To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the arrangements for licensing opencast coal mines.

Under existing legislation, the British Coal Corporation is the licensing authority and is therefore responsible for the arrangements for licensing opencast coal production.

Is the Minister aware of the environmental blight, pollution, traffic congestion and danger to health caused by opencast mines, which are concentrated overwhelmingly in the Neath and Swansea valleys, and elsewhere in south Wales? If the Minister concentrated them in the south-east and south-west of England, he would be skinned alive by his constituents and his Government would get a bloody nose.

I agree that opencast coal mining must be carried out to the highest planning and environmental standards, but to put an artificial limit on opencast coal production as the Labour party wishes would be to the detriment of the coal industry generally and would cost many jobs in the industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the preponderance of opencast mining is not in the hon. Gentleman's area but in mine? North-west Leicestershire has been devastated by opencast mining and there is now a proposal for a new opencast mine at the Coalfield West site. That proposal is opposed by the county council, the district council and the overwhelming majority of people in the area. Will my hon. Friend therefore reconsider the proposal and perhaps defer it for 200 years or so, until technology has improved sufficiently for such opencasting to be carried out without detriment to the environment?

I confirm that my hon. Friend has opencast mining in his constituency, and I visited a site there. The appeal decision on the site in question, however, will be made not by my Department but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Are we to take the Minister's reply as having some relationship with the fact that he has asked Rothschild, the merchant bankers, and Touche Ross, the accountants, to advise on the privatisation of the mining industry? Will they be making recommendations about that, and will the Select Committee on Energy be bypassed yet again?

When we draw up plans to privatise the coal industry, we shall consult all interested parties, including the opencast mining sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amount of electricity generation likely to be generated from renewable sources by the end of the decade.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate for the amount of electricity generation likely to be generated from renewable sources by the end of the decade.

The Government are working towards a figure of 1000 MW of new renewable electricity generating capacity by the year 2000.

My hon. Friend will recognise that nobody expects renewable resources to be the primary contributor to our electricity supplies in the foreseeable future, but does he agree that the Government's record on research into that source bears good comparison with that of previous Governments? Is not it interesting to note that we are spending 12 times as much as the Labour Government spent on research into renewable energy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More than £180 million has been invested in research, development and demonstration, with a budget allocation of more than £24 million—a new record high—for this year.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is thanks to the privatisation of the electricity generating industry that renewables are to have their best opportunity ever to compete, and to compete on their own merits?

I can indeed confirm that. Through electricity privatisation, we established the non-fossil fuel obligation, and under that obligation we are giving renewables their best opportunity ever to enter the electricity generating market.

Does the Minister agree that the Government missed a vital chance? As they intended to privatise the electricity industry, would not it have been better to create real competition, rather than the present duopoly which is concentrating only on the cheapest options—which at the moment happen to be combined-cycle gas-burn systems? Does he agree that if we were really serious about developing renewables, we would have done something about ensuring that small generators had a chance as well?

The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that that is precisely what is achieved under the non-fossil fuel obligation. As a result of that tranche, 75 projects that are both commercially viable and environmentally acceptable have come forward right across the board—not least in landfill gases, hydro power and wind projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will back all those projects and recognise that they are very important for the development of renewable energy on a commercial basis.

Does the Minister realise that the non-fossil fuel obligation can do nothing to promote renewable resources in Scotland, where that obligation does not exist? Does he recognise that many of the renewable sources involve very heavy capital starts, with the pay-back taking place over a long period? What steps is he taking to ensure that there is a lengthening of contracts so that those who supply from renewable sources have the opportunity of a pay-back on their initial capital costs?

The hon. Gentleman has raised two important points. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rcently announced a scheme under which Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro will contract for the output of renewables projects in Scotland—a scheme which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt warmly welcome. The second point concerned the implications of the 1990 limitation on the levy. I am satisfied that the regional electricity companies have the flexibility that they need to offer generators acceptable contracts under the proposed 1991 renewables order. The reality of that is evident from the considerable number of projects proposed for recognition in the second tranche of that order.

Is the Minister aware that National Power has announced that it is to abandon most of the research and development work that was carried out when the industry was publicly owned and that it intends to sack hundreds of scientific research staff because, in its words, it is not prepared to continue funding research and development for the solution of national problems? If National Power will not do that research, who will?

The hon. Gentleman should have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). The Government have given strong support under a substantially enhanced research and development and demonstration budget. If National Power—or any other company—can make proposals within the non-fossil fuel obligation to contract with the regional electricity companies, it will greatly benefit the development of research and development and the commercial viability of many of these important projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the directors general of Ofgas and Offer to discuss the regulation of gas and electricity prices.

I regularly meet the directors general of both Ofgas and Offer and discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the chairman of the National Consumer Council in the east midlands has severely criticised the prices being charged by the east midlands electricity authority, suggesting a figure of between 9 and 11 per cent? Consumers in the east midlands are being robbed, so the Secretary of State should get a flea in his ear and go and see those directors. Let us give them some teeth and have something done about the job. Incidentally, is the Secretary of State aware that they spent £28,000 taking business men to the cup final, and that they wined and dined them as well? What about that? It is time that the right hon. Gentleman pulled his socks up.

I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of tabling a planted question—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was my question and not a plant, although I know what goes on on the Conservative Benches.

I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, not disagreeing with him. I said that the hon. Gentleman's question was not a plant, but it enables me, nevertheless, to say that domestic prices have fallen by 2·5 per cent. in real terms in the past seven years, which compares very favourably indeed with the price record of the last Labour Government, under whom there was an increase of 22 per cent. What is more, under the privatised system, domestic consumers are protected by substantial regulations which will enable prices to be kept down to the retail prices index level. That is working very well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is genuine disquiet in the east midlands, particularly if what has happened this year were to continue for the foreseeable future—over the next two or three years? My constituents are concerned to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is confident that the regulatory powers are adequate to meet the ever-changing market conditions.

Yes, I am very confident that the powers are there. The increase in electricity prices for the domestic consumer will not be higher than the retail prices index over the three-year period. The director general can always come to me if he requires further powers.

The Secretary of State mentioned the domestic consumer. He must be aware that the electricity price increases that heavy industrial users face are a serious deterrent to the maintenance of production and to exports. Does he not realise that those users face serious international competition and that our competitor countries behave with rather more sense than we do in this important matter?

We certainly do not subsidise electricity prices, which may be what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I would not want to do that. The larger users can now use their commercial strength in a competitive market to negotiate the best prices available. A considerable number of industrial users have already benefited from competition and have been able to secure much lower prices.

Will my right hon. Friend remind that moaning grandad on the Opposition Back Bench, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), that before privatisation the monopoly producer was its own regulator?

My hon. Friend is right. Further to what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, whether or not customers went to a cup final with an electricity company—

The company paid for it.

I was about to make that point. There was no cost to the consumers. Their prices—

The Secretary of State is a grandfather as well.

Perhaps we can keep the hon. Gentleman's private life out of this.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it is the Government's plan that, as he rightly said, some of the larger commercial users are able to shop around and obtain the benefit of a 15 per cent. drop in the price that they paid the year before while domestic consumers have had an increase of 11 per cent?

Domestic consumers are protected by a system of price regulation. They have a different system because it is not possible to introduce competition for domestic users. They are protected by domestic regulations which do not allow prices to increase more than the retail prices index over a three-year period.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further steps he plans to take to promote the development of the technology for renewable energy resources throughout the United Kingdom.

The Government will be reviewing their policy on renewable energy sources in the second six months of this year. We will also be bringing forward a further renewable order, including reserved bands for a range of technologies later this year, and my Department will continue to support a major research and development programme aimed at developing all those renewable technologies relevant to conditions in the United Kingdom.

I thank the Minister for that reply. In the review, will he take on board the fact that his earlier announcement about contractual arrangements between private suppliers in Scotland and the Scottish boards does nothing to benefit the generation of development of renewables by the Atomic Energy Authority's technology? Will he particularly consider the possibility of that authority being involved in the development of the programme to which he referred?

I can confirm that we shall certainly take those points on board and look at them in detail during the review.

Can my hon. Friend report on progress with regard to the Mersey barrage scheme, about which some doubts have been expressed recently?

We are very keen to find a positive way forward on the Mersey barrage scheme. My officials have received a report from the Mersey Barrage Company and are currently considering it in detail. To date, we have spent £2·4 million of the £4·8 million total programme budget for the project, and we hope very much that solutions can be found to the problems and the challenges which lie ahead for the MBC.

Does not the Minister consider that to be a disappointing reply? Will he look for a much more positive and generous investment in tidal power—a range of tidal barrages around our coast? Is it not true that for many years, possibly a century, we have neglected the use of tidal power—which is British, eternal and non-polluting?

No, I do not believe that my reply was in any way disappointing. I mentioned that we were hoping positively to find an appropriate way forward on the Mersey barrage scheme. On tidal energy research., we have put more than £8 million into development and demonstration. We have supported on a 50:50 basis feasibility studies on the Mersey barrage, and the Department has funded about £4 million towards studies for a Severn barrage. That is a very positive programme to identify appropriate, commercially viable and environmentally acceptable projects in tidal energy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the increase in demand for electricity generation in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

My Department does not routinely forecast electricity demand—that is the job of the industry. When specific needs arise, projections are produced as, for example, in the United Kingdom's submission to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was published as an energy paper and is available in the Library of the House.

I am grateful, on the one hand, for that answer, but I am not very grateful, on the other hand, because it says nothing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the future demand for electricity is an unknown quantity, the Government should consider the supply of electricty generated by North sea gas as it affects the Teesside area? We do not want a proliferation of pylons radiating like a spider's web from that region. There is no reason at all why other parts of the country should not have gas fed directly to them. If power stations are built in those areas, we would not need pylons despoiling the beautiful North Yorkshire countryside, which is under threat at this moment.

Additional overhead lines are sometimes necessary to connect new power stations or to strengthen the grid system, but applications to build such lines must be accommpanied by environmental statements to ensure that the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend are fully considered before permission is given.

Can the Minister explain how it is that he disclaims responsibility for forecasting when the statute that set up his Department requires him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to safeguard the energy supplies of the United Kingdom? By saying that forecasting is the responsibility of private companies, he is absolving himself of any responsibility whatsoever for future energy policy.

We are concerned to ensure a diverse and competitive supply of energy. What one can say about strategic plans and detailed projections of the past is that they were all wrong, including those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he was Secretary of State for Energy.

Would the Minsiter care to comment on what the chairman of Pilkington's told shareholders at the company's annual general meeting a fortnight ago, when he said that one of the advantages of the democratic process in this country is that it might bring in a Labour Government who, unlike the present Government, actually have an energy policy?

I was not at the annual general meeting, but I have visited Pilkington's, and the company was extremely happy with the way in which we are working with the electricity industry and supplier of energy efficiency equipment to develop such a policy in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy on wind farms.

Government policy is designed to stimulate the development and application of all forms of renewable energy, including wind farms, wherever they have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Brian Peace of Rackenford in my constituency who has just obtained planning permission for a wind generator on his farm? Does my hon. Friend agree that the requirements are now so difficult and detailed that it might be a good idea if he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to give some advice on planning applications both to the applicants and to the councils that have to consider the applications?

That is a fair point. My Department is working closely with the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment to prepare a planning policy guidance note to assist in the planning process.

The Minister has kindly anticipated my question. Although I do not wish to provoke a dispute between his Department and the Secretary of State for Wales, who is currently considering an application for a wind farm on my constituency boundary, will he assure the House and those who are interested in alternative sources of energy that his Department will produce those guidelines rapidly so as to encourage further such applications, especially from rural areas where the development of wind farms can benefit the agricultural economy as well as providing for local energy needs?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his introductory remarks. Although I cannot comment on the specific case to which he has referred, which is known as the Cymmaes case, I can confirm that I am anxious to see wind farms built and demonstrated within the United Kingdom. I am therefore concerned about any delays or possible effects on the viability of such projects due to lack of planning policy guidance. That is one reason why we place such high priority on producing guidance along the lines that 1 mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of oil and gas reserves on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

My Department's report to Parliament of April this year on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom"—the Brown Book—gives our latest estimates of reserves. They show that additions to reserves during last year kept pace with production during the year in the case of oil, and exceeded production in the case of gas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those healthy estimates confound the moaning minnies and pessimists who constantly claim that our reserves are running out? Does he further agree that those figures will have a healthy influence on the British economy in the next few years?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Nearly half the oil so far discovered on the United Kingdom continental shelf and almost two thirds of the gas remain to be produced. We look set, therefore, to remain self-sufficient in oil well into the decade and a significant producer into the next century.

Will the Minister confirm that in recent years we have been able to extract oil from below the North sea because of the different incentives introduced by the Government, through Acts of Parliament, to enable the smaller pools of oil to be used? Does he agree that if it is possible to use incentives to extract oil in that way, it is sensible to do the same for coal that is located in thinner seams? The Government should not have double standards.

There are no double standards. Substantial support has been given to coal—far more than has been devoted to the development of oil and gas. The success of oil and gas production in the United Kingdom has been due primarily to the stable fiscal and regulatory regime under which international operators have worked.

The information that my hon. Friend has given about gas supplies is encouraging, but is he aware that a substantial minority of people in this country do not have a gas supply? Will he talk to those who now run the gas industry and tell them that anyone living in a reasonably built-up area should have the right to the provision of a gas supply?

As my hon. Friend knows, the provision of gas supplies to domestic customers in the United Kingdom continues to increase. His point is well taken and will, no doubt, be listened to carefully by British Gas.

When considering licence applications from offshore oil and gas companies wishing to extract those most welcome oil and gas reserves, what emphasis is placed on the safety needs of those employed in extracting those reserves? Does the Minister agree that a modern, up-to-date standby vessel fleet is essential for the safety of those workers and will he therefore impress upon the oil and gas companies the manifest need to replace the aging vessels in the fleet with modern purpose-built vessels? That is what is needed by those employed in the offshore oil and gas industry.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, I draw to his attention that important safety considerations are examined at the annex B or production licence stage and not at the initial licence award round. A company that wins an award for prospectivity must prove that it achieves very high levels of safety, not least those outlined in the Cullen report. The main thrust of the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and with which I agree, is dealt with at the production licence stage later.

First I welcome the initial statement made by the Minister. Opposition Members share his optimism for the North sea. Is he aware that production will continue to demand the highest possible level of encouragement from the Government? Does he share my anxiety that the Geological Society, which has been engaged in mapping the seabed in the most prospective areas, is to have its contract with the Department of Energy terminated in the next two years, even though it is about to embark on surveying areas in the north-west of Scotland where we have high hopes for further reserves of hydrocarbons?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that particular work, which was commissioned a while ago, will complete its normal course in two years when full assessment will have been completed to a depth of 600 ft. If my memory serves me right, arguments to go down to 6,000 ft—which is what we are talking about in the north-west frontier acreage—is totally unreasonable and unnecessary. Of course, we shall review carefully arrangements with outstanding organisations such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I emphasise that we are not curtailing a report. It will come to its full and complete conclusion in two years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate how many individuals became shareholders as a result of electricity privatisation in England and Wales.

Some 5 million to 6 million individuals became shareholders in the privatised electricity companies in England and Wales. A recent survey, not yet completed, has estimated that of these some 10 per cent. are new shareholders.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on successfully concluding the privatisation of the electricity industry which will lead to greater efficiency and keener pricing? Will he bring to the attention of those many millions of shareholders the confiscatory attitude of the Labour party?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, not only the shareholders would suffer loss if the Labour party ever achieved power. The consumers of electricity, the employees of the company, the taxpayers and, indeed, the environment would lose.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss productivity.

I have regular consultations with the chairman of British Coal on all aspects of the coal industry, including the remarkable efforts that the corporation has been making to improve its productivity in its fight for a major share of the United Kingdom coal market over future years.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he join me in congratulating him and all concerned at British Coal on the astonishing performance of the mineworkers in the Selby group? They have achieved a productivity record of 12·92 tonnes per man shift—almost double the industry average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local generators National Power and PowerGen need look no further than the Selby coalfield for secure, long-term supplies of good quality coal at competitive prices?

I shall willingly do what my right hon. Friend suggests. Certainly, I congratulate the mineworkers at Selby. Their new weekly productivity record is, as my right hon. Friend says, over 2 tonnes higher than their previous best. Wistow in the Selby complex set a new European output record of 108,700 tonnes in a week. That demonstrates what I have said many times from this Dispatch Box—the coal industry has a great future if its productivity improvement continues in the way that my right hon. Friend describes.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of British Coal will he refer to the outstanding record in coal production achieved by Longannet miners who have broken British records? Does he agree that there is a substantial case for British Coal to reopen Monktonhall colliery in my constituency? I hope that he will subscribe to that.

I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about Monktonhall colliery, which we all share. British Coal plans to review the future of Monktonhall this summer. We have already written to the chairman of British Coal to ask him to take an early decision on its future. It is a matter for him, but I await with interest what he has to say.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal will he convey through him our thanks and appreciation to Merrick Spanton, the recently retired chairman of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. While he was there, he created 71,000 new job opportunities in coal mining areas. Will my right hon. Friend tell the new chairman, Mr. John Northard, how we welcome the fact that he and his team will relocate in Edwinstowe in my constituency? As a present for their arrival, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to support the much-needed job-creating enterprise?

My hon. Friend is right to refer to those gentlemen for their distinguished service to the coal industry. He is also right that the Government will continue job-creating work in the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific in relation to the comments about the future of Monktonhall colliery that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? Is he aware that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary suggested in an Adjournment debate not long ago, that it was likely that Monktonhall would be reopened? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread publicity that that received and the hopes that were raised, not only by Ministers but by British Coal, about the future of employment in that part of Lothian? Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific?

I know that the hon. Gentleman will find this disagreeable, but I prefer to wait for the report before I comment on it. I look forward to receiving it as soon as it comes.

Bearing in mind British Coal's overall responsibility for opencast mining applications, when my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Coal will he point out to him that an application has been made to the local council in Bury for an opencast mine in the Radcliffe area in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman that that application is resolutely opposed by all local residents and that an effective committee, NORACC, has been formed to oppose it? If the application comes before the chairman, will he reject it?

As my hon. Friend has asked me, I shall certainly refer to the matter when I next see the chairman of British Coal. There is an established procedure. Any opencast applications that do not receive planning permission locally fall to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are concerned that only applications that meet the highest environmental standards are approved. We shall see that that policy is continued.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in response to the report of East Midlands Electricity plc on the electricity supply crisis which arose from severe weather conditions.

I welcome East Midlands' comprehensive report which makes a number of recommendations. My engineering inspectorate will monitor the company's progress in implementing these, to ensure that they are carried out as expeditiously as possible.

Is the Minister aware that the worst of the weather crisis occurred in north Nottinghamshire and in north Derbyshire where hundreds of thousands of people were without electricity and water supplies for a considerable period? That coincided with the flotation of East Midlands Electricity plc and meant that the Government did not declare an emergency in circumstances in which they should normally have done. Should not the Government have set up their own inquiry and not just depended on the inquiry of East Midlands Electricity plc?

No distribution network could have survived those weather conditions without sustaining damage. All those in the industry—management and staff —worked heroically to restore supplies and it is wrong to refer in any way disparagingly to their efforts or to link the problem to the privatisation of the industry.

While on the subject of severe weather, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming last Friday's announcement on improvements to the cold weather payments scheme—the second set of improvements within six months? Will he also confirm that those vast improvements are greatly superior to those on offer under the previous Labour Government?

I welcome that observation, although it was not my Department which introduced those improvements.

Can the Minister confirm that there have been more interruptions in supply to consumers since the electricity industry was privatised? Before he denies that, will he also confirm that neither the Secretary of State nor the Office of Electricity Regulations can provide any statistics?

The privatisation of electricity has resulted in significant benefits to its consumers, which include timely reaction to any interruption of supply.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of people employed in Britain's nuclear energy industry.

The total number of people directly employed in the British nuclear energy industry is about 40,000.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that unless he is prepared to bring the review of the nuclear industry forward to 1993, he will be faced with a declining nuclear industry? Does he regard with any great satisfaction the fact that France has 75 per cent. of its total electricity produced by the nuclear industry, while Belgium produces 60 per cent. by that method? Why cannot we have a comparable figure of electricity production from our nuclear industry?

The answer to that question goes back to long before I was Secretary of State; others must bear a share of the responsibility.

To ask the Attorney-General what progress is being made in improving co-operation between the Serious Fraud Office and overseas agencies in the prosecution of fraud cases.

Last week the United Kingdom implemented part 1 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 enabling us to ratify the European convention on mutual assistance; and on 14 May 1991 we also implemented the European convention on extradition.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He will be aware that the position of London as the major financial centre in Europe is at least partly dependent upon our ability to prosecute fraud across international boundaries. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the measure of international co-operation now discussed will make it much easier to prosecute fraud across international boundaries?

Yes I do. The director of the Serious Fraud Office keeps in close contact with her overseas equivalents. The measures that I have just mentioned will enable us to serve summonses and other judicial documents from abroad in the same way as we do here to help to obtain evidence. They also include the use of domestic procedures for police powers of search and seizure. Those measures will enable the transfer of prisoners to give evidence overseas and from overseas to give evidence here. All that is extremely beneficial.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as soon as a villain knows that the game is up he immediately hot foots out of the United Kingdom to safety and support overseas? That leaves behind devastation and misery for those companies or people against whom he has committed fraud. Will my right hon. and learned Friend insist that we pull together the support from overseas agencies so that such people can be pursued and convicted?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The object of the measures is such that those alleged to have committed such fraud can be brought back from overseas to face trial.

To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is considering to ease public access to the judicial remedy of grievances.

Following the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, the Government are implementing a series of measures to improve the machinery of civil justice and, in particular, to reduce delay, cost and complexity.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that the recently published proposals by the Lord Chancellor on legal aid are widely regarded as the most openly retrograde steps proposed since legal aid was introduced in the late 1940s and that they are universally condemned by the legal profession and consumer organisations throughout the country? In the light of the already apparent hostility, will he withdraw them?

The Lord Chancellor's consultation document deserves rather closer examination than that. It offers an opportunity for extending the limits of legal aid upwards in areas where it has not attempted to go under any Government. Whether it will be possible to do so will depend to some extent on the finances available. That it offers an opportunity in that direction, when hitherto no such opportunity has appeared, is something which the hon. Gentleman should no overlook.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a state-funded insurance scheme, which could cover many more people at much less cost than the present legal aid scheme, or tax relief on private insurance, would ensure that there was much greater access to the judicial system than there is at present?

My hon. and learned Friend picks up another of the points to be found in the Lord Chancellor's consultation document, which is well worth careful examination.

Is not the proposal simply the equivalent of urging people to take out a BUPA subscription instead of using the national health service? Can the Solicitor-General confirm that as a result of the recent freezing of the upper limits of legal aid for income and capital, 1·1 million people who would otherwise be eligible for legal aid are being left out and that there is nothing whatever in the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper to provide any compensation for those who will be disqualified from legal aid simply by saving? Will he please confirm that there is no policy of permanently freezing those upper limits?

There is no policy of permanently freezing the upper limits. Obviously, the non-increase in them this year will have some effect on the numbers who are eligible. The matters that are open for consideration in the consultation document offer opportunities for legal aid in areas where hitherto it has not been available. They include legal aid insurance, which is to be seen in some areas—property insurance policies sometimes include this —and should not be viewed narrowly.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about vacancy rates in the Crown prosecution service.

Over the past 12 months 315 lawyers have entered the service and vacancies have fallen from 22 to 13 per cent. Vacancies for administrative staff are 4 per cent.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer which demonstrates a dramatic improvement. What hope does he have that the other vacancies will be filled speedily?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. The trend is a positive one. It reflects not only the increased salaries available—they are highly competitive—but the improvement in the quality of career which the service offers. We shall continue with that, and I hope to see the service fully recruited in the short term.

Does the Attorney-General agree that basically vacancies and recruitment problems happen to be in London and the surrounding areas? Does he further agree that were London to recruit at the same levels as Yorkshire, Manchester or many other areas, the service and the courts in London would be that much more enhanced? They are simply overworked in London.

Yes, the hon. Gentleman, who has close knowledge of these matters, is right that London is certainly one of the worst areas—or parts of London are. Humberside is another bad area. We must analyse the reasons why. Advertising and the promotion of the service are now devolved to local areas, and they are making great strides. I hope that the improvement that we have noticed will continue. I think that it will.

To ask the Attorney-General how he plans to deal with the changes in court procedure following the introduction of the Children Act 1990.

Last month family proceedings rules providing for new procedures in the High Court, county courts and magistrates courts were made. In relation to the Children Act, they are effectively identical.

I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Children Act will provide more speedy and compassionate methods of dealing with all matters relating to children? There has been much controversy in recent months and years, such as that surrounding the case in the Orkneys. Does he accept that many members of the Bar are worried about the possible deleterious effect on the speed with which cases go through the courts unless the procedure is properly organised?

My hon. Friend is right to look forward to considerable benefits to child law from the implementation of the Children Act. It will provide a uniform system of law for all levels of court, enabling cases to be set at the right level—High Court, county court or magistrates court—as appropriate. The transitional problems are being carefully dealt with, and I have no doubt that the High Court will keep a close watch on the cases that currently come before it and those that will remain before it after the transitional period in October.

To ask the Attorney-General if he has received any representations concerning the legality of weapons used by coalition forces in the Gulf war.

I have received representations on this subject from the hon. Member and from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Does the Attorney-General agree that the world community should consider carefully the use of those weapons, which had never before been used on the scale on which they were used in the Gulf war? They are not conventional weapons in the usual sense. They are weapons of mass slaughter which resulted in the deaths of between 100,000 and 200,000 conscripts and injury to 300,000 to 700,000. Is not it time that we viewed air fuel explosives, cluster bombs and daisy cutter bombs as an entirely new way of waging war which should be included, in the interest of the world community, in the inhumane weapons protocol? We must think carefully about the manufacture, sale and deployment of those terrible weapons.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future line taken by Britain in international legislation or conventions is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman particularised his question and mentioned air fuel explosives. He has asked that question before, and he knows that they have been used by only the United States in the Gulf war and only for the purpose of detonating minefields. They have never been used against personnel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to improve response time for aid to meet crisis situations.

Yes, we have an excellent record in responding to disasters, but we are always learning from experience. We are currently reviewing our overseas disaster management arrangements and those of the United Nations. Those reviews will be completed shortly.

I recognise that time is crucial in a crisis or a disaster, but is the Minister satisfied that although the NHS crisis teams were made available on 1 April, they were still in the United Kingdom and not in Iraq a month later on 1 May? Does she have sufficient people in the crisis unit in her Department? Does she receive the necessary co-operation from other Departments to ensure that a speedy response is given?

As I think the House knows, I was especially careful to ensure that if anyone went to the Gulf from the national health service as part of a volunteer team, they not only could do their work when they arrived there, but would be accepted by the recipient Government. Teams from other countries had problems which, fortunately, our teams did not encounter because of our preparation work. The people who went gave very good service.

Has my right hon. Friend any plans to respond in double-quick time to the horrendous disaster that is unfolding in the Philippines following the awful volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo? Has she been able to consult her European Community partners or the United Nations agencies? The United States is clearly in a better position than we are, as it has military personnel on the spot, and the local Association of South-East Asia Nations powers are also there. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that the United Kingdom will do everything in its power to bring assistance to bear?

We greatly sympathise with the people and Government of the Philippines, who have experienced yet another major natural disaster. The embassy told us today that the Government would be requesting assistance shortly, and we shall do all that we can to meet their specific needs.

Is not the Minister concerned at continuing reports that aid is failing to get through to the populations who need it in parts of the Horn of Africa? Notwithstanding the long-term review that she is currently undertaking, will she support the ad hoc re-establishment of the United Nations office for emergency operations in Africa, which was so successful in 1985–86? When the office was stood down in 1986, we were told that it could be re-established if the need arose. Surely that need has now arisen.

A very successful meeting has been held between Jim Ingram of the World Food Programme and the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front in Addis about directing relief towards the pressure points and the ports of Africa. We are certainly prepared to consider the re-establishment of the UN office, if it is needed. Our current information is, however, that good news has been received, including that of the agreement in the past 48 hours to the air drop to Nasir in northern Sudan. Last week, I was instrumental in requesting that from the Government of Sudan.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the prompt action that she always takes when any emergency arises, but does she agree that there is no substitute for international machinery to deal with such emergencies? Both she and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have recommended action on this front; can she tell us what progress has been made?

The Anglo-German initiative discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Herr Genscher on 9 June is already in being. It involves the appointment of a senior figure who would report directly to the UN Secretary General, to direct all relief measures within the UN system and to co-ordinate the relief work of the humanitarian agencies and Governments. We do not know yet who that figure will be; we do not even know whether the initiative will be accepted internationally. There is, however, general support for the idea that we and the German Government have presented.

Does the Minister agree that the crisis affecting refugees in Iraq is still unresolved? Has she seen the headlines in today's newspapers—for example,

"Major's haven plan in tatters"

"Don't leave the Kurds"

"The whole aid exercise has been completely wasted. If there is no artillery unit to hold the line against the Iraqi troops, the Kurds will run for their lives. They feel betrayed and they are terrified."?

First, let us get the whole operation of save havens into perspective. We began the exercise in April, and phases 1 and 2 have been successfully completed, providing life-saving relief for people in the mountains and bringing them down into the safe havens. We are now working on phase 3, the aim of which is to give relief to Iraqi people in northern Iraq. That means re-integrating people into their own communities in Iraq, with protection. That is why the representatives of the Iraqi people have combined to form a central development committee, formed of the indigenous organisations, with three specialist sub-committees: one in engineering, one in agriculture and one in health. With the representatives of the Kurdish Democratic party and the PUK—Patriotic Union of Kurdistan—working together, it will oversee what happens in the future. That is necessary because we have always agreed—right from the beginning—that allied troops would be deployed temporarily. We have taken no decision about the withdrawal of troops. We are in close touch with our allies and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is discussing the matter with his opposite numbers. I assure the House that, having successfully completed the first two phases, I shall ensure that other phases of the operation are successfully concluded.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit the Horn of Africa and Sudan; and if he will make a statement.

I would be prepared to visit the Horn of Africa again if it would assist the relief effort. At present, the World Food Programme is working to ensure that maximum use can be made of Port Sudan, Massawa and Assab.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I underline her obvious awareness of the horrendous starvation in the Horn of Africa? Will she say more about the visit of Mr. Jim Ingram to the area? What long-term measures can we support to provide food grown in the area, bearing in mind that unless people learn to grow their own food they will never overcome long-term starvation but will achieve only the short-term effect of being fed for the day?

We should all congratulate Jim Ingram on his visit to Khartoum and Addis. He says that he has had the most positive response from the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democracy Front in respect of relieving the need for food, medicine and shelter. He has also been successful in getting the interim Goverment in Addis Ababa to agree to clear roads in the Gambella area of mines, which are preventing people from moving safely, and to agree to cross-border feeding. There has also been agreement that military convoys will accompany the food convoys to the east in Hararghe. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), there will be a further follow up to the provision of food in Sudan, as well as the agreement to the air drops.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the effect of VAT on charities dealing in famine and disaster relief.

In 1991 we received four specific representations which raised the question of VAT as the primary issue. Some other representations raised the question with other issues. VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who amended the legislation in 1989 to ensure zero rating of charities' fund raising, including the sale of donated goods in charity shops.

Does the Minister accept, however, that charities, especially third world charities, are tremendously concerned that if standardisation takes place throughout Europe, resulting in the loss of zero rating to the charities sector as a whole, some £500 million of income will be lost? For example, Oxfam fears a loss of £5 million. Will the Minister make strong representations to ensure that that does not take place across the board and that there are Europe-wide discussions to draw attention to the problems that loss of zero rating would present for charities?

I have considered that matter and discussed it with several non-governmental organisations, including the Oxfam representatives on Merseyside. I assure the House that if the European Community were to challenge the United Kingdom legislation on the zero rating of sales of donated goods from charity shops and refunds of VAT on rents, we would resist. Should the European Community attempt to legislate further on the activities of charities, we would stongly defend their voluntary nature and independence. The hon. Gentleman has my word on that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take points of order after the statement.