asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many additional nuclear power stations he expects to be commissioned between 1985 and 2000.

The ordering of nuclear power stations by the CEGB beyond those currently under construction cannot be considered until after the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry.

Is that all the Minister can say, when yesterday's newspapers reported that the CEGB had dusted off its plans to build another 12 nuclear power stations before the end of the century, including, of course, one at Druridge bay, Northumberland'? Is the Secretary of State planning to halve the country's dependence upon coal for energy purposes, and if so, why; or is he making the same exaggerated assumptions about energy demand as were fashionable when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy?

The number of stations will depend upon a range of factors, including the future level of electricity demand. The CEGB has stated that it does not intend to make applications for new power stations, nuclear or otherwise, before the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry is known. I understand that the CEGB has said that should it receive consent to construct Sizewell B, it would, subject to obtaining consent, wish to complete several PWRs before the end of the century. My right hon. Friend will consider any such applications on their merits at the time.

If more PWR stations are to be built, does my hon. Friend imagine that the inquiries that will have to be held before each of those reactors is built will be as long as the Sizewell inquiry, or will some abbreviated form of inquiry be possible?

The terms of reference for any future inquiry will be set in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.

What is the Government's view about a safe or acceptable level of radiation exposure for the public, and how will that level be affected by the type of building programme for nuclear power stations that the Minister has discussed?

The Government attach the highest possible importance to nuclear safety, and any planning applications will be subject to the necessary consents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that electricity is considerably cheaper in France, which is substantially dependent on nuclear energy? Does he therefore agree that anyone interested in cheaper energy prices for pensioners and other low-income groups should welcome an expansion of Great Britain's nuclear energy programme?

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

asked the Secretary' of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the proposed colliery' closures in Yorkshire.

Individual closures are a matter for the National Coal Board in consultation with the mining unions.

I am pleased that the NCB is considering having consultations with the mining unions on closures. More than 95,000 people are unemployed in South Yorkshire at present, and the NCB proposes to get rid of job opportunities for another 10,000 people. How many jobs does the Minister think that NCB (Enterprises) Ltd. will create in South Yorkshire to try to stem that ever-increasing tide of unemployment?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the role of NCB (Enterprises) Ltd. is vital. The number of jobs created will depend upon the circumstances at the time and the number of applications, but I know that there is good will on both sides of the House for the vital work of that strategic organisation.

Is the Minister aware that of the 10,000 job losses that have been announced in Yorkshire since the strike ended, 3,000 are in Barnsley and district? With the knock-on effects, that will bring the unemployment rate in my area to 21·5 per cent. That is a ruthless pace of change and the local authorities cannot create sufficient jobs to neutralise such job losses. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware of the existence of the coalfield communities campaign, in which 54 local authorities, representing 16 million people, have banded together to try to create jobs in coal mining communities? What are the Government and the National Coal Board prepared to do to help?

As I said in reply to the previous question, it is vital that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. should have good will on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend and I look forward to discussing these important issues with the coalfield communities campaign.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition would have done better to address themselves to the question of where the blame lies for all the unemployment and trouble? It lies with the president of the NUM?

It is vital that the House should appreciate the significance of that comment. I believe that the coal industry in Yorkshire has a very good future. It has a marvellous showcase in the Selby coalfield, which, thanks to record investment by this Government, illustrates how one can harness new technology to create low-cost high outputs. That is the great future in Yorkshire.

rose—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about Yorkshire?

Of course it is, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that there is a very good existing colliery review procedure. I am pleased with what I believe to be a reasonable offer put by the NCB to the three unions concerned, thereby improving that procedure and fulfilling the agreement reached last October with NACODS. I hope that the modified procedure will be put in place as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the members of the Trades Union Congress fuel and power industries committee; and what was discussed.

I met members of the committee on 27 February to discuss oil refining policy.

In view of the enormous importance of the energy sector to the whole of British industry and to domestic users, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues discuss with the TUC the contribution which the different sectors of the energy industry can make towards reducing costs and improving efficiency, thereby helping the competitiveness of British industry?

The TUC committee requested a discussion on the refining industry. We had a very good meeting on that subject. Energy as a whole is extremely important, not only to British industry, but to the economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the reduction in the level of output, manning and number of pits in the British coal industry since the end of the dispute in the industry.

Since the end of the strike, production has recovered well in most areas. I understand that coal deliveries last week were over 2·5 million tonnes, the highest for five years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of coal imports? Will he give me an assurance about investment in the Comrie colliery in Fife and the Longannet complex? Will he also comment on morale in the industry, especially in Scotland where 203 men who were dismissed during the strike have not been re-employed because of the obduracy and bone-headedness of the NCB chairman?

I think that morale in the industry would have been adversely affected by some of the violence displayed in Scotland. Obviously, such a dispute will have certain effects. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about investment in the colliery to which he referred.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial for the NCB to move from high-cost to low-cost capacity, and that an important contribution to that change will be the speedy implementation of the plans for the south Warwickshire prospect?

I believe that a general welcome has been given to the fact that in south Warwickshire there is potential for a very heavy investment programme and production of coal at low cost. That is certainly important to the industry's future.

I remind the Secretary of State that the purpose of the coal mining dispute was primarily to fight against pit closures. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the NCB has already announced the closure of St. John's colliery in Maesteg? Three weeks ago, I asked the rigt hon. Gentleman whether he would set up an inquiry to ascertain why that colliery would be closed and whether he would give me some details. I remind him that on Saturday I attended the last function of the mining apprentices club in mid-Glamorgan. That club, which was established 15 years ago, has had to be wound up because it no longer has sufficient apprentices.

At regional level, I know that the proposals for Wales are being discussed among the unions. The modified pit closure procedure that has been suggested by the NCB will be raised in further discussions with those unions. Any closure will be fully looked at, if necessary by an independent group, before any final decision is made.

Why should my right hon. Friend have to talk about reductions in coal output when it was Scargill who caused such reductions? Should not my right hon. Friend congratulate pits, such as the Leicestershire coal mines, on their excellent output and good manning levels? Will he join me in criticising what the Select Committee on Employment has done? That Select Committee, and no one else, has diminished morale in the industry. We should be encouraging our miners to get on with the job of producing more coal.

In my reply I said that production in most parts of the country is fast returning to normal levels, and in some areas it is at very high levels. The fact that more coal was moved last week than at any time for five years is another reflection on the fact that the industry needs encouragement and that some people should not take the attitude that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

What discussions has the Secretary of State had about a new "Plan for Coal"? He will be aware that the present plan runs out this year. Does he agree that if we are looking to the future of the industry there should be an overall plan, which could be agreed between the unions, the Government and the NCB?

Yes. I gather that in that sphere the board is preparing views to put to the unions. There will be a meeting with the unions to discuss in principle what is required for a plan that will produce coal at the right price to take full advantage of the market opportunities and of the high investment that has gone into that industry. Therefore, I believe that talks will take place along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman envisages.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with progress towards the development of a European Community energy policy.

We are now satisfied that progress is being made.

Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us feel that progress has been disappointingly slow so far? Do the Government intend to take any initiative to try to speed up progress in achieving such a policy?

I note my hon. Friend's view. Community energy objectives provide a framework for national energy programmes and actions. This country's policies have made a major contribution to improving the Community's energy position. We share the Commission's view that we need to continue with effective policies for the future.

Will the Minister confirm reports that the French authorities have offered to provide cheaper electricity by cable to the United Kingdom? If so, what is the Government's response?

The Central Electricity Generating Board and EDF have agreed to construct a 2,000 MW cross-Channel link. The first half will be available later this year, and the second half a year later. The CEGB has agreed with EDF the commercial arrangements for the operation of the first half of the link during the first two years. There are no agreements covering the period after that.

Could my hon. Friend translate into one of the European languages what he means by "progress"? How much progress, how much cost and how long?

I understand that the rules of the House forbid me to translate into foreign languages.

The Minister might try Welsh, and he might get away with it. Is he aware that the Secretary of State has given repeated assurances that he will not allow the Commission to interfere in the financing and subsidising of the national coal industry in the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that there is an attempt to dilute the national veto over several areas in the EEC context which are to be discussed in the next few weeks? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that it will remain the right of our Government to decide on the subsidising and financing of the National Coal Board?

Yes, Sir. No Commission proposals have been received yet, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, new Community legislation will be required by the end of the year to regulate national aids for coal. Otherwise, they would breach the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already told Commissioner Mosar that the proposals will have to reflect the interests of the major coal-producing member states. Energy programmes carried out under article 235 require unanimous Council agreement. The ECSC treaty contains provision for majority voting in some cases. However, any decision to replace the existing state aids regime would require Council unanimity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board about the re-employment of dismissed National Union of Mineworkers' members in Scotland.

Of 9,808 miners arrested during the dispute, more than 7,000 were charged. Of the 5,653 cases so far dealt with, 4,318 were convicted. It is against those figures that one must recognise that 1,019 were dismissed. The board has been reviewing dismissal cases, and 414 miners who were dismissed have been reemployed. I have been assured by the chairman, as he assured the Select Committee on Employment, that area management is continuing the board's policy of reviewing dismissal cases.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This question relates specifically to Scotland. Why did the Secretary of State not answer it?

The facts, figures and the whole approach apply to Scotland in the same way as to everywhere else.

rose—

Order. Will the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) confine his question to Scotland, because I shall expect every other hon. Member who is called to do the same?

Is the Secretary of State aware that the decisions that have been taken in Scotland are outrageous, because, of 203 men who have been dismissed, not one has been reinstated? Is this not a matter of natural justice, as has been underlined by the all-party Select Committee report? What action is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take over Scottish miners who have been dismissed?

The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "all-party Select Committee report". It is true that one Conservative Member agreed with parts of that report, but, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that report has been widely condemned for having no— [Interruption.] A report which failed to deal completely with the violence that took place—[Interruption.] I assure the House that matters in Scotland are being reviewed on the same basis as elsewhere. Those cases will be carefully considered. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, will condemn the view, expressed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by the leader of the NUM, that people who are convicted of violence should receive an amnesty.

rose—

I call Mrs. Currie to ask a question about Scotland.

Has not each Scottish miner who was sacked exactly the same right as sacked miners elsewhere to go to an industrial tribunal—[Interruption.] Is it not also a fact that in some parts of the country —[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Lady should be allowed to ask her question.

Is it not also a fact that in some parts of the country sacked miners are being reinstated by industrial tribunals and that their rights are being upheld? Does not the unwillingness of the Scottish miners and others to go to court show that they are not interested in staying within the law or using it when it is to their benefit?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The NCB made it clear to the Select Committee that it will carefully consider any tribunal findings.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, sacked miners in Scotland do not apparently have the same rights as other miners in the United Kingdom? It is quite clear that the policy being pursued in Scotland is vicious and irrational compared with the policy being followed in other regions of the United Kingdom. People who did not support the strike, or were not fully behind it, now see that a totally vicious policy is being pursued in Scotland. If the Secretary of State takes no action, it will be clear that he is pursuing the same policy as the National Coal Board.

As the board has told the Select Committee, it is continuing to review all cases, including those in Scotland. Many people in Scotland who witnessed some of the events around Bilston Glen certainly believe that it is right that some of the miners involved should have been dismissed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Scotland and elsewhere the NUM thought that at the end of the dispute it could secure a general amnesty, as it succeeded in doing in 1972 and 1974, and, therefore, many miners were encouraged to participate in violence or intimidation, in the hope that they would have immunity in the short term and in the belief that they could secure an amnesty in the long term? Is it not extraordinary that in the middle of the 20th century anyone should argue that employers should be forced to retain or reinstate men who have burnt their buses, smashed their equipment and assaulted their staff? Is it not right to deal with such conduct through industrial tribunals? Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Select Committee, whatever else it said, could not bring itself to say that miners had been unfairly dismissed in the dispute?

The points made by my hon. Friend, who served on the Select Committee, are perfectly correct. Regarding the arguments about an amnesty, it is interesting that both the president of the NUM and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield have said that not only should an amnesty be given by the National Coal Board, but that if a Labour Government came to office an amnesty would be given for sentenced miners, no matter what they were sentenced for by the courts. So far we have no sign from the Leader of the Opposition that he disagrees with that view.

Will the Secretary of State pause and consider the question that was asked, which was specifically about Scotland? Two hundred and three men have been dismissed, and not one of those cases has been discussed by the board in Scotland with a view to re-engagement. I gave some information to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but will the Secretary of State undertake to meet Scottish Members of Parliament and go through this issue and then meet the National Coal Board to ensure fairness and justice, because we are manifestly not getting that at present?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have never refused to meet Members of Parliament on any question, and I will always meet them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of his Conservative colleagues feel strongly that he should not intervene in matters where miners have been dismissed in this way, and neither should Parliament? Does he accept that if the Select Committee's report, which was decided on the casting vote of the Chairman—and an Opposition Member at that—were put into effect by the House it would lead to the peculiarity of giving miners rights under the law which no other groups enjoy?

I am interested to know whether there is a similar desire by the Select Committee to investigate some of the ghastly instances of intimidation of working miners which took place.

Is it not the case that many of the individual decisions being taken by the board not to reinstate miners—Scotland is the worst affected, but other parts are also affected—will poison relations for weeks, months and perhaps years to come? Is it not also the case that the Secretary of State has the right to intervene? If so, why does he not do so?

The point is made clearly by the figures that I gave to the House. Of 5,653 convictions, slightly more than 1,000 were dismissed, and already 414 have been reinstated. Those figures show that careful consideration has been given.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the expansion plans of British Gas prior to privatisation.

No, Sir. Business plans are a matter for the corporation.

That reply was not particularly helpful.

My hon. Friend raises an important and sensitive issue, and I am glad to reassure him that the present obligations of the British Gas Corporation will be carried over to the new company.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the cost of production of North sea oilfields recently brought on stream.

The average cost per barrel for fields which started production between 1980 and 1984 is estimated to be £9. The corresponding cost for fields now under development is £13.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in oil prices and movements in the exchange rate will affect the profitability of those fields and that something must be done for them? Will he recommend mergers and the rationalisation of some small firms which have applied and been successful in the ninth round?

Of course if the price of oil falls that affects profitability. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the figures that I have given. The price will have to fall a long way before the North sea becomes unprofitable.

Is the Minister aware that the future lies in enhanced oil recovery from existing fields? Since nothing was done this year to encourage that development, what urgent consideration is he giving to future proposals in this regard?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter was considered in the preparation for the Budget this year, and a case was not made out on the information presently available. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has invited the industry to reconsider its case, and has said that he will consider it when it is presented. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy towards the sale of deep mines surplus to National Coal Board requirements to other operators; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the future ownership and structure of the coalmining industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have no plans to privatise the mining activities of the National Coal Board.

Just as launching other nationalised industries on the road to profitability was a precursor to privatisation, will the defeat of the Luddites in the NUM, and turning back the Coal Board from everlasting reliance on state subsidies, be a precursor to the gradual privatisation of pits? If not, why not?

The present losses and deficits in the industry are a great disadvantage to the country, to those who work in the industry and to its prospects. However, I hope that we shall find ways of giving NCB employees much more direct participation in the industry than they enjoy under nationalisation.

Is the Minister aware that the NUM and others in the mining communities will welcome his statement that neither he nor the Government have any intention of privatising the coal industry? However, since it is an important part of the work of the industry to improve industrial relations, does he accept that until he gets rid of Mr. MacGregor as the chairman of the NCB industrial relations will not improve to the point that we require?

At present, there are plenty of examples of co-operation and of pits going well. I gave the figures for the production and distribution of coal this week, and there are some encouraging signs. I do not wish to become involved in making judgments on any personalities. Mr. MacGregor's definition that the best future for the industry would be to have an expanding market with highly effective coal production as a result of high investment is the only sensible analysis of the future of the industry. I should have liked to give the hon. Gentleman a more helpful reply in his birthday week, but I regret that I cannot do so.

Does my right hon. Friend at least have plans to liberate opencast operations from the restrictive patronage of the NCB?

It is important that we take advantage of the opencast opportunities that exist. In some parts of the country, especially Scotland and Wales, such a step would be important for jobs.

Although I do not agree with the privatisation of the coal mining industry, does the Minister believe that selling surpluses will do any good? Presumably, the reason for closing collieries now is that the coal is surplus to requirements. What is the sense of selling them?

The sense is to produce coal in the future at a price at which the world wishes to buy it.

If approaches were made by other operators or by miners currently employed by the NCB to purchase NCB assets or to become involved in joint ventures with the NCB, would the Government stand in the way of an NCB decision to sell its assets?

The NCB is considering several such applications from miners. However, the matter is more complicated than it sounds, because I fear that the miners who have made applications in respect of the pits at which they work have not taken into their calculations the enormous investment that is required to maintain safety standards in pits. That is not a simple process. Any approach by miners will be considered by the National Coal Board and be regarded sympathetically by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding his proposals to privatise the British Gas Corporation.

I have received a number of representations from various organisations and individuals. I have also met the chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council and will be meeting representatives of unions.

Does the Secretary of State admit that the move towards privatisation of the British Gas Corporation arises out of political dogma and to help raise money that the Government need? Does he accept that the best interests of consumers and of safety will be served by leaving the corporation in public hands?

No. The move to privatise the British Gas Corporation will be good for consumers, employees and the country.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the gas producers? Is he afraid that the monopoly position of British Gas might discourage exploration in the North sea, to the detriment of jobs in Britain?

I have received no such representations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that British Gas and the Government have a vested interest in encouraging the maximum development of the North sea. I can assure my hon. Friend that that will take place.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the country will not be able to judge whether the move will benefit anyone until we have seen the details of the proposals? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the details long before legislation is brought before the House? In particular, will he tell the House on what principles gas prices will be fixed?

Of course we shall publish proposals in advance of legislation. Knowing the terrific mental application of the Social Democrats, I am sure that they will have no difficulty in formulating their view long before legislation is introduced.

Is it because of what my right hon. Friend has said that British Gas has taken space in the country's Left-wing magazines' colour supplements in the last fortnight?

I do not know whether one would describe The Economist and the Spectator as Left-wing magazines, but since British Gas advertise in them, too, a tolerable balance has been achieved.

Will not the proposals be good for Rothschild's as well? In view of the role that it played in Britoil and Amersham International, is this not another disgraceful appointment by the Government?

Rothschild's had its association with Waterloo, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's remarks will go the same way.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the future development of the coal industry in Leicestershire.

I am aware of the National Coal Board's plans for the development of the coal industry in Leicestershire and expect to discuss them with the chairman of the board from time to time as they develop.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of the industry in Leicestershire is an admirable model for other parts of the country, with its high investment, high wages and high productivity? Does he agree also that the coal industry as a whole would do better to concentrate on a rosy future rather than on looking over its shoulder at the outworn ideas and outworn pits of the past?

My hon. Friend put the agument well. There is an exciting future for the industry in the area, with the movement towards low-cost, high productivity pits. I understand from the National Coal Board that work on the sinking of the shaft at Asfrodby will begin next month. Productivity at such pits is expected to reach five times the national average. That is good news for everyone connected with this great industry.

Is the Minister aware that high productivity and excellence in the coal mining industry in Leicestershire has not prevented what will be the devastation of that industry by the closing of a considerable number of pits and by saving only a few jobs as a result of opening the mine at Asfordby? Will the Minister promise that the remaining pits in the Vale of Belvoir will soon be open so that the production to which he refers can save the industry, not only in Leicestershire, but in the midlands, where it is so badly needed?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has his facts wrong. The numbers employed in the coal industry in that area will increase by the end of the century. I wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman would spend his time paying tribute to the miners in the south midlands area, who worked throughout the strike and showed their good sense and support for an industry that will produce competitively priced coal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss industrial relations in the coal industry.

My regular discussions with the chairman cover all major aspects of the coal industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that industrial relations in the mining industry are at zero level? Are they not worse than they have ever been since the pits were nationalised in 1947, and almost as bad as they were under private enterprise? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware of the position at South Elmsall Frickley colliery where workmen and retired workmen have held fishing rights on two ponds for more than 60 years? The ponds were acquired by the NCB in 1974 to provide water for washing and fire fighting. Does he realise that the NCB has told the miners that they can no longer fish those two ponds? That has caused a great deal of upset in the village.

Order. I hope that this is related to industrial relations.

It certainly is, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's considerable anxiety about the problems in his constituency. Obviously, I do not know about the fishing rights and therefore cannot comment on that. As the figures I have given show, over much of the country production is increasing and acceptance of change is taking place in a good way. I hope that everybody will encourage that. There is no doubt that if we continue with the sort of approach that stops development, investment and sensible production of coal, the industry will have a bad future rather than a good one. There is a duty on the leadership of the NUM to pay far more attention to encouraging productivity rather than encouraging dissatisfaction.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received on the amount of parliamentary lobbying by outside interests and the number of hon. Members being retained by such outside interests; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations on this topic, and a report on parliamentary lobbying has also been made recently by the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee report to which he referred fudged the issue posed in my question? Is he not concerned about the rapid growth of what I call parliamentary political prostitution, because hon. Members — especially Conservative Members — are selling their services to outside interests for unknown sums of money? That is bringing Parliament into great disrepute. Will he given an undertaking that the report will be debated in the House at a very early date?

I take at once the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses, which I imagine is in the context of the fact that the current Register shows that 120 Members of Parliament are now parliamentary consultants—an increase of 50 per cent. on the Register for the previous year. However, I doubt whether the debate is elevated by partisan accusations. I shall, of course, consider his point about a debate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a small number of Opposition Members who move heaven and earth to ensure that large numbers of immigrants are allowed to stop in this country? Will he investigate whether they are doing that with the best parliamentary interests in mind, or whether other things are at the back of their minds?

I think that that question goes somewhat wide of the original question. I do not think that I would encourage a detached assessment of the problem if I followed that line.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received from hon. and right hon. Members about the level of secretarial and research allowances; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received from hon. and right hon. Members about staffing facilities; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members about this matter, including several parliamentary questions.

Is the Leader of the House aware that 202 Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, have signed a motion showing general dissatisfaction with the present system? Most hon. Members underpay their staff if they employ more than one. Will the right hon. Gentleman receive an all-party deputation to discuss this matter further?

Certainly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his parsimony and puritanism in these matters are making this legislature the laughing stock of the Western world? Why does he side with the Executive in seeking to turn Members of this legislature into a squalid version of Ruritania?

The hon. Gentleman has a good turn of phrase in personalising all these great matters. It is not my parsimony but a vote of the House, by 95 to 52, which set the present scales for the secretarial and research allowance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are those who consider the allowances to be perfectly adequate—[Interruption.]

Order. Every point of view is expressed in the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are those in this House who believe that to ask for more is a load of pretentious nonsense?

I note what my hon. Friend says, and I look forward to the possibility that, in her generosity, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will ask him to join her delegation.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that he should also give weight to the 450 right hon. and hon. Members who have not signed the motion to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred? Has he also considered that the excessive number of written questions now appearing on the Order Paper indicates an excessive number of research assistants already?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I must also have regard to the fact that the present level was determined by a vote of the House about 12 months ago. In any case, we have a provision for its review in due course.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will refer to the Procedure Committee the question of time for Private Members' Bills.

I understand that the Committee is considering how best to deal with these matters.

When a Bill has been strongly supported on Second Reading and extensively discussed in Committee, does the Leader of the House think it right that the House should be able, if it chooses, to extend its sitting hours to reach a decision on the matter? If he does not think that, will he accept the degree of restraint on the Government's legislative enthusiasm that would result if he stopped tabling motions asking hon. Members to sit after 10 o'clock to consider Government Bills?

That is precisely the type of question that should be central to the considerations of the Procedure Committee.

The House passes a resolution saying what amount of time should be allocated to private Members. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however strongly those of us who support a particular Bill feel about it, we feel even more strongly that those conventions passed by resolution should not easily be overturned?

That is a reasonable general proposition, but when tested in certain singular circumstances, great passions are released and the task that has been given to the Procedure Committee will be formidable when it looks at the principles that are involved in the governing of private Members' time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has received any proposals for changes in the Register of Members' Interests.

The Select Committee on Members' Interests has recently reported to the House and recommended that various categories of non-Members having access to Parliament should be required to register details of their employment outside the House.

While welcoming that recommendation, which I hope will soon be implemented, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a further change that is undoubtedly required is for right hon. and hon. Members to state in the Register the source and amount of income received? Does he agree that without details of the amounts of money received, the Register is of limited importance?

The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the limitations of the Register and, therefore, of the extent to which one should try to place significance on it. In calling for the degree of relevation contained in his supplementary question, I think he will find that he has touched on a very controversial issue indeed.

Will my right hon. Friend stick to his present line of refusing to recommend to the House the setting up of a register of political lobbyists, partly because to do so would be giving a bogus status to those lobbyists, but also because the House cannot enforce the present Register of Members' Interests, since the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) cocked a snook at the requirement to register his interests?

I very much agree that whatever the House decides in this area should be related to enforceability. On reflection, I think that the evidence that I gave on this issue was well placed.

Will the Leader of the House accept that I share the animadversions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on the recent report on lobbying? Does he agree that it was an extraordinarily superficial exercise? Is it not time that we had a much more stringent and profound examination of the whole question of Members' interests and lobbying in the Palace?

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has only recently commended the report. However, it has now been attacked by two hon. Members. That goes to demonstrate that there is no general judgment of view upon it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the significance—

Has the right hon. Gentleman read it?

Yes, I have. I trust that I am joined in that eccentricity by the hon. Gentleman.

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

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet representatives of the Civil Service unions.

I last met the Civil Service unions on 14 June, with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when matters relating to the pay of the non-industrial Civil Service were discussed. Neither I nor my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have any specific plans to meet the Civil Service unions now.

When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he undertake to discuss with them a further review of security procedures in the Civil Service? Is it not time that he accepted Lord Denning's original definition of subversion as an attempt to overthrow parliamentary democracy by unlawful means? If he does not think that that is an acceptable definition, will he tell the House what he thinks is wrong with it?

If the Civil Service unions wish to discuss that issue with me, I am sure that they will be in touch with my office to arrange a suitable time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that we should have an early settlement of current pay claims? Is he aware of the special problem that is faced by the Civil Service in some areas near London because of the vast number of civil servants who are resigning as a result of the wide difference between salaries in the public and private sectors?

There are a number of people who are resigning from the Civil Service. There are particular difficulties in and around London for specific grades, but, generally speaking, there is no great problem. It is in areas of specialist experience and knowledge where there are sometimes particular problems. Special measures have been taken to deal with them and will be taken again if necessary.

Does the Minister recall that when a strike of computer operators took place at Newcastle in 1984 it was over a sum of about £50,000? Is he aware that the Minister for Social Security has told me that the Government spent £145 million over that strike? When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Civil Service unions, will he justify spending £145 million of taxpayers' money to save £45,000 to £50,000? Will he consider telling hon. Members how he can justify such an outrage?

The figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted show the great irresponsibility of the local Civil Service union leaders who were responsible for the strike, which I know was not supported nationally. It arose over an issue on which there was no need for a strike to have taken place.

What further special measures will my right hon. Friend consider taking in special circumstances in the Civil Service, bearing in mind that in some areas, such as Boscombe Down and Porton Down in my constituency, there is great unrest in a loyal Civil Service about the threat of contractorisation.

The special measures that I had in mind were along the lines that we followed earlier, of responding when there is an absolute need to increase pay. We have done that recently, for example, for inspectors of taxes. Measures like that can be taken. I believe that it is the majority view in the House that if there are areas within the public sector where work can be carried out more efficiently by the private sector, we should move in that direction with all due speed.

As the Minister responsible for answering Civil Service questions in the House, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the immense admiration felt on the Labour Benches for the people at GCHQ who refused to give up their trade union membership, despite all the pressure from the Government? Does he realise that those are the very people who uphold our democratic claims? As they are not in Latin America or Eastern Europe, should they not be allowed to retain their union membership and their employment?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to re-run matters which have been fully debated in the House. In any case, he knows that they are the primary responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Is my right hon. Friend able to say how many people are now employed in the Civil Service? Is he satisfied that the unions are co-operating fully with the financial management initiative and other value-for-money initiatives?

I commend the great co-operation that civil servants, from the low grades to the higher grades, are giving in trying to provide better value for money. The number of civil servants is now just below 600,000. It is the first time that the figure has been at that level since the end of the second world war. That is a remarkable achievement.

Is the Minister aware that the letter from the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue dated 24 May 1985 to the Association of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes is the subject of one of a long series of complaints brought by the Council of Civil Service Unions and the Trades Union Congress, under convention 151 of the International Labour Organisation, about the Government's behaviour as an employer, and is at present being considered by the ILO?

Those matters were not discussed when I last met the Civil Service unions, nor, to my knowledge, are they seeking a meeting on them. Matters concerning the ILO are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Is it normal and decent for the Leicester DHSS to challenge all the Members of Parliament based within the city of Leicester to a debate on the social security Green Paper by writing to the Leicester Mercury rather than having the courtesy to write direct to Members of Parliament? Is the method of notifying the press rather than giving Members of Parliament a personal invitation—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is somewhat wide of the question.

It is certainly not my responsibility, but I suspect that my hon. Friend will be doing all right in the Leicestershire press.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many statutory instruments, draft directives and other legislative instruments recommended for further debate by the Select Committee on European Legislation are still awaiting debate on the Floor of the House; and if he will make a statement.

At present there are 42 such documents recommended for debate on the Floor of the House. Many of these will, however, become relevant only when active negotiations resume in Brussels.

The Government are constantly and rightly saying that we can and should pay more attention to public expenditure. Does my right hon. Friend feel that the revelation on Friday that the EEC is this year spending £7,000 million on destroying, dumping or storing surplus foods requires us to spend a little more time in considering EEC matters generally? Does he believe that it will be possible to get through the backlog by the end of the Session?

We have made steady progress with the consideration of that type of document—46 have been debated so far this Session. I do not think that wider issues about the common agricultural policy flow directly from this question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would we not normally go back to Energy questions now?

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we go back to the previous group of questions.

Does the Leader of the House agree that, to get rid of all of these draft directives, it would be a good idea for his right hon. and hon. Friends to join the Opposition tomorrow night in saying that we will not vote that £252 million, whereupon the rest of the directives would become irrelevant?

That is an attractive thought, but I do not think that it is entirely accurate.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proportion of total cost of Members' salaries and allowances is represented by remuneration of hon. Members' secretaries and research assistants.

The proportion in the financial year 1984–85 was approximately 22 per cent.

Does the Leader of the House agree that that figure, and some of the others that he has given today, show that the time is ripe for a conciliatory move by him towards hon. Members by allowing a debate and a vote on parliamentary allowances and facilities in the House?

I thought that, though monosyllabic, my response to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was conciliatory.