on legal aid has risen rapidly during our time in office. On the second point about individual annual legal aid settlements, I am not sure that I accept that the settlement for the current year was below what was reasonably to be expected.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although we want everyone to obtain justice, because of the legal aid system many people are opting for legal remedy who might otherwise settle their differences amicably? Has not it suddenly become a bottomless pit of taxpayers' money that is for ever expanding? Should not there be more careful scrutiny of applicants and the money that they repay afterwards?

There should certainly be careful scrutiny. The growth in the small claims court has encouraged many more rapid and less expensive settlements. It has provided effective access to justice for cases involving below £500 and, from early next year, cases below £1,000. My hon. Friend touched on the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the increased amount of legal aid. It is not simply that additional money is being spent—it is the number of criminals who are being brought to trial under this Government as opposed to the level of crime.

To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals against conviction and/or sentence were heard by the Court of Appeal during 1988–89, and so far during 1990, in which the appellant had been released from prison before the hearing of the appeal; and if he will make a statement.

In 1989, of 2,951 appeals, 23 appellants were released from prison and a further 43 were released on parole before the hearing of their appeals. The figures for 1990 to date are that, of 1,006 cases, two appellants were released from prison and 12 were released on parole before the hearing of their appeals.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that it is unacceptable that someone should have his appeal heard after he has finished serving his sentence? That does the law no credit. Is not the legal system brought into disrepute every time an appeal is so long delayed that it is of little value to the prisoner and reduces his sentence not a jot?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in principle, but it must be realised that, for example, an 18-month sentence can lead to someone being released on parole in only just over six months. Of the cases coming forward, one third are ready within six months and 80 per cent. are ready within 12 months. The aim is always to bring on first those that are most urgent.

To ask the Attorney-General what contacts have taken place between Kleinwort Benson, bankers, and his Department in relation to the financing of the Al Fayed brothers over Harrods.

None, Sir.

May we have the Attorney-General's assurance that if one is rich enough, powerful enough and can get away with it, in such circumstances lying is now all right?

No, Sir.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that this unsatisfactory matter will not go away without further statements from the Government? Will he at least say today whether he has had contacts aim discussions with Treasury Ministers about the position of Harrods Bank Ltd?

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions on 1 March. They said that they were satisfied that every line of inquiry by the police had been properly followed through and that at the end of it there was insufficient evidence of an admissible nature in criminal proceedings to warrant bringing a prosecution in respect of any matter raised in the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' report. That is the area for which I carry ministerial responsibility. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise further matters with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he may do so.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on 5 April, when we discussed matters of departmental interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General met the Director on 25 April, in my absence abroad on departmental business.

Next time, why does not the Attorney-General have a word with the Director of Public Prosecutions about Harrods? Why do not they examine that matter in detail? Is not the truth of the matter that there are people connected with Harrods, such as the Sultan of Brunei, who are very close to No. 10 and to the present Government generally? That is why they are getting away with it. Is not it the case that the Sultan of Brunei—whose surrogates, the Al Fayed brothers, run Harrods—is the same man who handed over £5 billion when the pound was in trouble against the dollar in 1986, and when the Prime Minister asked him to bail out the Government? Is not that at the bottom of it all?

I shall next see the Director of Public Prosecutions at half past four, but I shall not be raising any of those matters. The House, and possibly even the hon. Gentleman, may recall that publication of the report of the DTI inspectors into the Harrods affair was delayed for about 18 months. I dare say that, at the time, the hon. Gentleman was one of those who said that it was a cover-up, but in fact it was so that there should be no possible prejudice of any future prosecution by reason of the report's premature publication. It is a measure of the seriousness with which the two DTI inspectors viewed the possible criminality and the possibility of bringing proceedings in a criminal court that the report's publication was delayed for as long as it was.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's response to the emergency appeal of the United Nations and Mozambiquan Government.

As I told the House on 26 April, the Government have just pledged a further £3·5 million in emergency relief and 10,000 tonnes of food aid in response to the 1990 Mozambique emergency appeal.

Although I appreciate the right hon. Lady's reply, is she aware that 4 million people were displaced in Mozambique and that one in three children there aged under five die? The Minister will be aware that the Mozambique Government's $136 million appeal has been underfunded. In view of her reply, and as the matter is becoming more urgent, will she re-examine that very serious problem?

Since 1987, we have pledged more than £55 million in emergency assistance, comprising emer-gency relief and food aid, and some £10 million last year —which included aid to Mozambique refugees. Particular attention was paid to the children among them. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments. Certainly we keep in regular contact, to ensure that we can help by every means available—including Operation Hunger, a non-governmental organisation which is very active in the area, particularly in relation to children.

In view of the importance to Mozambique of prawn exports, what action are the Government taking to assist that important sector of the country's economy?

Forty per cent. of Mozambique's export earnings come from the prawn industry. We are providing over £3·5 million to rehabilitate the prawn fishing fleet, modernise its processing facilities and build a jetty. Mozambique's prawns are fished by European Community fishing vessels which land the prawns as EC products. Therefore the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) need have no fear that the prawns from Mozambique do not meet EC standards. The onus is already on those who contribute to the Mozambique economy through their fishing licences to reach the necessary standards. They do so. We hope that the industry will continue to be viable and to thrive.

As Mozambique has the second highest death rate in the world, will the Minister condemn a new health threat facing Mozambique and other Third world countries? The vigorous promotion of very cheap and strong cigarettes by British American Tobacco will put an even greater strain on countries that are still fighting diseases such as malaria and tetanus. Will the Minister admit that the absence of international rules enables British American Tobacco to tell blatant lies about the safety of smoking? Is she prepared to join me in calling on BAT's shareholders to object at the annual general meeting on 31 May to BAT's making money by wilfully damaging the lungs of people in the Third world?

I am not sure that the hon. Lady's question has anything to do with the emergency appeal of the United Nations and Mozambiquan Government, but never mind. The hon. Lady knows that I share her concern about smoking. I shall look into what she said. In a free world it will always be up to the individual, but I understand her concern.

How can the Minister say that she will look into this matter when she is well aware that every year at European Community meetings she and her colleagues have approved the spending of £600 million solely to subsidise the growing and dumping of high-tar tobacco in Third world countries? Would not it be a good idea if the Minister tried to do something about such a scandalous abuse of public money—the spending of £600 million of British and European taxpayers' money solely for the purpose of producing tobacco that no one in Europe wants, which we then dump at crazy, low prices in Mozambique and other Third world countries?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but he knows full well that this country does not support that sort of dumping. The matter is of considerable concern and is being dealt with.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he supports the French proposal to establish a global environmental fund at the World bank.

We warmly welcome the World bank's recent initiative in outlining a possible framework of international collaboration on global environmental issues. At the recent meeting of the development committee in Washington, we supported the proposal that the bank should carry out further work to elaborate its proposals, in consultation with interested parties.

Does the Minister agree that the industrialised nations should not expect the developing nations to stall, postpone or cancel their development plans to protect the global environment unless they are compensated for doing so? Does she also agree that the British Government's stance at the Bergen conference in opposing a new mechanism, whereby the industrialised countries of the north would compensate Third world countries, is a disgrace and a shame?

A great deal more work is going on, initiated by us and other Ministers in the development committee, to explore the sort of help that developing countries will need when dealing with global environmen-tal problems. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bergen conference. I do not believe that we shall oppose anything at that conference that would help the developing countries.

I know that my right hon. Friend will share my pleasure that Britain is supporting the tropical forest action plan, which is just one aspect of our care for the environment. But has she seen the Friends of the Earth comment that casts doubt on the efficacy of the plan? Will my right hon. Friend look into that matter and reassure me that we are putting our money in the right place?

I assure my hon. Friend that the tropical forest action plan is a mechanism—it is no more than that. Each country that applies for action under it must have a worked-out national plan. In November I called at the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference for a total review. That review has been set up because we are not satisfied with the mechanism; we are determined to ensure that every national forestry action plan is a worthy one, and we shall support it only if it is.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Government Ministers last discussed Vietnam with the United States Government.

The Government keep in regular touch, both at ministerial and official level, with the United States Government on the problem of the Vietnamese boat people. I last discussed matters in Washington on 23 April.

Did the right hon. Lady raise with the United States Government their opposition to the International Monetary Fund assisting Vietnam? Does she agree that Vietnam's economy must be put right? If it is put right, that will resolve some of the boat people's problems, so it is urgent that action be taken now.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is urgent that the economy of Vietnam is put right. I have urged a positive response by the United States to the international financial institutions, and the general issue of arrears owed to the IMF, including those of Vietnam, is being considered by the fund and bank in Washington.

Did my right hon. Friend impress upon our American allies the necessity for them to open their doors to more Vietnamese boat people instead of berating us and the Hong Kong Government?

I discussed with the United States people whom I saw the need for repatriation and the need to carry through the comprehensive plan of action, because without it there is no prospect of solving the problem of the boat people in Hong Kong. I hope that the United States will see the wisdom of the total programme that was agreed under the comprehensive plan of action.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to assist developing countries in developing renewable energy sources.

In 1988 expenditure from the bilateral aid programme on the development of renewable energy sources was some £15 million. In addition renewable energy components such as solar and wind-powered pumps, solar-powered refrigerators, solar water distillation and solar water heating have been incorporated in projects which are not primarily energy focused.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that in developing countries there is a temptation to use fossil fuels with all the associated environmental problems when crude methods of burning them are used? Can greater emphasis be put on the better use of fossil fuels and of renewable sources?

The hon. Gentleman is right: fossil fuels create problems not only of ash disposal but of what they emit into the atmosphere. That is why we are looking with each country at power efficiency, linked closely to the environmental concern to which the burning of fossil fuels can give rise. But we shall also continue our research with the intermediate technology development group to ensure that we have more effective equipment that can use the renewable sources of energy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Mr. Tam Dalyell.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend——

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to move his application under Standing Order No. 20, not to raise a point of order.