asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the employment situation in the Scottish coalfield.

The National Coal Board tells me that at 6 July it had 10,216 industrial employees in the Scottish area. This compared with 12,590 at 31 March 1985. The net fall in numbers was therefore 2,374. During that period 2,332 men accepted voluntary redundancy.

NCB (Enterprises) Ltd. is actively seeking to encourage job creation in Scotland.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the considerable grievance about the Scottish economy and job losses? We should all be happy to record an improvement in industrial relations and output, particularly in Fife, but would that not be enhanced if the Secretary of State used positive forces to ensure that the cases of more than 200 men dismissed during the strike are reviewed by the National Coal Board? At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that good industrial relations are brought back to the Scottish coalfields?

I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that a review of all the dismissals in Scotland has taken place. I understand that the result of that review will be known shortly.

Will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear to the House and to the nation that those employed in certain coalfields who have been treated differently from men working in other coalfields will get a fair crack of the whip, like the many Members of Parliament who have fallen foul of the law over the years but have somehow managed to retain their jobs, like his old pal Jim Slater, who cost the taxpayer £70 million——

Order. That is a bit wide of the question on the Scottish coalfield.

and is now exploiting people once again?. If he can apply something to Jim Slater, he can——

Order. That is an abuse of Question Time.

We notice the hon. Gentleman's pathetic utterances. Whenever he has a bad case, he does that. It would be appreciated if the hon. Gentleman showed a little interest in those who suffered from violence during the pit dispute.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome his statement that there will have to be some meetings concerning victimised miners in Scotland? It is an abuse of language to say that there has been a review. There has never been a review.

Is the Secretary of State aware that employment in the mining industry in Scotland will continue to contract as long as there is no investment in the area? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have figures from Mr. Wheeler showing that from 1979 to the present time investment in the Scottish coalfield has been reduced. No investment means contraction of the industry.

The Government's investment record in the coal industry is much better than that of the previous Labour Government. Therefore, any comparison of investment must show that in coalfields throughout the country there has been a substantial improvement under this Government—an improvement that did not take place under the previous Labour Government. Whether the comparison is on closures, investment or anything else, this Government's record compares very favourably with that of the previous Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Electricity Council to discuss the results of trials on the introduction of remote meter reading for electricity consumption.

As the trials are still in progress, it has not been possible to discuss the results with the chairman of the Electricity Council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the trials are successful, the electronic reading of the consumption of gas, electricity and water will be facilitated? Does my hon. Friend also agree that if that can be done, there will be two advantages: first, that the house owner will be able to see, by visual display in the house, exactly what is being consumed and therefore how much is owed; and, secondly, the important principle in all utility consumption that the consumer is paying for what is consumed and therefore metered?

As I have said, the trials are still in progress. The indications are that the electricity cable can be successfully used for joint remote reading purposes by all three utilities. Feedback from consumers indicates that they positively welcome the information provided by the display unit.

If the present trials are successful, the next essential step will be to establish the cost-benefits of the large-scale introduction of such a system in order to justify the investment needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to include in the legislation for the privatisation of the British Gas Corporation provisions covering safety standards for the installation of gas appliances; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The installation and use of appliances are already the subject of safety regulations, and my officials are discussing them with the Health and Safety Executive.

That is an encouraging answer, but there is concern outside. Is there not an analogy with the privatisation of British Airways, where pilots have maintained safety and will continue to do so? Can the public be totally reassured in the same way that, when gas is privatised, safety will be a major consideration?

Yes, indeed. British Gas has a very good safety record. We want to do everything in the legislation to encourage the highest possible standards.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no reason to think that the privatisation of British Gas will involve lower safety standards? Does he agree that if allegations are made that privatisation will involve lower safety standards, they can be seen as the usual scare story that always accompanies a privatisation proposal?

My hon. Friend is correct. Safety is extremely important, and all those concerned are getting the fullest co-operation in the preparation of the law.

If British Gas is privatised, thereby creating a huge private monopoly that is not answerable to the Secretary of State or to this House, will the Minister at least give us a complete assurance that any regulatory body which governs that industry, in regard to safety, prices or other energy matters, will be of a maximum, not a minimum, character?

We all know the hon. Gentleman's background. He wants maximum Government interference in the affairs of British Gas. Privatisation will involve less interference and greater efficiency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, under the arrangements to be made in the legislation, safety standards will be fully safeguarded and encouraged.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future prospects for the industry.

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

I regularly discuss future prospects with the chairman, and I am confident that there is a healthy future ahead for the coal industry if it can bring operating costs into line with market opportunities.

Is it true that the basis of the new "Plan for Coal" has been agreed without any negotiations with the appropriate trade unions, and that the plan will lead to the closure of at least 50 pits and the loss of 50,000 jobs in the mining industry?

No, Sir.

In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, is he aware that the relationship between the NCB and the miners is as bad today as it was when the strike ended? As we all want a quick return to good industrial relations in the mining industry, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the NCB chairman to take the pressure off the area directors? Are we to have a continuing dictatorship of the mining industry by MacGregor, or are we to return to local management, which has had such a good record?

The hon. Gentleman's analysis is surprising, because the NCB chairman believes that the maximum power should go to the areas. Mr. Scargill's view, that all the power should go to the centre, is in stark contrast to that. There has not been a single word of criticism by the Labour party of the monstrous change of rules that Mr. Scargill is putting forward.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Coal Board, will he discuss the confrontation last Thursday night between the leader of the Nottinghamshire democratic union and Arthur Scargill, which showed the nation why Nottinghamshire is having to fight for trade union democracy?

It is surprising that the leader of the Labour party, when calling for the unity of the NUM—a perfectly good measure for which to call—does not recognise that all the disunity has been caused by the president of the NUM.

Is the Secretary aware that the major obstacle impeding further progress in the coal mining industry is the sad and sorry state of industrial relations? Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the NCB chairman that, once more, local trade union officials should be allowed to work on regular day shifts and that NUM branch secretaries should have two days on the surface to enable them to deal with trade union affairs? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that MacGregor and some of his area directors have been harsh and vindictive since the strike ended? Finally, is he aware that, unless this vindictiveness ends soon, there will be no stable industrial peace in the coalfield?

Most of the vindictiveness since the dispute ended has been shown by the intimidation of miners who worked. It would be nice to hear the Opposition condemn that. The constant utterances that the only way to achieve anything is by industrial action and taking powers from the regions and from the ballot, which are going on in the NUM at present, are constantly losing customers for the coal industry.

Are the Government encouraging the NCB to negotiate and recognise the new union? Are they encouraging the NCB to attach particular importance to productivity bargaining?

It is for the NCB to decide whether to recognise any union. I am sure that it will take that decision in a responsible way. It is vital to the future of that industry and of any other to improve and encourage productivity.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his responsibility is directly in dealing with the chairman of the NCB? Instead of making wild charges against everyone else in the industry, why does he not deal with that problem? Is he trying to tell us that there has been no interference by Mr. MacGregor in the way in which south Wales miners and the south Wales organisation run their affairs?

I should make it clear that Mr. MacGregor wishes power to go to the areas and negotiations to be taken on a regional basis. He believes that that is the correct way in which to run the NCB. I wish that the same applied to the NUM.

Bearing in mind the coal industry's future, will my right hon. Friend consider strictly limiting the subsidies payable to coal? Will he consider the fact that imports should be related to the price of coal on the world market?

There is no doubt that a mass of good investment could and should take place in the coal industry. That could have good results for the industry and all who work in it. I hope that the unions will concentrate on ensuring that that is done and will encourage it to take place. On imports, this is a matter about which there is no total control at present. There is no doubt that Britain can produce coal to supply our industries and the electricity boards with a sensible basis on which to compete in the world.

The Secretary of State has told the House about Mr. MacGregor's intentions, but is he satisfied that those intentions are working in practice? Is it not the case that in the past closures have been carried out area by area and that one of the genuine problems of the recent strike was that they were carried out nationally? What guarantee do we have that that will not pertain in future?

The hon. Gentleman should study the position. The recent strike took place because Mr. MacGregor suggested that proposals should be made and examined regionally. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the details of the strike, he would know that what he said was wrong.

Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to March 1980, when the Cabinet, of which he was a member, gave instructions to Lord Soames that a pardon was to be given to every person in Rhodesia after 15 years of rebellion against the Crown and the most horrendous civil war, and that the best way forward in Zimbabwe was through reconciliation? Will he now look back at that pardon ordinance and ensure that similar act of reconciliation is launched in the British mining industry?

I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman seeking reconciliation for the many miners who balloted to work and worked during the strike.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the industry's prospects would be improved if the Labour party made clear its view on the recent changes to the NUM rule book?

In fairness, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has made his view clear. It is only the leader of the Opposition who has not.

Why has the board's policy of victimisation been pursued with such vengeance, especially in Scotland? Is the Secretary of State aware that petitions circulating in the collieries show virtually unanimous support for the men's reinstatement, and that for Church leaders and leading lawyers the matter has become a human rights issue? How much longer must we put up with this injustice in Scotland and elsewhere?

The Opposition are divided on the matter. Some, including those who are sitting near to the hon. Gentleman now, are in favour of reinstating all miners, no matter how guilty of violence they are, and, indeed, of taking miners out of prison. I am glad that at least the Leader of the Opposition condemned that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to allocate funds for the installation of wind turbines for agriculture.

Wind energy is one of the most promising renewable energy sources of electricity generation in the United Kingdom, and my Department's programme, which plans to spend more than £6·5 million this year, is concentrated on large turbines for electricity generation.

The provisions of the Energy Act 1976 have allowed people to erect wind turbines to generate power into the grid. Is my hon. Friend aware that one can produce energy for intensive farm use, such as piggeries, at half the grid price, and yet receive a grant for connecting the farm to the grid system? Should we not think about some form of grant to aid the installation of wind turbines? Is my hon. Friend further aware that as wind turbines have become more popular, rating authorities have not infrequently made a rateable charge per annum equivalent to half the revenue obtained, which is negating all the advantages of the Energy Act?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for rates. I am delighted that my hon. Friend referred to the potential for agricultural applications, because recently my Department funded a study which showed that at present prices and costs nearly 2,000 farms could operate wind turbines economically.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the resources he proposes to allocate for the promotion of Energy Efficiency Year 1986.

The Energy Efficiency Office will be allocating more than £10 million to a range of promotional and demonstration activities. In addition, much greater resources will be provided by a whole range of interested organisations, industries and commercial concerns, which will all join in our national theme of energy efficiency. I anticipate that the overall allocation of resources to energy efficiency year will be substantial.

Are many of the ideas suggested in the energy study competition for schools likely to be implemented during energy efficiency year?

There were many good ideas in that competition. I am glad to say that, shortly after Question Time, I shall be giving tea to the winners on the Terrace and hearing their views.

In view of the Secretary of State's declared interest in welcoming Hainault high school, some of whose pupils are listening to our proceedings today, does he accept that the clear conclusion of its report is that people will invest in energy conservation if the capital outlay does not take too many years to recoup? Does he further accept that, at local level, we need a facility to allow that to happen, with local authorities as facilitators, the Department as the instigator and millions of people as the beneficiaries? Finally, does he accept that it is his responsibility to instigate such a programme during the next 12 to 18 months?

During the past year enormous progress has been made in obtaining the assistance of voluntary groups, especially low-income groups. We shall do all that we can to spread the success that has been achieved during the past 12 months.

Will my right hon. Friend study the position in countries, such as the United States, Denmark and Australia, where the use of home audits has achieved dramatic improvements in energy conservation during the past few years?

The audit system is important, and we hope to make considerable progress in that area during the next 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what reply he has sent to West Lothian district council, as a result of the evidence sent to him, following West Lothian district council's inquiry into the future of Polkemmet colliery.

The closure of collieries must be a matter for the NCB in consultation with the mining unions, which can choose to appeal through the colliery review procedure, including appeal to an independent body under the amended procedure.

Which specific figures in the district council's evidence do the Government dispute?

Thanks to the hon. Gentleman, I have received a copy of a statement by West Lothian district council, which I am considering. I shall respond to it, and to the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, as soon as possible. However, nothing that he has said can alter the fact that Polkemmet was flooded at the end of August 1984 as a result of the withdrawal of safety cover by the NUM. That disgraceful act of vandalism can never be excused.

The Minister cannot get away with that statement. Polkemmet was flooded because the director of the National Coal Board would not permit middle management to go in and do the job that was being done in every other coalfield. Is the Minister aware that Polkemmet is important to the steel industry, and especially to Ravenscraig? If he accompanied some of his hon. Friends to Ravenscraig, he would discover that it is importing all the coking coal it needs. Does he accept the need for Polkemmet to be reopened and the fact that, technically, it can be done?

The hon. Gentleman has got all those facts wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what requests for information have been received by the Energy Efficiency Office from local authorities regarding capital investment in energy-saving measures.

Local authorities have achieved a great deal, but there is considerable scope for further improvement. The Energy Efficiency Office has had some requests for information about the provision of additional funds for energy efficiency.

How can local authorities make the energy efficiency improvements which will really help their tenants if they cannot spend capital on doing so? Would not the most practical contribution that the Government could make in this area be a relaxation of the capital restraints on local authorities spending money which they already have in the bank from the sale of council houses, in order to improve the energy efficiency of their properties? Will the Department take the initiative in ensuring that that is done?

Within existing limits, considerable savings can be achieved by local authorities with only modest investment. I hope that, in 1986, which will be energy efficiency year, there will be a substantial increase in this area.

Is the Department taking steps to encourage the production of energy from the combustion of domestic and commercial waste? What progress is being made in that direction?

The answer is yes. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the considerable scope for improvement in the burning of domestic and animal waste and in the general area of biomass. That featured largely in our recent statement about the allocation of research and development funds for the coming year.

Is not the simplest form of energy efficiency for householders, whether tenants or owner-occupiers, the home insulation grant? Is the Minister aware that in 1983–84 there was a 33 per cent. reduction in such grants in Wales alone, which has been mirrored in other areas? Would it not be better to give maximum encouragement to home insulation grants?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the history in this area is of an underspend. However, according to the latest figures, there is clear evidence of a substantial take-up of those grants. I hope that this area of funding will be fully spent this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss future investment in the industry.

I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board from time to time, to discuss many issues, including future investment in the coal industry.

Is it not a fact that 11 days ago Mr. Michael Eaton, the National Coal Board spokesman, spoke of 7,000 jobs created by new investment at Selby, at Ashford and at Coventry? When that is set alongside the 70,000 jobs, which is the real target to which MacGregor and the Tory Government wish to cut the industry, does it not show that the last 12 months' struggle of the miners was totally justified, and that any attempt to set up a bosses' union in Nottinghamshire will merely play into the hands of the Secretary of State, MacGregor and the National Coal Board, who wish to run down the coal industry?

I am delighted that during the period in office of this Government investment has been at a much higher level than it was under the Labour Government. The National Coal Board wishes to make major investment in the coal industry. I know how delighted the hon. Gentleman's constituents are at the enormous investment that the board has recently announced for his area, as they were delighted when the majority of people in the Coventry pit returned to work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that the recent changes in the NUM rule book will persuade existing and potential customers not to use coal as an energy source, whether it be the CEGB, the BSC or industrial users, and that consequently the greatest danger to investment in the National Coal Board is Arthur Scargill's attempt to use the coal mining industry as an instrument of class warfare, a policy which appears to be supported by the leadership of the Labour party?

Since the dispute took place, virtually every utterance by Mr. Scargill has been to say how he intends to use industrial action to the maximum in future. The change in the rules, which gives him power to take industrial action at local level without ballots taking place and without necessarily having the agreement of the local people is again an illustration of the type of war that he wishes to conduct, all of which loses orders for the coal industry, all of which stops our programme to get people to convert to coal, and none of which is condemned by the Opposition.

Does the Secretary of State agree that investment decisions and the investment record are matters that should and could be considered by the new colliery review procedures? Will he therefore, when he meets the chairman of the board, tell him that it is about time that acceptable procedures were introduced, remind him that the board was committed to introduce those last autumn and agree, further, that the Government were certainly also committed?

As the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, the board has circulated in great detail its proposal, which very much fits in with all the principles agreed last autumn. The sooner they are implemented, the better I shall be pleased.

In view of the Government's clear commitment to the future of the mining industry, shown throughout the mining strike, does the Secretary of State agree that he should consult the Nottinghamshire miners, if they so wish, about the future of the industry and future investment in the industry? Does he also agree that any party that is seriously intent upon taking power in the country should be able to do that, without fear or favour?

I believe that it is true that the Nottinghamshire miners had no desire to split off from the NUM. They did, however, give due warning that, if the incredible changes of rule proposed by Mr. Scargill took place they would almost certainly have to. At no time in that period was there any attempt by the Labour party to condemn those changes of rule.

Would it not assist investment in the coal industry if the National Coal Board did not have millions of pounds invested in private firms outside the industry?

I think it will be found that those investments are now very small indeed.

Will the Secretary of State now address himself to the future of the industry? Is it not a fact that an authoritative report has been published which states that 50,000 jobs and 50 pits could be in jeopardy? Will the Secretary of State answer that point?

I have already answered it once. There is no such report that forms the policy of the National Coal Board. Therefore, I have answered it no once, and I answer it no again. If the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the industry, would address himself to the damage that is being done by the leadership of the NUM, he might have some respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what research is being carried out to develop the use of straw as an energy producing fuel.

Within my Department's biofuels programme, we are supporting the development of equipment to produce straw briquettes.

The problem of surplus straw is acute in Suffolk. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Danish experiment in which farmers' co-operatives use straw as fuel for local heating schemes and are able to use the residue for fertiliser?

There is considerable potential for the use of straw. It is estimated that the surplus straw currently burnt in fields could have a potential of about 4 million tonnes of coal equivalent a year. There are interesting experiments abroad. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recently visited, and was impressed by, an installation in Denmark, which my hon. Friend mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to investigate cases of alleged intimidation and victimisation of miners who continued to work during the recent coal mining dispute; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to investigate cases of alleged intimidation and harassment of miners who continued to work during the recent coal industry dispute; and if he will make a statement.

I have taken up with the National Coal Board all such cases brought to my attention and can assure the House that each has received urgent and individual attention.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and constructive answer. Has he seen reports in the News of the World and The Sun, which show that an alarming number of families of miners who worked throughout the strike have been severely victimised, threatened and had their houses daubed, and that many miners have been prevented from returning to work? Can my right hon. Friend advise miners who want to go to work, and their families, how they might be protected and will be able to convict those appalling miners—[Interruption.]—who deny peoples' right to go to work?

I am surprised at the hilarity on the other side of the House at such appalling circumstances. There is no doubt that there has been a lot of dreadful intimidation. I am glad that the Coal Board has made it clear that anybody who is found guilty of intimidation will be sacked immediately. In some cases that has been done. The board has organised transfers, early retirement and other means of helping those concerned. I hope that both sides of the House will condemn the appalling intimidation that has occurred.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all cases of intimidation are being brought to light? Does he agree that it would be sensible for police in plain clothes or dressed as miners to accompany miners down shafts to get a feel of what is going on? I think that they will find that there is a great deal more intimidation than has been reported.

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is correct. One of the problems of intimidation is that the person being intimidated is often scared to report it. The police and everyone else are endeavouring to do their best to end these totally criminal actions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Scotland 70 per cent. of those who were dismissed were lay officials or elected members of strike committees? That is a clear example of victimisation of strike organisers. When the right hon. Gentleman says that miners guilty of victimisation should be sacked, how does he answer the case of a miner in Coventry, Clive Ham, who was accused by the Coal Board of victimisation, found not guilty by a court of law but who still remains sacked? Under the right hon. Gentleman's tutelage, the Coal Board has set itself up as judge, jury and executioner.

I should like to hear just one utterance from the hon. Gentleman in condemnation of the appalling violence that has taken place. Those of us who watched some of the events at Bilston Glen on television were only happy that those who caused it should be punished appropriately.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both sides of the House oppose intimidation, no matter where it comes from? Does he agree that if the board and the authorities really want to improve industrial relations in the coalfields, they must first reinstate victimised miners?

The majority of victimised miners are those who worked during the strike, and they have been victimised ever since. As for sackings, each case has been examined individually.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what funding has been made available for research into alternative energy sources since 1979.

Total research and development expenditure by my Department on renewable energy from 1979–80 to 1984–85 was approximately £76 million. The forecast expenditure for 1985–86 is £14 million.

My right hon. Friend is aware that gas, coal and oil are finite sources of energy. Could not a better case be made for the Government reinvesting some of their receipts from fission fuels into research into alternative forms of energy such as tidal, solar and wind energy? When can we expect a go-ahead for the pilot barrage on the Severn estuary?

It is worth while studying these alternative forms of energy as my Department is doing by helping to fund research. However, we have to concentrate on research on those sectors which produce the best prospects, and that is what we are doing. As my hon. Friend knows, a study into the Severn barrage is going on now and it is hoped that the report of that study will be received by the end of the year. This will enable decisions to be taken.

Instead of putting money into alternative sources of energy, would it not be a better put money into existing coalfield communities, particularly in my constituency, where we have the highest male unemployment rate in Wales–28 per cent. at present? On Thursday one of the pits will come up for review and will possibly close, with a loss of 570 jobs, pushing male unemployment up to 33 per cent. Is that not intolerable in the 1980s?

I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not support investment into revewable sources of energy, which is widely supported throughout the country. I refute what the hon. Lady has said about investment in the coal industry, on which the Government have the best record of any Government in recent years. What the hon. Lady says is utterly hypocritical.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will bring forward proposals to require that written questions are tabled either by the hon. Member in person or personally written and signed by the hon. Member.

No, Sir.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked a question on 29 April and pointed out that the number of written questions had doubled in the past four years and now cost over £1·5 million to deal with. Will my right hon. Friend have second thoughts about this? Does he agree that my proposal is fair, reasonable and effective, particularly if my right hon. Friend is not minded to recommend a limitation on the number of written questions that any hon. Member can table at any one time?

Any decision formally to limit the number of questions that an hon. Member may table should appropriately proceed after the matter has been considered by the Procedure Committee.

Is the Leader of the House aware that there is much evidence that this procedure is being abused by certain hon. Members? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is probably the most expensive Member that there has ever been in the House and that his worthless written questions are costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds a year? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take steps to stop that nonsense from that hon. Member?

That is an invidious accusation. It so happens that I have before me a roll of honour of hon. Members who have tabled the largest number of questions, and I have to say that the top three do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).

I thank my right hon. Friend for defending me. I ask questions on my behalf, I ask them myself, in my own interest and to prevent others from asking questions relating to my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are other hon. Members who ask many more questions that I do? Should they not be the hon. Members to whom this question is directed?

Perhaps we should come back from the league table, which I think it indelicate to publish, to the point of the original question. Many hon. Members are uneasy about the practice of hon. Members who sign the question forms and then give them to research assistants to table as they think fit. That is wholly contrary to the spirit of how this place works.

It would be quite wrong if any attempt were made to impose a limit on the number of written questions that can be asked by hon. Members. However, it would be interesting to have the reasons of the Leader of the House for rejecting the proposition that written questions should be tabled by the hon. Member in person. What does he have against it?

It is a very interesting proposition that written questions should be not only tabled but written out by the hon. Member concerned. A very real departure of that magnitude should, I think, proceed after the Select Committee on Procedure has had a chance to examine it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take steps to seek to restrict the access of research assistants to the House facilities.

Research assistants are already subject to certain restrictions in their access to House facilities. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the second report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee of this Session, which was debated in the House on 12 July.

I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that I was very sad not to be able to be here on Friday. I was attending to my constituents. Does he agree with me that our facilities are being overrun by this monstrous regiment of research assistants? Does he also agree that there is widespread evidence of abuse by some of them? Will he therefore seek radically to recast the rules that guide these procedures?

A number of suggestions were made in the debate. The Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) will be considering them, in addition to the original recommendations that were made. I have no doubt that the recommendations that are made during this Question Time will be added to those that were made in the debate on Friday last.

If the Leader of the House were to seek to go beyond the sensible recommendations of the Services Sub-Committee, which were debated on Friday, could he not then be accused of seeking to ensure that Ministers are extensively and well advised, but that those who seek to challenge and question Ministers do not have the benefit of such advice?

The usual charge is that Ministers are ill advised.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some Members of this honourable House are willing to give out passes like confetti? Should there not be a limit to the number of so-called research assistants which so-called hon. Members can inflict upon us all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".]

That is one of the points that was made in the debate on Friday last.

Order. I do not think the House approves of the phrase "so-called hon. Members". Every Member here is an hon. Member.

Is the Leader of the House aware that I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the chairman of the Tory party does not need research assistants? On the other hand, those hon. Members who are in the serious business of politics—[Interruption.]

Order. I take the view that the hon. Member is very much in the serious business of politics.

Those hon. Members who are in the serious business of politics and who are trying to solve the complex social problems that have been caused by the reactionary politics of this Government need as many research assistants as possible to help us. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example, the new board and lodgings regulations are causing massive problems both in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members.

I think that we are all beginning to get a slight touch of July fever. The Sub-Committee of the Services Committee will be considering this matter. Doubtless it will consider the hon. Gentleman's point, along with others.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members, who find that the increasing number of lobby groups with access to word processors are drowning us with correspondence, are very grateful for our research assistants? I suspect that most of the difficulties that are encountered by research assistants, and come from them, are attributable to the fact that hon. Members do not brief them in the practices of this House as well as they should.

I take note of what I am sure is one of the relevant factors. I undertake to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Deptford to the points that have been raised this afternoon. They will be important to him when he makes his further studies.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the reasons for the decision to purchase a new telephone exchange system for the Palace of Westminster and the criteria which were used to determine that all hon. and right hon. Members and their secretaries should be provided with new telephones.

I refer my hon. Friend to the first report of the Services Committee in Session 1980–81, in which the reasons for a new exchange being required are set out at length. New telephones are required because, among other things, the existing ones will not work with the new exchange.

I read the report before tabling this question. To provide the House with these so-called wonder phones with alarms, digital clocks and calculators, not just for hon. Members, but for secretaries as well, seems to be a gross expense, bearing in mind that it will cost £2,037,000 to provide those facilities. Is my right hon. Friend able to say what will happen to the old phones?

The old phones, which were rented, will be returned to British Telecommunications and subsequent use will be made of them. I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety that we should not spend more on this than is strictly necessary, but I question whether a secretary should somehow or other have a lesser telephone facility than an hon. Member.

Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us are thankful that we are at long last to have a decent telephone system to replace the decrepit one from which we now suffer, one that has constant malfunctions and gets wrong numbers? It is a welcome step that this House is at last being dragged into the 20th century in at least one area of modern technology.

I am sure that that was intended to be helpful. We are to have a new telephone system because the demand is such that a new exchange must be obtained. It is not true to say that the present telephone facilities are archaic and impede us in doing our job properly.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he nexts expects to meet the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters he expects to discuss.

I will be meeting representatives of some of the Civil Service unions on Wednesday 17 July to discuss, at their request, the pay of senior civil servants.

When the Minister meets the unions, will he discuss trade union membership? Will he state whether it is true that the draft new Civil Service handbook no longer encourages civil servants to join the trade union of their choice? If that is so, is it not inferference with the Civil Service trade unions?

On Wednesday we will be discussing the pay of senior civil servants. If the unions want to discuss other matters, I am sure that suitable opportunities can be arranged. I understand that the handbook is in draft and is being discussed with the trade unions.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Civil Service trade unions, will he make it clear to them that, while it is necessary to keep firm control of public sector pay, including Civil Service pay, all members of the Government recognise the quality and dedication of the work done by the Civil Service?

I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the Minister refute the suggestion made in an article in The Times recently by Mr. David West, that the reduction in the numbers of civil servants has come about as a result of reductions in work? Will he also comment on the suggestions by Mr. West that the Government's systems management in the Civil Service is woefully inadequate?

The article in The Times by Mr. West was misleading and inaccurate in a number of ways. His direct experience is many years out of date. Staff inspectiion, which was his particular interest, has an important role to play, but the significant reduction in the number of civil servants from 732,000 in May 1979 to under 600,000 today has been achieved in many other ways. I am happy to pay tribute to the Civil Service, which has contributed considerably to an increase in efficiency.

When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he also discuss with them the fact that, despite their continued efforts, the loss of 1,000 Customs and Excise officers since 1979 has contributed to the 750 per cent. increase in heroin smuggling? Will he agree with them that the cut in Customs staff has been extremely irresponsible? Will he admit that the 50 per cent. increase in staff for special investigation will be of limited use because they will be redeployed from Customs staff elsewhere?

That is not a matter that is likely to be discussed on Wednesday when I meet the Civil Service unions. As I said, we shall be discussing the pay of senior civil servants. Perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear my original answer. The hon. Lady is incorrect in suggesting that the reduction in the number of uniformed staff has led to an increase in the amount of heroin coming into this country. She should be aware of the significant increase under this Government of the number of Customs and Excise specialist investigation staff. She should also pay tribute to the significant successes that have been achieved as a result of that.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards encouraging contacts between senior civil servants and leading City business men.

Such contacts form a natural part of the work of many senior civil servants. The interchange of staff between the Civil Service and the private sector has been encouraged over the years by successive Governments as a means of improving mutual understanding between the Government and industry.

What response have Ministers made to the serious statements contained in an article in the Daily Star on 13 June concerning the case of Hilda Murrell and highlighting an alleged relationship between the distinguished Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, and Sir Dallas Bernard, a director of Zeus Securities?

For what particular purposes does the taxpayer finance the activities of Zeus Securities? For what purposes does the taxpayer finance the activities of Mr. Gary Murray? I know that a writ has been issued by Sir James Starritt in relation to the article, but ought there not to be a Government statement on these alarming statements?

That supplementary question goes way outside the original question. However, thinking that the hon. Gentleman might seek practically to abuse the procedures of the House in that way, I have had inquiries made. While Sir Robert Armstrong has a long-standing personal friendship, though by no means a close one, with Sir Dallas Bernard, he has at no time had any official dealings either with Sir Dallas Bernard as a director of Zeus Security Consultants, or in any other capacity, or with Zeus Security Consultants and he did not know until he read the article in the Daily Star on 13 June that Sir Dallas was a director of that company. I think it wrong that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should peddle and give credence to tittle tattle of this kind by his supplementary questions in the House.

On a far more important question, is my right hon. Friend aware that the relationship between senior civil servants and the whole industrial spectrum is far better than it was, for example, two decades ago, but that it is still capable of improvement and that we have many lessons to learn from a number of other countries, not least Japan?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Encouraging contacts between the Civil Service and industry and commerce is of value to both the public and private sectors.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

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

The experimental programme of performance bonuses, which I announced in December last, is now being implemented in Government Departments. The first payments of bonuses will be made during the 1985–86 financial year.

Is not it a pity that the new programme is restricted to the open structure? Should we not be working more rapidly towards being able to make merit payments throughout the Civil Service?

This is an experimental programme, and I am sure my hon. Friend will think it right that it should be assessed, monitored and evaluated carefully before any extension can be decided on. But I ought to make it clear that I and my officials are prepared to discuss extensions if they are proposed by the unions.

If merit pay were introduced for Ministers, would not most of them starve?

The right hon. Gentleman must have been reflecting on his own ministerial experience.

How does the Minister justify the widening pay differential between civil servants and people employed in the private sector?

The pay settlement made with the Civil Service this year, which gives an average of 4·9 per cent. to the whole of the Civil Service, is, in the circumstances of the time, fair and reasonable.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many teas were served on the Terrace of the House of Commons in the summers of 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1984, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

The number of teas served on the Terrace during summer 1984 was 4,894. Information for the earlier years mentioned in my hon. Friend's question is no longer available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of people wishing to have strawberries and cream on the Terrace of the House of Commons far exceeds the supply of teas available? That being so, will he seek to extend the season during which these teas are available in suitable facilities, perhaps starting at Easter rather than at Whitsun? [HON. MEMBERS: "No strawberries."] If strawberries are not ready by then, could not we have cherries—Waterloos or Wellingtons perhaps.

I am not aware of this imbalance, but I shall draw it to the attention of the person who matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving).