To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his present target for the percentage of electricity to be generated from alternative energy sources; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are working towards a figure of 1,000 MW of new renewable electricity generating capacity by the year 2000.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are obviously doing their stuff in that regard, because, through expenditure on research and development and through the non-fossil fuel obligation. the Government and the Department of Energy are doing more than any other Government to help renewable energy? However, should not that be part of an overall strategy for energy encompassing all sources of energy? Is not that particularly important with the proposed privatisation of British Coal and the need for manufacturers in the industry to plan their R and D and commercial developments so that they can capitalise on the opportunities that will be offered in the future?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution and I agree with him completely. More than £180 million has been invested to date in the R and D programme with a record budget allocation of about £24 million for 1991–92. Through that sum, 300 projects are currently supported under the Department's R and D programme.

Does the Minister agree that it remains the Government's firm conviction that one of the best non-renewable schemes would be the construction of the Mersey barrage? Will the feasibility study continue to be financed?

I confirm the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. With regard to the Mersey barrage, the Government are supporting, on a 50–50 basis, a third phase of feasibility studies and are contributing £1·5 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that members of the Select Committee on Energy recently visited Scandinavia to look at alternative energy sources such as power from wind, from burning refuse and from the use of waste hot water? Is he aware of the fact that despite this Government having devoted more money to encouraging alternative energy than any previous Government, it still appears that we are behind some of our continental neighbours? Is he satisfied that the Department of Energy is doing all that it can to sponsor research and to encourage the creation of commercial alternative energy sources from those developments?

I can confirm that and not least through the non-fossil fuel obligation which permitted the creation of a market for exactly the type of projects mentioned by my hon. Friend. When my hon. Friend was travelling with his colleagues, I hope that he emphasised that the United Kingdom's wind energy R and D programme is second to none and is creating enviable expertise and a sound basis for exactly what my hon. Friend wants—the commercial exploitation of wind.

Will the Minister agree to set up a full inquiry into energy needs, paying particular attention to the demise of the British coal industry, because British coal will fall into the category of alternative energy sources? Does he agree that something needs to be done to ensure that future needs are met from within this country and not from abroad?

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the question, which concentrates on alternative energy sources. He asked whether there would be an inquiry and then deviated to coal. However, I assure him that, with regard to alternative energy sources, we are setting up a major review to ensure that the environmental benefits of renewables are fully exploited.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with progress towards the development of a competitive gas market by independent suppliers.

I shall announce shortly the results of my Department's monitoring of gas contracted over the past two years. I am encouraged by the progress made so far, although there is still some way to go to achieve a fully competitive gas market.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Director General of Gas Supply has expressed the view that there will be no meaningful competition in gas until at least 30 per cent. of the industrial market is offered by the new independent suppliers? Will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to encourage those efforts?

The review is into the first two years of the new system and I hope shortly to be able to publish that and to report on it. We want there to be as fully competitive a market as possible. The advice given to us by Ofgas is important in formulating that opinion.

Does the Minister accept that history is likely to find cause for deep regret in the unseemly haste with which British Gas reserves are being exploited? Does he realise that the unseemly haste is emphasised by the fact that that premium fuel is largely being used for steam-raising purposes? The Government will stand charged with gross irresponsibility when a wiser generation is in charge of this country's energy affairs.

I do not accept that at all. Gas has an important part to play in power generation, not least because of the good environmental effects of using gas.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties over the supply of gas to some independent private power project companies. Can he give an update on the latest stage of the negotiations between British Gas and the companies concerned?

British Gas is soon to introduce a new price schedule for all power generation customers. I hope that the new schedule will help to resolve the current difficulties not only between British Gas, Coryton and Thames Power, but for other operators.

The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the main tools in aiding competition onshore is the regulation of the gas transmission system. There is growing concern about the Government's failure to use their powers to regulate the transmission system offshore. That is leading to an inhibition of development of some of our vital gas supplies. Does he have any proposals to use the powers contained in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act 1975 to encourage development offshore?

I have no such proposals at present, but we are especially studying the development of some satellite fields. There may be a possibility of improving some of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to have discussions in the European Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

Alternative sources of energy will continue to be important and relevant in future Council discussions. The next Energy Council meeting is planned for 29 October.

Can my hon. Friend say which specific area of research into alternative sources of energy is likely to be most fruitful? Does the European Community propose to devote additional funds to research in that area?

Grants are available for projects in a wide range of areas on renewables, not least energy efficiency, renewables across the board, clean coal technology and gas and oil exploration and development. We very much welcome the recent announcement that there will be an inclusion of wave power projects under the non-nuclear energy sub-programme of the third framework programme in view of that technology's potential contribution to energy supplies in Europe.

In recent meetings of the European Council of Ministers on energy matters, have the Government discussed the problem that is afflicting the Government and worrying the Opposition—the payment of those who make the decisions on these matters, such as the chairman of East Midlands Electricity, who has received a 63 per cent. pay increase at a time when industrial workers in the area have been held to 8·9 per cent? Surely that matter has a European dimension. Does any other European country have miseries that are similarly scandalous to those with which we contend here?

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether we have discussed that point at Energy Council meetings and the answer is no.

As alternative energy sources are environmentally friendly, when my hon. Friend meets his colleagues in Europe, is not there a strong case for reviewing progress on clean coal technology, which is also an environmentally friendly source of electricity generation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Commission and the Community, through its Thermie programme, have made grants available for projects on clean coal technology.

When the Minister next discusses alternative energy at the European level, will he take the opportunity of separating nuclear energy and the Government's support through the nuclear levy and the non-fossil fuel obligation, which is justifiably due to finish in 1998 given that it is a mature industry that is now more than 30 years old, from the similar protection of the non-fossil fuel levy that is given to alternative energy, which should certainly not be terminated in 1998 as that is an infant industry? Will he confirm that, at some point or other, he will extend the protection of the two-tier price system that he has instituted beyond 1998 for non-fossil, non-nuclear energy?

I accept the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point. This year, despite the 1998 issue, which the hon. Gentleman raised, many projects for the second tranche of the NFFL obligation have come forward to be contracted and are thus financially viable. As I said, I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point, which will be discussed in detail by the group that is shortly to meet for the first time to consider the strategy of renewable energy projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what grants his Department gives to organisations to undertake energy-saving measures in homes.

My Department gives grants under the home energy efficiency scheme, which provides insulation measures to low-income households. Some £26 million is available under the scheme this year.

The Minister did not say how much is being spent, so his answer is cold comfort for the many householders on low incomes. Have not the Government punctured energy efficiency efforts in the home by voluntary and public organisations and the electricity and gas companies? Does he agree that there is scope for much more home insulation and for more energy-saving measures and would not it make environmental sense to do that? Are not the Tories too bloody mean to be green?

Order. Those are not unparliamentary words, but they are distasteful and unnecessary in the Chamber.

They are too mean to be green.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it makes environmental sense to be more energy efficient. Our home energy efficiency scheme will enable 200,000 houses a year to receive insulation and energy efficiency advice, which is a substantial advance on any other year and on what was done by any previous Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need no lectures from the Opposition on energy efficiency, because the last time there was a Labour Government, they spent £2·4 million on energy efficiency, whereas today, under the Conservative Government, the figure stands at £40 million? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are doing something about energy efficiency, which was always neglected by Labour Governments?

That is a typically sound point from my hon. Friend. I confirm that my Department's expenditure on energy efficiency has increased eightfold since 1979 when the Government took office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many landfill gas projects are in operation in the United Kingdom and other EC member states.

There are 34 landfill gas projects currently in operation in the United Kingdom. The latest approximate figure that I have for other EC member states indicates a total of 150 projects.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be aware of the great interest in my constituency in all projects that support the environment. Can he give us some idea of the savings that can be made in conventional energy by the use of landfill gas projects and can he project what savings he thinks we will have made by the turn of the century?

The existing 34 schemes save some 160,000 tonnes of coal equivalent a year. In response to my hon. Friend's second point, as well as the existing schemes, nine others are under construction and 25 are proposed. When all 68 schemes are in operation, the energy saving will be equivalent to about 500,000 tonnes of coal equivalent per annum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many independent electricity generation projects have been announced since the passage of the Electricity Act 1989.

Under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 I have given consent for four independent power stations to be constructed. They are at Coryton, Deeside, Keadby and Wilton, Cleveland.

Is not this excellent news for consumers? Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that we shall not return to a monolithic monopoly supply, which would be the case if we followed the advice of Opposition Members?

I have considerable expectations that we shall not return to such a system. Competition in generation is good for not only consumers but the environment. It should be very much encouraged.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the dominance of National Power, PowerGen and Nuclear Electric precludes any real competition in electricity generation? Does he further agree that the monopolistic powers which have been handed to PowerGen and National Power in particular threaten to destroy Europe's most efficient coal industry, as those powers have all but destroyed the coal industry of south Wales and wasted a great national asset?

I do not accept that for a moment. First, competition in generation will be widespread. Apart from the four projects that I have announced, four other projects were applied for and received planning permission before the 1989 Act came into force. We have been advised about several other projects which, at this stage, are confidential. Secondly, I do not believe that the coal industry will be ruined, as the hon. Gentleman made out, as a result of the privatisation of the electricity generating industry. The industry has a significant and important future in the provision of coal for generation in Britain. If it continues to improve its productivity as it has done in recent years, it will stand to have a larger share of the market.

Will my right hon. Friend give some idea of not merely the number of projects but those which, in his estimation, are likely to materialise? Will he also tell us how many projects out of the total number are gas turbine projects and how many are coal? Are not they all gas turbine?

With the best will in the world, as the applications have to come to me and I have to consider them and decide whether to give planning approval, it would be unwise for me to speculate about which projects are good runners and which are not.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to meet the chairs of the statutory electricity consumer committees to discuss the regulation of the electricity supply industry.

This matter falls within the responsibility of the Director General of Electricity Supply, who meets the chairmen of the consumers' committees on a regular basis.

When the meeting with the chairs of the Merseyside and North-Western and the South-Western electricity boards takes place, will they be reminded that the Government knew in advance that the directors' salaries would be doubled and trebled and that the Government deliberately gagged the companies and forbade them to reveal that fact last autumn? Will the Secretary of State take advantage of the fact that today is a day of national penitence to confess the Government's and the Prime Minister's shameful complicity in this orgy of greed which scandalised the whole nation?

If any penitence is required it is from the hon. Gentleman, who has just made a statement which he knows to be untrue. The statement in the prospectus was the position and that position was set out. What was said at a meeting was subsequently withdrawn by those concerned. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the privatised industries have had much more effective control of their prices than was ever the case when they were in the public sector? Does he agree that privatisation has led to much higher investment, productivity and revenue to the tax authorities than ever occurred when the industry was in the public sector?

My hon. Friend makes his point well. He is correct.

Will the Secretary of State end this pretence that he and the rest of the Government were not involved in the massive pay increases for electricity bosses? In particular, will he confirm that the Government paid City advisers Coopers and Lybrand no less than £360,000 for advice on the pay and perks of electricity bosses? That sum is so large that it would almost pay for one of the chairmen. As the taxpayers paid for the advice that the Secretary of State received, will he now publish it so that they can see whether they got value for money?

In recent times we have had a number of exchanges and a debate on these matters and there is not much more that I want to say. I will just add this: Coopers and Lybrand produced one of several reports on executive pay. Naturally, the companies pressed for increases. The Government decided that salaries should be restrained while the companies were in the public sector. Thereafter it was a matter for the companies.

Will the Secretary of State look again at the regulation of privatised industries, such as the electricity industry? Does he recognise that it is unacceptable for the industries to be able to offer their chairmen and other executives such enormous pay increases when that goes contrary to Government policy? Does he accept that the House of Lords Select Committee, which is about to report, makes it clear that the new structure of the industry adds to the possibility of generation and supply, but goes against energy efficiency? The regulative powers of the new industry are not effective. What will he do about it?

First, I will not add anything to what I said about directors' pay. I have already expressed my view, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I merely add that salary increases do not affect the price to the consumer, because of the regulation. That is important. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about energy efficiency in the privatised system. Competition in generation is one of the single most important steps that we have taken to improve energy efficiency. The generators now have a direct financial incentive to reduce the costs of producing electricity. As their principal cost is the fuel that they use, they have a powerful reason for wanting to improve efficiency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of investment in energy efficiency.

It is not possible to separate out a national figure for total investment in energy efficiency because it is often part of wider capital expenditure in industry, transport and the public sector. However, since 1983 the amount of energy used per unit of national output has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in the majority of other EC countries.

However much we try to save energy, we are concerned about its creation in the first place. We on Teesside are getting worried that there is no strategy for the number of power plants that will be sited there, that there are no controls and, more particularly, that there is no concern about the transportation of that electricity by cables once the plants are in operation. Is not it time that the Government gave that some thought instead of just leaving it to the roulette wheel?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that new and modern generating stations can mean new transmission networks. He will also know that any proposals for substantial overhead lines introduced by the National Grid Company must be accompanied by an environmental statement which balances the need for energy with the environmental concerns of my hon. Friend and others.

Does the Minister agree that any investment in energy conservation, whether by insulation or otherwise, creates employment for people in other industries? Surely now, when the whole of industry is in recession, any Government-led investment of that nature must be welcome?

I agree about the importance of energy efficiency measures, which is why my Department is spending more than £40 million on promoting energy efficiency.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. May I ask him whether he has any plans to encourage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Put your hat on."] individuals and corporations to invest in energy-saving devices, such as PL lightbulbs? Their use could be encouraged even at retail level through rebates, which are used in the United States and Canada.[Interruption.]

Order. Perhaps that will encourage the hon. Gentleman not to wear his hat.

I am sorry about my hon. Friend's hat—as a result I have already forgotten part of my hon. Friend's question. There are plenty of incentives to invest in energy efficiency measures, because, by saving fuel and electricity, the customer is also saving money. For those low-income households where such savings may not apply we have a separate scheme which I have already described to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the operation of the EC Energy Council's development of electricity supply sharing arrangements.

I understand that the European Commission expects to bring forward proposals for opening up electricity markets in Europe very soon. I welcome that development and look forward to such discussions with other EC countries in the Energy Council.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government will press that campaign and policy vigorously, bearing in mind that there are rumours of tardiness by other member states as well as some of the officials in the Commission dealing with that policy? Notwithstanding that the single market has not yet begun—[Interruption.]—if I had a hat I could take it off to hear my hon. Friend's answer—does my hon. Friend agree that a single market for electricity supply is vital so that we can sell some of our electricity to the continent?

I agree, but there is resistance in some other member states to the proposals for a freer market in electricity. Their state monopolies are, inevitably, somewhat resistant to competition, but we strongly believe that a true internal market requires a freer market in electricity. We have introduced proposals to that end.

Will the Minister exercise some care in examining the internal market within Britain? Would he care to comment on the progress that has been made on the interconnector between Scotland and England? That would facilitate the use of Scottish energy generated from coal and other means in England.

I cannot comment on specific proposals, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be required to authorise such developments in due course. It is a sign of the developing market in electricity in the United Kingdom that trade from one part of the United Kingdom to another is an increasing possibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the potential for photovoltaic electricity generation in the United Kingdom.

I have recently reviewed the scope for photovoltaic electricity generation in the United Kingdom and concluded that there is a significant opportunity for photovoltaic power to contribute to United Kingdom energy needs in certain applications. For that reason I recently announced a new research programme into the technology.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is obvious that that form of energy production has considerable usage not only for stand-alone purposes, but as an environmentally clean form of energy. So that we can get a handle on the size of the power that could be generated, can my hon. Friend tell the House and the nation what volumes of energy in gigawatts could be produced by that form of electricity generation into the early years of the next century?

I assume that my hon. Friend is including consumer products—it is estimated that 170 GW hours could be produced by the year 2025.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the decommissioning of nuclear power stations.

Decommissioning is a matter for nuclear power station operators to consider within the guidelines on safety and environmental protection set by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

In its proposals for "deferred dry store", is it right that Nuclear Electric should consider postponing the decommissioning of nuclear power stations by 30 years, which would leave the problem to future generations to tackle? Is not the idea of simply "mounding over" spent nuclear power stations to create massive nuclear tombs environmentally irresponsible? Does the Minister agree that Nuclear Electric's proposals amount to an admission of defeat, because it simply does not know how to dismantle nuclear power stations and is terrified of the cost?

I do not accept that. When considering decommissioning it is important to ensure the continued safety of the workers, the public and the environment. That will be ensured by continued control by the regulators. Nuclear Electric's proposals demonstrate its commitment to seeking the most cost-effective strategy, which takes account of safety and environmental concerns.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect that, when those nuclear power stations, particularly the Magnox power stations, were first built, it was intended—it was Government policy—that the sites should be mounded in that way? Does he agree that to do anything other than that would be a total waste of what will probably become taxpayers' rather than private operators' money?

I always listen to my hon. Friend with considerable care when he is talking about such matters. However, the nuclear installations inspectorate is considering those proposals and it would not be right for me to comment further.

When the Government privatised the electricity supply industry they agreed that a levy of 10·6 per cent. would be added to people's electricity bills to pay for the difference between the cost of expensive nuclear power and fossil fuel. That levy has now increased to 11 per cent. Given that, at that stage, it was meant to cover the total decommissioning of power stations over 100 years and that the nuclear industry now talks about decommissioning over 130 years, why has there been no decrease in electricity bills?

The levy was set for the first five years on a declining basis. It has gone up from 10·6 to 11 per cent. because of estimated differences in the take off. However, I confirm that there is still a trend downwards over the eight years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the change in output per man shift in British Coal since 1984.

In 1983–84, British Coal's putput per manshift was 2·43 tonnes. Figures just received for the year to 29 June 1991 indicate that this has more than doubled to 4·87 tonnes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those magnificent figures underline the great benefits to the country from winning the coal strike in 1984–85? Does he also agree that they underline the potential for the speedy privatisation of that industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. the improvements in productivity have been remarkable, and they must continue if the industry is to have a long-term, competitive base. I remind my hon. Friend that since 1979 the Government have approved more than £7 billion of new investments and grant aid of about £17 billion, including provision of more than £6 billion in deficiency grants under last year's Coal Industry Act. Improvements in productivity, financial support and long-term contracts with the generators are all part of the improvements to the coal industry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those output figures in a publicly controlled industry far surpass the productivity rate in, for example, Germany, which has a privatised coal industry? Although the right hon. Gentleman said that he had high hopes that the coal industry would win contracts from the power companies, is he aware that a statement was made this weekend to the effect that the power companies are reluctant to give long-term contracts? Indeed, they are still hell bent on importing 50 per cent. of their coal.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not falling into the same trap as some of his colleagues who, whenever a discouraging statement is made by the electricity generators in the run up to a renegotiation, treat it as the gospel truth according to St. Neil. The renegotiation for the coal industry is extremely important and the generators will take into account all the factors to which I have referred many times from the Dispatch Box. They include security of supply and questions of exchange rate risks. It is not a question of contract based purely on price and British Coal has a great deal to offer in those contracts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of disconnection for debt of electricity customers in (a) 1976, (b) 1986 and (c) 1990.

In the year ending 31 March 1976, disconnections for domestic electricity debt in England and Wales totalled 125,000. In the year to 31 March 1986, they had dropped to 102,000. In the year to 31 March 1991, they had fallen to 51,637—the lowest recorded level.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that significant drop in disconnections demonstrates the success of the privatised electricity companies in looking after customers who can, temporarily, least afford to pay their bills? Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatised electricity companies should be congratulated on their efforts to assist people who get into financial trouble? Will he encourage those companies to continue that policy in future?

Yes, Sir. The fact remains that, under Labour, more than twice as many people were having their supplies cut off because of electricity debts. That shows that the privatisation programme that we have pushed through is good for the customer, particularly low-income households that would otherwise be disconnected. I can confirm that, under the codes of practice agreed between the newly privatised companies and the regulator, the figures should drop even further.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the county palatine.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I have no plans to visit the county palatine in the near future.

When my right hon. Friend next goes to the county palatine, will he visit Blackburn? When he does so, will he go via Newham and Marlow, where the Conservatives recently took seats off the Labour party, Clwyd where last week the Labour party was denied control of the county council, and so arrive at Blackburn, where the Conservatives also recently took a seat off the Labour party? Are not those results a clear sign that the public at large are seeing through Labour party proposals, particularly on issues such as defence—today, the Government announced an invitation to tender for a fourth Trident nuclear submarine.

I am sure that one reason that we have done so well in recent local government by-elections is because the public do not trust the Labour party on either the economy or defence. I am equally sure that people in Barrow will have been delighted by today's announcement that we are going ahead with building the fourth Trident which is essential to the credibility of our deterrent. The public will know that the Labour party is opposed to the building of that Trident vessel and will be interested to know what Labour's overall defence policy is. I am sure that the public can look forward to an intensely interesting discussion at the Labour party conference.

Can the Minister confirm that, in view of his disastrous record since taking up his present job, he must be pretty nervous about visiting the north-west or anywhere else, when part of the reason for his visit is to manage a Tory party by-election campaign? May I ask him the following question termed in his own colourful language: which of the two results in the north-west left him feeling the most gobsmacked—the Tory party's performance in Ribble Valley, where it lost a safe Tory seat, or its performance in the Walton division of Liverpool, where its candidate lost his deposit?

I think that the television coverage of events in Liverpool reminded people throughout the country that, as the Labour party could not run Liverpool, it certainly would not be able to run Britain. The result in Walton reminded us that extremism in the Labour party, which we were told years ago had been wiped out, is still rife. I look forward to securing the same 10·9 per cent. swing in our favour as we achieved in Blackburn the other day.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy on official business.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider an early visit to the Duchy to tell his tenants about the disastrous consequences of a national minimum wage policy? Is it not extraordinary that there was no mention whatever of that policy by the Leader of the Opposition on his recent visit to Blackpool to the Transport and General Workers Union conference?

As I understand it, before the Leader of the Opposition went to Blackpool his office was telling people that in his speech he would make strong references to a national minimum wage because he was so proud of Labour's policy on that. In the event he kept mum, and one can only draw one's own conclusions.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions he has answered since he last answered questions orally in the House.

Five, Sir.

That must have kept the right hon. Gentleman pretty busy. Although the Tory vote in Walton was the lowest Tory percentage vote this century—a new record—is it not of some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman that at least the Tory candidate in that by-election got a few more votes than Lord Sutch?

It was a great comfort to us that all Conservative Members who were asked supported the Conservative candidate in Walton. I understand that that was not the case for the Opposition.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what representations he has received regarding the sufficiency of the National Audit Office's funding to ensure adequate coverage of all Government Departments.

In considering the adequacy of funding for the National Audit office, the Public Accounts Commission takes into account the proposals of the Comptroller and Auditor General as set out in the National Audit Office corporate plan, together with the views of the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury. The Commission has received no other representations.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the quality of audits is beyond dispute and that they are absolutely first class? Nowadays shoppers and everybody else seek value for money. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient value-for-money audits take place? Are people getting value for money from Government Departments, and is my hon. Friend satisfied that they have sufficient audits?

I agree with my hon. Friend that value for money from Government Departments is at least as important for Government Departments as it is for the consumer. I am happy to tell him that there were 43 value-for-money exercises last year and 47 this year, and that there will be 50 next year and each year thereafter. The House can be grateful to the Comptroller and Auditor General, his staff and other firms for the time and experience that they devote to value-for-money exercises in Government Departments.

Will my right hon. Friend inquire of the Audit Commission whether it has recently investigated the activities of a well-known firm of local bookmakers in Cumbria called Barrow city council? This organization—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions relating to the Public Accounts Commission.

I am asking my hon. Friend to inquire of the Audit Commission about this firm of bookmakers which has managed—

Order. Questions must relate to the Public Accounts Commission.

Surely the Public Accounts Commission has an interest in this firm of bookmakers which over the past three years has managed to blow £4·5 million, including recently £1·2 million on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Perhaps that firm of bookmakers did not realise that a horse which was doped in the United States should not be running in local races in Cumbria.

I have to tell my hon. Friend, with some disappointment, that the Public Accounts Commission has no authority over the Audit Commission, which looks after local government. We are responsible for the National Audit Office. Much as I think that the Public Accounts Commission would like to look at a firm of bookmakers, that does not come within its ambit.

Does the National Audit Office have enough money to look into the premature closure of the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury, which seems to involve a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money?

I have not heard about this one, but I shall draw the attention of the Comptroller and Audit General to it, and write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of his time he spent on official Duchy business in the last month.

I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Thanks to the hon. Gentleman getting in with his question, the percentage has increased slightly.

As part of those duties, the Chancellor must be getting lots of representations about saving the regiment in his area. What about the regiments that run our hospitals and schools, work on our buses and trains and manufacture our goods and products? Has not the Conservative party shown that it is incapable of saving those regiments? Even without the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) at the helm, are not the Conservatives still a monstrous regiment?

I hope that that is the end of regimental metaphors for the time being. I have had none of the representations that the hon. Gentleman suggests I have, although I have had some representations that the country should be saved from Labour's defence policy, whatever that may be.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when the design and lay-out of the Palace of Westminster telephone directory was last revised for the benefit of its users.

The present design and layout of the Palace of Westminster telephone directory have not changed substantially for a number of years, but the format and content are reviewed and modified on each occasion it is published.

I hope that my right hon. Friend does not feel that this is a trivial matter, because I know that I am not alone in finding the document physically unwieldy and appallingly indexed and laid out, to the extent that many colleagues telephone the operator rather than wade through it. Is this not a ridiculous state of affairs? Will my right hon. Friend initiate a redesign of the document, preferably by a user?

My hon. Friend may have ideas of his own and I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to consult him about the improvements that he may wish to suggest for future editions.

On the design and layout of the European destination envelopes, will my right hon. Friend confirm that they are commencing today, that supplies are available and that they are properly designed?

Order. The question is about telephone directories.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to extend public access to the Palace during recesses.

I have no plans to extend the present arrangements that enable parties of visitors sponsored by Members of both Houses to tour the Line of Route during recesses.

Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to the fact that the Palace of Westminster is a most attractive proposition for all tourists who come to London during the summer? Will he consider the implications of making access to the Palace during the summer recess available on a commercial basis so that some of the costs of the upkeep of the Palace can be defrayed by the substantial income that would be received?

My hon. Friend will know that there are security implications about general access. Any decision to reopen the Line of Route to the general public, other than under the arrangements that we have at present, would have security implications that would need to be considered by the relevant Committees of both Houses before being put to the three authorities responsible for Westminster Hall. Succesive Administrations have accepted that the costs of upkeep of the Palace should be a charge on public funds. I understand the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, when it last looked at the proposal that my hon. Friend made, rejected it. However, I accept that it could look at the suggestion again.

When the recess comes, will the Leader of the House spend some time finding out why so little has been done to improve access to the building for those with disabilities, particularly those in wheelchairs or using crutches and those with sight difficulities? Will he also look at the lack of Braille editions of the guides and other literature available for visitors? Does he accept that, until we can give people with disabilities full access to this building, we cannot say this is truly a public place, as it ought to be?

A number of improvements have recently been agreed by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. It is proposed that a comprehensive study should be carried out to identify other practicable and acceptable proposals for further access for the disabled.

Before my right hon. Friend considers making further proposals for access to the Palace of Westminster, will he find time to consider the standard of dress of visitors who are now coming in here? Recently some of them have appeared to be practically naked.

I assume that my hon. Friend is not referring to hon. Members in this place. I do not know what proposals he has in mind. If there are any particular matters that he wishes to raise, I shall be happy to consider them.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours were spent on each of Second Reading, Committee stage, Third Reading, and consideration of Lords amendments of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill.

The time spent on each stage of the House of Commons consideration of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] was as follows: Second Reading, six hours and three minutes; Standing Committee, 19 hours and 43 minutes; Report, four hours and 50 minutes; Third Reading, one hour and 23 minutes, and consideration of a Lords amendment to a Commons amendment and Lords amendments in lieu of Commons amendments, four hours and six minutes.

And what squandering of parliamentary time it proved to be after a group of self-interested peers had inserted an amendment into the Bill that changed its very nature at the 1lth hour and 59th minute. Does not the Leader of the House feel just a tinge of shame that he could not even get the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) to vote for it and that Sir Fred Holliday, who was appointed by the Government during April of this year—a man whom the right hon. Gentleman must have known when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Education and Science—resigned on a point of principle? What has happened is appalling.

I do not accept that the Lords amendment changed the very nature of the Bill as it was introduced on Second Reading.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to improve the air conditioning system of the House.

I have no plans to make any immediate improvements.

I have to report to my right hon. Friend that there is great stuffiness in Commons Court, especially for the new boys who do not have a window. I have had to buy an auxiliary unit. Can my right hon. Friend offer any comfort?

I am aware of the problem that arose recently for my hon. Friend and for other hon. Members on both sides of the House in what is known as the Tea Room block, where my hon. Friend's office lies. The compressor is in a hermetically sealed unit and so there are access problems. A new compressor was installed last year and it failed in early June of this year. The specialist firm failed to meet the timetable for manufacturing a replacement unit. I am glad to say that the equipment is now working again.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to bar House of Commons telephones from connections to premium rate services.

Access to premium rate telephone services will be barred for the duration of the summer recess, and the issue will be considered again by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee when the House returns.

Does the Leader of the House think that much will be achieved by barring the services during the summer recess? Will he give us a guarantee that like most Government Departments that already have a bar on these services, the bar will continue when we return? Surely it is right that the House shows its disapproval of the majority of the services, which are extremely damaging and run by soft pornographers.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's request, I thought that he would welcome the fact that the chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has decided to bar access to the services during the summer recess. It is a matter for the Committee to reconsider and then to take a full decision.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the cleaning of Victoria Tower to be completed; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

In 1994, at an estimated cost of £7·5 million.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that some years ago we could have had Victoria Tower cleaned for £3 million? It is sad that the cleaning will now cost £7·5 million. Will he ensure that when it is cleaned, the Union Jack that flies proudly on top of the Tower is always a clean one. Sometimes we have a dirty flag.

On my hon. Friend's second point, I shall ensure that his request is noted. On the first point, of course the cost has increased, partly because the scope of the work has changed and partly because of noise problems. However, it is a major undertaking: for example, the scaffolding weighs more than 700 tonnes, the bars measure about 70 miles and the piling had to go down 21 m. It is a major undertaking and by far the largest phase of the project of cleaning the Palace.

Do not the towers of this building represent some of the last few unused wasted spaces? I refer in particular to the tower above the Central Lobby which would be an ideal location for a central control room for television cameras. Now that cameras are an integral part of our democracy, should not the location for television crews and for the House's own facilities be somewhere central within the Palace of Westminster?

That question goes wider than the cleaning of the Victoria Tower, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue was discussed by a Committee on which we both served and it will come before the Services Committee this week. Speed and cost must be considered in relation to whether that part of the Palace should be used for the central control room for the broadcasting of the House, as he knows, but I agree that it is right to make full use of every available space in the Palace.

Does the Leader of the House realise that the restoration of Victoria Tower will mark the completion of the fundamental and far-reaching changes instigated by the late Sir Robin Cooke, many of which have been hugely to the advantage of hon. Members, of those who work here and those who merely pass by? Does he accept that the changes are comparable to the work done by Harcourt which has been commemorated by part of the Palace being named after him? Does not the Leader of the House think that it would be appropriate for the work of Sir Robin Cooke to be given similar recognition?

I agree that the outside and the inside of the Palace have been vastly improved and I think that the improvements are widely welcomed by all hon. Members and by those outside. I also agree that the work of the late Sir Robin Cooke deserves the highest praise for the improvements that it has achieved and which we all enjoy. I shall bear in mind the point that my right hon. Friend made in the last part of his question.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.