asked the Secretary of State for Energy what preliminary results he has received from the Peterborough Development Corporation's experiment on solar heating of private residences.

Results from these experiments have been made available to the Polytechnic of Central London, which is using them in work for my Department on computer simulation models relating to buildings.

Is my hon. Friend not being unduly coy? Will he confirm that energy savings are about 20 to 30 per cent.? If so, when does the Department intend to make wider use of the scheme in the building of private houses?

The results of the research and development that has been supported by the Department on passive solar design show that certain measures are economically viable now, whereas active solar space heating measures are not economic in the United Kingdom. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that preliminary results are encouraging. Like him, I shall follow with great interest the analysis that is now being carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the coal mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the dispute in the mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the coal mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the coal mining dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' strike.

This morning there were full attendances at virtually all collieries. I hope that the industry will get back to normal working very quickly and take advantage of the opportunities available to it.

My right hon. Friend will know that that statement meets with the approval of the House as a whole. Will he confirm that there will be no general amnesty and that the National Coal Board will consider individual cases on their individual merits?

Yes, I can confirm that.

Will the Secretary of State ask for urgent talks with Mr. MacGregor in support of the case for an amnesty for sacked miners? Surely the NCB is adopting double standards. During the strike, to boost the return-to-work figures, it reinstated striking miners who had been sacked. Is the present stance of the board vindictive and hypocritical?

No, Sir. Many of those who were convicted during the strike have returned to work during the past week following the decision for a continuation of work.

Would the Secretary of State care to arrange an urgent examination of the happenings this morning at the Comrie colliery, Fife, where, contrary to what he said, the management, in a vindictive, boneheaded and stupid fashion, locked the men out? These were men who wanted to go to their work. They were locked out [Interruption.] This is no laughing matter. Will the Secretary of State arrange for Mr. MacGregor to come to his office immediately with Mr. Wheeler to explain why Scotland should be excluded from the language that he is using today? Will he do that immediately? If not, will he immediately sack them both?

I am informed—I hope accurately—that the men marched from Oakley village to Comrie this morning, held a meeting and returned home.

Nonsense. I was there.

There are about 25 NUM members at the pit and about the same number of NACODS members.

The Secretary of State talks about full attendance at the Comrie colliery this morning. Why were miners sacked last Monday who had been working in collieries in my constituency for two months before the settlement? The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister praised these men in the House over many months, yet they have been sacked. Why have miners been sacked in the Yorkshire coalfield after being found not guilty in the courts? Why have miners whose cases will not be heard by the courts for perhaps many months been suspended from work with no pay? What type of settlement will the industry end up with? Will it be one that will take it forward? Surely the vindictiveness and victimisation that is now being practised will, more than any strike, help to destroy the industry.

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the case. Hundreds of men are working today who were convicted of offences during the strike. The hon. Gentleman's portrayal of the scene is wholly inaccurate.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the report in The Guardian this morning about elderly miners who have committed relatively minor offences and been fined small amounts but, nevertheless, have been dismissed by the Coal Board and stand to lose £30,000 or more redundancy pay? If that is the case, how can any hon. Member or any member of the Government defend such injustice? Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a directive to the Coal Board at all levels to give a firm assurance that that will not happen to such men who are possibly being deprived of their rights? The right hon. Gentleman knows my views on the strike. If the Secretary of State, the Government and the Coal Board persist in this victimisation and terrorisation, there will be no end to the trouble in the coal mines.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's views. There is certainly no Coal Board policy to dismiss people because they are elderly and, therefore, possible candidates for substantial compensation. There is no reason why the Coal Board should hold such a view. All the redundancy payments and early retirement provisions are paid out of a separate fund which has nothing to do with the Coal Board. The Coal Board has no financial vested interest whatsoever in those payments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tragedy could have been avoided if the NUM had stuck to its rulebook and held a national ballot?

My hon. Friend's view has been completely confirmed this week by a certain publication known to be close to Mr. Scargill and his supporters, called the Socialist Worker. A leading article stated:

"In the aftermath of the strike one of the criticisms bound to be levelled at the miners is that the strike was lost because there was no ballot.

But this ignores one central fact. If there had been a ballot there would not have been a strike."

Now that this unfortunate dispute is over, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will do everything that they can to bring about a reconciliation in the coal industry, in keeping with true Conservative principles?

Yes. It is encouraging that this morning there have been large attendances at virtually all pits. There is no doubt that the majority of miners want to return to normal working. The Government and the Coal Board will do everything that they can to encourage that.

Has the Secretary of State had time to study the disgraceful interview yesterday given by Mr. MacGregor to the Sunday Telegraph? Having read that interview, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. MacGregor is as unfit to run an amnesty as he is to run the coal industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept Mr. MacGregor's statement in that interview that the Secretary of State has had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the decisions? Is Mr. MacGregor telling the truth? Would it not be better to send Mr. MacGregor back to America as soon as possible?

On the radio programme yesterday Mr. MacGregor made clear the relationship which always prevails between the Government and a nationalised industry. I saw nothing in the Sunday Telegraph article yesterday—about ensuring that no amnesty was given to people who had committed serious crimes—that differed from the view of either the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Will my right hon. Friend assure those miners who chose to go to work before the strike ended that they will be afforded protection? We do not want a repetition of the incidents that we saw on television on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights with the Watson family in south Wales. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those union members in Yorkshire who chose to go to work before the strike ended and who have not been able to go to work since last Tuesday will be afforded protection? Such behaviour is unacceptable in this country.

It is important that proper protection is given to those who under difficult conditions courageously exercised their legal right and freedom to go to work. I find it interesting that those who ask for an amnesty for those who have committed grievous crimes——

What about those found not guilty?

Order.

—of violence against others are the same people who argue that no forgiveness should be shown to those who legally went to work during the dispute.

How does the Secretary of State react to MacGregor's words over the weekend that people were discovering the price of insubordination and insurrection and, by God, was he going to make it stick?

Alas, many miners throughout the country are finding that during the dispute appalling damage was done which was completely unjustified on any basis. I am afraid that they have paid a heavy price and are continuing to do so. With regard to the overtime ban, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the industry, does not recognise that the industry's best opportunity of recovery from the disaster of the past year is to get back to normal working.

Will my right hon. Friend say how many coal faces have collapsed, what money he is prepared to spend on them and what can be done to think positively and not destructively about the coal dispute?

During the dispute 39 working faces have been destroyed. Apart from that, a great deal of machinery has been damaged and a great deal of repair work will have to be done before any form of normal working can be achieved. I am afraid that instead of having, as the industry would have done, £800 million of capital investment last year and a similar amount in the coming year, we now have the problem that substantial capital investment will have to go into restoring the appalling damage that has been done.

By the creation of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. the Government have accepted, to some extent at least, the need to put new jobs into communities threatened with closure. If and when a closure is threatened, will the Government support, including with financial support, the deferral of any closure until adequate new employment opportunities have been created?

If we did, it would be a different policy from that pursued by the Lib-Lab pact when it was in operation.

As the benefits of the Government's resolute handling of the dispute will be felt by the country as a whole and not just by the coal industry's customers, will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that the cost of the dispute isborne by the country as a whole and not by the industry's customers?

The cost of the dispute, in all its forms, will be a complicated calculation. It will have effects over several years in both directions. The overall cost is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In support of the reconciliation to which the Secretary of State has already favourably referred and which is urgently needed in the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of a number of my constituents who have been sacked by the National Coal Board, although their cases have not yet been decided by the courts, and who have been given no opportunity to explain their position or defend themselves? Does he accept that that is an embittering factor at a time when we should see the healing of wounds?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the objective of the National Coal Board is to look at every individual case on its merits. If there are any cases in which that is not being done, the board will be willing to re-examine them very carefully. If any mistake is made, the power of the industrial tribunals in that respect is considerable.

In any future discussions on pay, will my right hon. Friend encourage the chairman of the board to spend more money on an improved bonus production scheme—an area in which Mr. Scargill so lamentably failed?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that Britain's coal reserves and the skills of its miners and mining engineers are such that, with high productivity, the industry has a good and secure future. In pay agreements and in any other sphere, it is in the industry's interests to ensure that there is maximum encouragement for improved productivity.

Will the Secretary of State, having heard the genuine and various points of view put to him this afternoon by Opposition Members, accept that in the present situation the position of the NCB is untenable? Will he also accept that the situation in Scotland is unacceptable? If there had been a negotiated settlement, as in 1972 and 1974, the present difficulties would not have arisen, and the problems could have been resolved without the bitterness that has been engendered in the industry.

That is why I regret that the Opposition did not do far more to encourage the ACAS compromise proposals, and far more to move Mr. Scargill from the completely intransigent position that he adopted.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has plans for reforming the structure of the electricity industry.

I have no present plans to reform the structure of the electricity industry, though this will be kept under review.

Now that the miners' strike is over, will it not be necessary to think in terms of restructuring the finances of the electricity supply industry? If so, is that notyet another reason to move radically towards privatisation of the industry?

I know that my hon. Friend has devoted considerable thought to the subject. He will be aware that the Government have already encouraged, by the Energy Act 1983, a more open market in electricity supply by removing the legislative and institutional constraints on private generation and establishing a framework for fair dealing between private generators and the electricity boards.

If the Minister is considering different sources of electricity supply and hoping that there will be an improvement in coal production up to 125 million tonnes per year, surely he must be expecting that more of that coal will be fed to the electricity industry than is at present the case.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very interesting point.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the last Parliament, the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 provided for the gas distribution system to act as a common carrier for private gas supplies? Will he bear in mind the principle of the common carrier in any thoughts about the denationalisation of the electricity industry?

Yes.

The Minister mentioned the Energy Act and applications for the private generation and distribution of electricity. How many applications under that Act has the Department approved?

Private generation involves considerable substantial investment and long lead times, and it is too soon to judge clearly how the private sector is responding to the Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the expected loss on deep-mined operations by the National Coal Board in the current financial year.

I am not able to estimate the loss on the NCB's deep-mined operations this year until the board has had time to assess fully the damage which the strike has inflicted on the coal industry.

In view of that answer, the Minister no doubt recognises that the loss must be considerable. Can he tell us anything about the difference in the cost of producing a tonne of coal as between the beginning of March 1984 and the beginning of March 1985? What was the level of import substitution?

The strike has inflicted substantial damage on the industry, and let no one in the House underestimate the extent of that damage. The president of the National Union of Mineworkers talks of the fight continuing, but it must be the view in all parts of the House that the only fight that now matters is to rebuild the industry, which has been shattered by Scargill's strike.

When planning the reconstruction of the industry, will the Government consider that miners should have the same advantages as are enjoyed by employees who have been liberated from state ownership in other industries, in companies such as National Freight, Jaguar, British Telecom and British Aerospace? In those companies many of the employees own shares and participate in the profitability and better industrial relations in their companies.

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, which I shall take up with the chairman. But let the House understand that there are no plans for privatisation. What matters for this industry is now a period of consolidation to recover from this damaging dispute.

Will the Minister consider the industry's projected loss over the past year and hope that it will improve? Will he look at specific instances such as a miner from my constituency who was convicted for having in his possession a plastic bag full of coal worth £l·32—far less than most people in the city of London take home by way of pens, blotting paper and so on? In that instance, the miner lost all his seniority and his privileges. Further, so that there will be some harmony in the coal industry, will the hon. Gentleman start wiping the blood off the teeth of his neo-Fascist friends behind him?

I hope the House fully recognises that it has been said repeatedly from the Conservative Benches that there must be no talk of victory or defeat. All that matters is the success of this very great industry.

Since Mr. Arthur Scargill has repeatedly asserted that we in Britain enjoy the cheapest deep-mined coal in the world, will my hon. Friend either confirm or deny that statistic, as it seems to be both a vital plank of NUM policy and a test of Mr. Scargill's own veracity?

The statement is, of course, incorrect. It is one further example of the festering falsehoods used by the president of the NUM to perpetuate this pointless political strike.

Does the Minister agree that when the NCB breaks the law—that is, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954—on the appointment by the NUM of section 123 inspectors, he will prosecute and sack the officials responsible, or does he have dual standards?

That is not so. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to give further details of that particular instance if he believes that there are grounds for action. I should have thought that it was for everyone in the House to recover the ground that has been lost as a result of the dispute. I would have hoped that the Opposition would start condemning the irresponsible talk of guerrilla action in the pits, which can only destroy the industry.

Does the Minister accept that the real issue over the past 12 months has not been about pit closures, union rules or amnesties, but about the right way and the wrong way to run a modern industry, and about the right of management to manage? Does my hon. Friend further accept that the only way to run a successful industry, whatever it may be, is to expose it to the full blast of competition? Does he accept that at the end of the day it is the consumer who keeps the industry in business, and not a Government ladling out money ad nauseam? Finally, does my hon. Friend accept that the only way to run a modern mining industry is to privatise it?

No, but I agree with my hon. Friend that if the coal industry can bring its costs under control and become financially viable once again, it has a very bright future, capable of offering secure and well-paid jobs to those who work in it.

How far does the "bright future" of the industry depend on concentrating on those pits where coal can be produced most cheaply? Given the effect of the changes in exchange rates, does the hon. Gentleman foresee the possibility of selling more coal and creating more jobs in the industry?

If the heavy burden of uneconomic coal can be lifted from the industry's back, the future should be very bright indeed.

Is the Minister aware that getting rid of the so-called "guerrilla activity" in the pits means getting a negotiated agreement? This morning I met representatives of both NACODS and the NUM, and NACODS gave me a copy of its letter of 6 March to Mr. Spanton asking for a meeting on the modified colliery review procedure and calling for all parties to attend. Does the Minister agree that that meeting should go ahead?

The Government have always wanted a negotiated settlement. It was a great tragedy for the future of the industry that the right hon. Gentleman did not support the TUC initiative in presenting the document that it obtained from the NCB as the best possible offer. That offer is still open to the NUM.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the effect of the recent fall in the exchange rate on the international competiveness of coal mined in the United Kingdom.

This is essentially a matter for the NCB. Depreciation of sterling against the dollar should increase pithead returns on coal exports, but the benefits of this to the NCB will be small in relation to the board's losses on deep-mined production.

Despite that convoluted answer, will the Secretary of State concede that on the central question of the economics of the pits the slump in the value of the pound has changed matters considerably and the change in NCB accounting procedures could change the economics of pits overnight? Will he give an assurance that imports of coal and oil will be curbed immediately and admit that due to the slump in the value of the pound there is now no need to close any pit in the foreseeable future?

When the exchange rate of the pound was £2·40 I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was as vocal to the effect that, according to his calculations, that meant that all pits should be closed.

Will the Minister confirm that before the strike the cost of deep-mined coal, averaged over all the areas, was £38 per tonne, but that since the value of the pound has fallen against many other currencies, not just the dollar, the spot price for coal on the Rotterdam market is now about 50 per cent. higher? Will he also confirm that the Common Market imports 62 million tonnes of coal from third countries? Does that not provide a great opportunity for us to take up some of that and thus have a demand of 125 million tonnes, as suggested by someone very close to the right hon. Gentleman on the box the other night?

If the hon. Gentleman is right and the changes in the exchange rate mean that British coal can now compete with imports, we should be happy to allow that to happen. I believe, however, that the hon. Gentleman wishes to stop all imports of coal. If his argument is correct, there should be no need to do that. I think he will find, however, that the changes in the exchange rate will not make all that much difference.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any improvement in the prospects for coal as a result of recent changes in exchange rates are almost certainly counteracted by the loss in expectations of reliability in the supply of coal to clients as a result of Scargill's absurd strike and that it is thus unlikely that prospects for coal will be improved until the NUM is under the presidency of someone who has the good of the industry more in mind than has the present incumbent of that office?

It is certain that in the past year the cost of coal production has been far above what is likely to be the average market price, and the same is likely to be true this year.

Will the Secretary of State investigate the "Alice in Wonderland" economics perpetrated by the NCB in Northumberland? Eighteen months ago the NCB invested £2 million in the purchase of new pit props for Bates's pit, while a year later, before the strike began, the NCB contemplated closing the seam for which the pit props had been purchased and thereby making 800 men redundant. Were those not absurd conditions for the investment of money in the industry? Does it not give the lie to the Government's persistent argument that uneconomic pits must close, when the NCB invests money on such a basis?

There are plenty of economic pits and good coal faces to invest in, and it is a pity that during the past year £800 million of capital investment has been adversely affected.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it will be impossible for the NCB to become internationally competitive if it has to bear the whole financial burden of the dispute? Will the Secretary of State tell us that that will not be the case? When will he be able to present us with plans for the financial reconstruction of the NCB?

The future financial reorganisation of the industry is a matter that the Government will have to consider, as both Labour and Conservative Governments always have considered it. However, the industry will have scope to do well in the future only if it takes full advantage of the capital investment that has taken place and will take place, and if it has very high productivity levels.

When the right hon. Gentleman precipitated the last miners' strike in 1974, the Central Electricity Generating Board bought a large amount of coal from Australia. When the coal was delivered it proved to be so much more expensive than British coal that it was sold at a loss to Electricity de France. Is it not a fact that, now that British coal costs half as much in foreign currency as it did when the exchange rate was £2·40 to the dollar, and foreign energy imports cost twice as much, the economic arguments on which the strike was precipitated have proved to be entirely false?

If we are talking about entirely false statements, the last time that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned my role in the 1974 strike was on 7 June 1984, when he said:

"I believe that the leadership of Arthur Scargill and the NUM executive has been brilliant throughout the dispute. The Secretary of State … lost his job as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by mishandling the miners and he will lose his job again".—[Official Report, 7 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 483.]

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of coal stocks held at power stations and by the National Coal Board.

The latest published figures are for the end of December. They show stocks held at power stations in Great Britain of 14·402 million tonnes and stocks held by the National Coal Board of 20·753 million tonnes.

Would the Minister care to offer an estimate now, or publish one later, of the improvement in the value of those stocks as a result of the change in the value of our currency? Should not that change in value suggest restraint to those who are currently lusting for extensive colliery closures, and should not one factor in encouraging reconciliation be the need to make sure that the industry takes advantage of the opportunity presented by changing values?

I agree about the need for reconciliation, but I disagree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says. The existence of those stocks shows that the full demand for electricity was met during the dispute. The nation should be grateful to those who fought to keep industry at work and to keep the home fires burning.

Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising not only the hard work of the power station workers in keeping the power stations going throughout the dispute, but their incredible skill? Will he say that, as far as possible, the coal-fired power stations in the Trent Valley will continue to operate, and that their life will not be shortened by the technical extremities to which they have been pushed during the dispute?

The CEGB coped admirably with a major disruption to its fuel supplies. As long as we can lift the heavy burden of uneconomic coal capacity off the industry, coal can be extremely competitive.

Does the Minister know whether any of the coal stocks include coking coal? If so, why are we importing American coking coal to South Wales and why is there not more investment in coking coal, so that we do not have to import it?

The CEGB has not imported any foreign coal during the strike. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's question about coking coal.

Will my hon. Friend consider the stocks produced by Leicestershire coalfields and join me in congratulating Leicester NUM, especially its leader Jack Jones, on working throughout the strike and producing mammoth amounts of coal?

I join in those congratulations. Nobody could overestimate the tremendous courage, bravery and determination shown by the working miners throughout the strike.

Does the Minister realise that coal stocks and coal production are bound to be jeopardised if the Government Front Bench are telling us that they do not want to do anything about victimisation in spite of the fact that they know what is happening in Scotland? They do not want to do anything about getting talks started between the mining unions, including the NUM, because of the argument of the overtime ban. Yet talks took place in 1972, 1974, 1981 and even 1984, when there was an overtime ban. Are the Government telling us that there will be no talks and that they even want to sabotage the ACAS/NACODS agreement?

I shall not begin to answer all of the nonsenses put forward by the hon. Gentleman, except to recognise that I know that he cares about this great industry. I just wish that he would use his influence on Mr. Scargill.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of public electricity supply has been generated by oil-fired power stations during the duration of the miners' strike.

On a fuel used basis, 44 per cent. of the electricity produced by the United Kingdom public supply system in the period April to December 1984 was derived from oil.

Will my hon. Friend use this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers at oil-fired power stations, who stepped up production substantially during the miners' strike to maintain supplies? Is my hon. Friend aware that the strike included a period when demand in Britain reached an all-time peak?

I gladly join my hon. Friend in those congratulations. The CEGB coped admirably with the difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans Her Majesty's Government have for further construction of pressurised water reactors in the United Kingdom.

The decision by my right hon. Friend on the construction of a PWR at Sizewell depends on the outcome of the public inquiry.

What percentage of total investment in manufacturing industry do the Government's plans for the expansion of nuclear generation of electricity represent?

Plans for future power stations, whether PWR or other types, must await my right hon. Friend's decision on Sizewell, which I cannot anticipate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the percentage of electricity generated by the Central Electricity Generating Board from coal on a fuel used basis for the last month for which figures are available and the comparative figure for the same month a year previously.

The latest published statistics are for the month of December. They show that, on a fuel used basis, 36 per cent. of the electricity produced by the Central Electricity Generating Board in December was derived from coal compared to 82 per cent. in December 1983.

I thank the Minister for those figures. Will he assure everybody that the cost of additional generation for electricity from oil will not be passed on to consumers, and that the Government will not blame the miners and pass any burden from the CEGB to the consumers? Will the Government accept their responsibility and bear the additional cost?

I note the hon. Gentleman's view. As he will be aware, no decision on how the extra costs will be met has yet been taken.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the report of the Services Committee on new telephone equipment for hon. Members to be published.

The Committee's resolution on the choice of new telephone handsets appears in the minutes of the Committee's proceedings on 30 January 1985, which were published on 14 February.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that new telephones, comparable with those available to modern industry, will be made available to hon. Members and that they will include features such as loudspeaker and redialling facilities? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will also let us know whether they will be untappable.

I understand that the answer to all of those questions is yes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, when new telephones are installed, hon.

The hon. Gentleman is a bit pushed if he is trying to get Tuesday's speech into this modest Question Time. I am sure that the answer must be yes.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new telephone equipment is not necessarily purchased from British Telecom, but that it comes from the cheapest supplier?

The Committee decided to purchase Facilityphone, which is a BT product.

I do not oppose the introduction of these modern telephones, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that we and, even more importantly, our staff, will use the telephones in unhygienic, often ill-lit and unventilated rabbit hutches?

And still in droves they come to try to work here.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the possibility of initiating an experiment in the use of secret ballots in the voting procedures of the House.

No, Sir.

That is a very disappointing reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this would be a much more exciting place if we had some secret ballots, as Divisions would be much less predictable? Is he aware that there is now a reign of terror on the Tory side of the House, operated by the Whips' Office? Is he further aware that at least 100 Conservative Members are straining at the leash to express their deep disquiet at the Government's policies? Why do he and the Government urge the NUM and other unions to have secret ballots when we seem to be frightened of them here?

As ever, I am touched by news of the effective tyranny of the Whips' Office, and I now realise that my daily Fleet street diet of Tory dissent and rebellion is entirely an illusion fostered by the masters of Fleet street——

"Reading."

I am not reading at all; this is absolutely from the heart. The hon. Gentleman might to wish draw certain facile comparisons with secret ballots outside this House, but for generations we have proudly proclaimed that we vote openly, on the basis of accountability to our electorates. To do what the hon. Gentleman wishes would simply be to reverse centuries of history.

Would not secret voting within the House lessen accountability to our electorate, as my right hon. Friend has said, thereby diminishing democracy in the mother of Parliaments?

Absolutely. As there is already mass puzzlement in this place about why the vote does not follow the voice, how much more would speculation be fanned if we adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).

Is the Leader of the House aware that on this occasion I agree with his healthy attitude to representative democracy? I very much favour this House continuing what I call the British Leyland voting system, with one lot going to one side of the field, known as the Lobby; the other lot going to the other corner of the field, known as the Lobby; and with shop stewards, known as the Whips, herding people in. At the end of the day everyone is accountable for what he does. Long may it continue. Let us try to extend the system wherever we can, including within the trade unions, and let us throw out the Bills which the right hon. Gentleman has stupidly supported during the past two or three years.

I am so glad to have that warm endorsement from the hon. Gentleman. I would only say that us grammar school boys must stick together.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to reconsider this matter on humanitarian grounds, as perhaps the only effective method of protecting Opposition Members from their general management committees would be to have some secret ballots in this House?

But general management committees are such that nothing can save hon. Members from them.

Given the right hon. Gentleman's grave concern for public accountability, will he suggest that his hon. Friends give up all their part-time jobs and start doing their jobs as Members of Parliament full time?

I would gladly take issue with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but it goes very much wider than the original question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the average time at which the House rose on Mondays to Thursdays in this Session to date; and how this compares with the corresponding average of the last five Sessions.

The average time of rising on Mondays to Thursdays during the last five Sessions was 12.17 am. The corresponding figure for this Session so far is 12.55 am. Coincidentally, however, if one discounts the time taken by proceedings on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill, this Session's figure would be 12.17 am: exactly the same as in previous years.

My right hon. Friend will excuse me because I took part in the water fluoridation debate. However, does he agree that it is a poor state of affairs that the House should have to sit so late? Does he agree also that perhaps we are legislating too much and are perhaps being distracted by European Community documentation? Could it be that the timetable needs to be readjusted?

I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but votes in the Council of Ministers are effectively binding on this country, and I am sure that he would not wish those votes to be cast without this House having had a chance to express an opinion.

Is not the point of the matter that long sittings are ineffective? Whatever side one takes, long sittings make no difference in the end to the outcome of the debate. Furthermore, is it not a fact that they spoil the following day's business, and prevent hon. Members planning in which debates they will take part and members of the public coming to hear them?

I seriously counsel the hon. Gentleman not to disparage the role of the House in influencing legislation, both through its voices and votes as legislation proceeds through the various stages, and the use of time to secure that end.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will open discussions with the Civil Service unions to establish a basic code of confidentiality governing relations between Ministers and officials.

This aspect of relations between Ministers and civil servants was dealt with in the recent note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants, issued by the head of the Home Civil Service on 26 February. I understand that he has agreed to meet the Civil Service unions for a discussion.

Will my hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to impress upon the Civil Service unions the fact that the maintenance of confidentiality of Government information and discussion is a key to the implicit social contract between a permanent civil, servant and the political Ministers of the day of whatever party? In other words, if civil servants want permanent jobs, they must respect the confidentiality of the Government of the day and not seek the privilege of leaking to the press aspects of that Government's policy which they do not like.

I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's comments.

When a civil servant witnesses the deliberate deception of Parliament for whatever purpose, what should he do about it? Should not that be embodied in a code of confidentiality?

I presume that the hon. Gentleman is talking of largely hypothetical circumstances. Where a conflict exists in the mind of a civil servant, the note to which I have referred gives guidance on the action that he or she should take.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that unless we get this matter right and the Cabinet Secretary's minute is taken seriously in future, there will be growing pressure for what many of us would regard as an unwelcome development, that is, for Ministers to have European-style cabinet offices around them, filled by political appointments?

It is important that the whole of the Civil Service should take due note of the restatement of what has been the practice for many decades. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a grave mistake to move towards a political Civil Service.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been wiser for the consultations with the unions to have taken place before the document was issued? Since that was not done and the proper procedures were infringed, will he guarantee that if the trade unions wish to make representations about altering parts of the document the Government will be prepared to consider it?

I have already made it clear in my initial answer that the head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Robert Armstrong, has agreed to meet the Council of Civil Service Unions on that matter. Obviously, if the council wishes to see me or another relevant Minister that can be arranged.

Is it not right in principle that civil servants should be protected from instructions that may lead them to deceive the House? If they were not so protected, would they not be guilty of subversion in the sense of trying to overthrow the properly elected representatives? Cannot the Minister see the dangers and the trap that he sets himself if he does not give civil servants protection?

If the hon. Gentleman were to read carefully the note that Sir Robert Armstrong circulated, he would find that that dilemma should not arise.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions; and what matters were discussed.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 February about my last meeting with the Civil Service unions on 4 December 1984. My right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met representatives of the Society of Civil and Public Servants on 25 February to hear their views on the extension of unified grading in the Civil Service.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The next time he meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the reluctance of some civil servants regarding transfers to areas such as Merseyside, which has high unemployment? I refer him specifically to members of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, who oppose transfer to Bootle.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall refer his remarks to the Minister responsible for those civil servants.

Will my hon. Friend invite the Civil Service unions to discuss the working environment of civil servants near Heathrow airport and how their efficiency and conditions might be affected by the construction of a fifth terminal?

As the Member for a constituency which neighbours that of my hon. Friend, I can only admire his ingenuity in raising this point. I acknowledge that there is considerable local concern among civil servants and others about possible changes in their working and living environments should a fifth terminal be constructed.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress introducing merit pay within the Civil Service.

As I told the House on 5 December, a scheme for performance bonuses is being introduced for an experimental period of three years. The necessary arrangements are now being made.

Has my hon. Friend noted reports about the slowness of the introduction of merit pay? Is he not worried about the number of high-fliers who are leaving all Departments in Whitehall? Does he believe that morale would be improved if he moved speedily towards introducing merit pay and linking it with a more fluid promotion system?

The scheme is planned to start in April, which means that payments will not be made until much later in the financial year 1985–86. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no dragging of feet on this issue. On the wider questions that he raised about early leavers and promotion prospects, our proposals for merit pay will assist in retaining the services of some who might otherwise leave.

Is the Minister aware that the Civil Service has been characterised by openness about pay and promotion? Will he confirm that the merit awards will be given to unnamed individuals? If so, will he explain what possible justification there is for secrecy over such merit awards?

Individual payments will not be published, but the criteria by which Departments will decide upon those payments are being discussed with the Council of Civil Service Unions, and I want them to be published Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend had the benefit of studying the way in which merit awards work in Canada, where they prevented the early leaving of high-fliers and gave much job satisfaction to civil servants?

I was not aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am delighted to have her assurance that this will be a helpful scheme with regard to the early leaver problem.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard, in answer to a supplementary question put by me, the Secretary of State for Energy making a statement about the happenings today at Comrie colliery in Fife. He said, if I have got it right——

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in that line, because that is not a question that I can answer. I cannot answer for the Secretary of State.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my constituency, and in my humble view the Secretary of State——

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot deal with questions that emanate from answers that he may have received. It is not a point of order for me by any stretch of the imagination. There are numerous other ways in which the hon. Gentleman can pursue matters such as this. I cannot allow him——

rose——

Order. There is an important Opposition day debate to follow this, in which a large number of Labour Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman is only taking time from them.

rose——

Unless this is a point or order that I can answer, I am not prepared to allow it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What do hon. Members do when, to their own knowledge, the Secretary of State is lying?

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that.

I will put it another way. What if the House——

Order. I do not want it put another way. The hon. Member must withdraw the word and then put his point of order in another way.

I withdraw the word "lying". When the Secretary of State——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced. Will he please withdraw the word "lying"—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did".]—and then rephrase his question?

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have withdrawn the word "lying". What do hon. Members do when the Secretary of State mendaciously deceives the House, when hon. Members have it in their knowledge what happened? What do we do when the Secretary of State tells the House something that is completely untrue, on the basis of information that he could get only from the NCB in Scotland? If we know that that is the quality of information that he is accepting, he should sack the director in Scotland.

Order. Did I hear that word again? Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Secretary of State was lying?

Yes. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I want the word withdrawn, please. We cannot have it.

I apologise and withdraw the word, but something has to be done about the quality of information that the Secretary of State accepts.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are numerous ways in which matters of this kind can be raised. I understand his strong feeling, but there are many ways in which he can raise these matters.