asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the peak demand for electricity met by the Central Electricity Generating Board during the recent cold weather.

The most severe weather lasted from 12 January to 19 January. During that time a record peak demand of 47,926 MW was met at 5.30 pm on Monday 12 January. This is an integrated half-hourly figure, and the spot peak reached during the previous 30 minutes was in fact 48,290 MW.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the record demand increases the case for early orders to be made for power stations? Against the background of deciding which type of power station should be built, does my hon. Friend agree that cheap electricity is of overriding national interest, alongside safety requirements? Does he accept Sir Frank Layfield's comments that nuclear energy will almost certainly be cheaper than energy provided by coal-fired stations?

The declared net capability of generating plant on the CEGB's system at 31 March last year was 52,101 MW. My hon. Friend may draw his own conclusions from that. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial position, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the Sizewell inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is fair to say that without the 16 or 18 per cent. of our electricity that is supplied by nuclear energy the extraordinarily high demand over the recent winter would not have been met and could have led to either a reduction in the power of electricity or, indeed, a cut?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Nuclear power stations made an important contribution towards meeting the demand. I congratulate the CEGB's staff on their excellent performance in the face of the severe weather and the record demand. I congratulate also the area board staff who worked in terrible conditions to maintain supplies and overcome the few distribution failures that occurred.

Although I recognise that the Minister wishes to pursue a policy of fulfilling energy demand, I put it to him that if the Government go down the Sizewell route those of us who have always supported nuclear power will part company on that issue, because the public have no confidence, and the whole future—

Order. This question would be better related to a later question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired stations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional coal-fired generating capacity will be ordered during the next three years.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB, and my right hon. Friend has received no applications for a coal-fired station. If he did, he would give them immediate consideration.

The Minister must be aware that informed press reports state that the CEGB urgently needs two coal-fired stations to he ordered at once because of the increasing demand for power. What is the Government's reaction to that? If such stations are ordered, where will they be sited?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. There have been various reports in the press and elsewhere about proposals from the CEGB. Obviously, my right hon. Friend will have to wait until he receives applications before he can consider them. As I stated in my original answer, he will certainly endeavour to deal with them as expeditiously as possible.

If an order is to be placed, does the Minister of State accept that it should be placed now, in order to sustain the relevant sectors of British industry? Will he give an assurance that should an application for coal-fired power stations be granted, the coal that will be burnt in them will not be bought from South Africa?

So long as the CEGB makes an application, the other factors can flow from it, but until an application is made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy it is not, of course, possible to comment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the disturbingly high level of industrial disputes still current in the coal industry and the worrying political uncertainties facing many overseas oil producers, it would be prudent to place orders for dual-fired stations, certainly for those in the south of England, built near to large oil refineries?

I note what my hon. Friend has said, but, as I am sure he realises and acknowledges, we in the United Kingdom are blessed with a wide variety of different sources of energy and it is important that we should make the best use of them. As for coal, of particular significance over the past year has been the enormous improvement in productivity, and that has to be considered as well.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the known death rate from producing energy from such sources as coal and oil is vastly higher than it is from nuclear energy? Does this not point in the direction of relying more on nuclear energy in the future? In addition, is not the reliability of supplies from nuclear sources much greater? Those who are employed in the nuclear power industry do not often go on strike. Does that not also strengthen the argument for much greater reliance on nuclear sources than on other sources in the future?

My hon. Friend knows that we are shortly to have a debate on the Sizewell report. Thereafter my right hon. Friend will be taking a decision on these very important matters.

Does the Minister of State not accept that the CEGB will need about 12,500 MW of additional capacity by the end of the decade? Taking into consideration the planning time and the outcry regarding Sizewell, is it not correct that we should need not two coal-fired power stations but four?

The industry makes its own forecasts and a number of them are discussed publicly and otherwise, but I return to what I said earlier, that if the CEGB wished to go ahead with some of the proposals that it has been discussing it would have to make an application to my right hon. Friend, who would consider it as soon as possible after he received it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the prospects for the expansion of coal burn in power stations in Britain.

In England and Wales the agreement with British Coal announced last June underlined the CEGB's strong commitment to the use of coal, combined with its aim of buying supplies at internationally competitive prices. Responsibility for the Scottish electricity boards rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The best prospects for the expansion of coal burn lie in production by the British coal industry at competitive prices.

Does the Minister accept that the agreement to which he referred is of very short-term duration? Do the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland know that in my constituency there is an under-utilised coal-fired power station at Kincardine-on-Forth that could be utilised quickly, primarily if the transmission links between the various parts of the United Kingdom were strengthened? Will the Minister give urgent attention to these matters?

I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know of his interest in these matters and I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems with the CEGB seem to be, first, the decision that there should be increased capacity in the south of England and, secondly, the desire to find an almost perfect answer to coal burn? Should not my right hon. Friend be putting pressure on the CEGB for an early decision on future stations in the south of England?

The CEGB has mentioned a number of different sites, which are known, but, as far as I know, no decision has been taken in relation to any particular site. Once the CEGB has taken a decision, no doubt it will make an application to my right hon. Friend.

Will the Minister assure the House that no South African coal will be used in power stations, in view of the reports of its importation and burning in this country?

The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to this issue, but I am not aware of the CEGB importing any coal from South Africa.

Will my right hon. Friend look at any proposals for increasing coal burn with great care and just a little scepticism as it has yet to be established that British Coal can produce coal at a low and economic world price in the longer term, and that long-term commitments of investment to increase coal burn, when British Coal has not established that it can produce low-cost coal consistently, should be avoided?

It is significant that since 1983–84 the output per manshift has risen from 2·43 tonnes to more than 3·5 tonnes. That is a considerable achievement. Obviously, such an achievement helps to make coal a much more competitive fuel for electricity generation. I have no doubt that the electricity industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take that into account in due course. However, of course I hope that that improvement is maintained.

Does the Minister agree that the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about increased coal burn was made on two accounts: first, because there has been record productivity in the mining industry; and secondly, because it is well known that if we were to pursue a policy of renewing power station plant it would be good both for the mining industry and power station manufacturers. At present those industries are hungry for jobs. Does the Minister agree that that is the quickest and most expeditious way of providing jobs and more coal burn?

I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that it is only since the disruption of the coal industry that this great achievement in productivity has been made. We hope that it is maintained, It is in the best interests of the miners. — I congratulate them on what they have achieved recently — to maintain that productivity and demonstrate that it will continue. That is the best way of ensuring that the electricity industry pays full attention to coal as a source of power generation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete and place in the Library the list of organisations and individuals to be consulted in connection with studies into the proposed Severn barrage.

I have today placed copies of the proposed work programme, including the consultation arrangements, in the Libraries of both Houses.

I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on that excellent reply. In advance of our studying the documents concerned, will my hon. Friend say whether they show how long the proposed studies will take, given the extent of interest in the Severnside area and the fact that, on the one hand, people are fearful of the decision that will be taken, but, on the other, they would like to know fairly soon what it will be?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's tireless campaign on behalf of his constituents and the campaign of other right hon. and hon. Friends in pressing for the fullest possible consultation. We are dealing with the first two years of a six-year programme, originally adduced by the Severn Tidal Power Group. We are contemplating studies that will last for 18 months, but the programme's objective is to reduce uncertainty about the scheme to the point where it will be possible to make decisions on whether to plan for construction.

Does my hon. Friend recall, from his days as chairman of Bristol Young Conservatives, when I was a Member of Parliament for that great city, that this project was first raised in the House in 1971? That is now more than 15 years ago. Does he not think that that is long, enough for us to have been to be looking into this project? If his had been in France, the barrage would probably have been built and working 5 years ago.

For many reasons, I have no wish to explore the past with my hon. Friend. What we have now is certainly one of the most extensive and detailed research programmes into tidal energy anywhere in the world. That shows that this Government mean business on the subject of tidal energy, which we believe to be one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of electricity supply in 1986 came from nuclear power.

Based on provisional figures, some 20 per cent. of the electricity available from the United Kingdom public supply system was provided by nuclear power in 1986.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is a relatively small proportion compared with many other countries, including Japan, West Germany and France? Will he further confirm that 26 countries now have significant civil nuclear power programmes? In any debate on Sizewell, should not an important point be that the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has a good track record of ensuring and insisting upon the highest safety standards in British nuclear power stations?

My hon. Friend is correct in the first part of his question. He is absolutely right in saying that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does a good job.

Does the Minister accept that to proceed with Sizewell risks fracturing the strong public majority support in favour of nuclear power? Is it worth the risk of upsetting that lobby? Is there not a danger that if there were even a minor incident in a PWR station a strong majority against nuclear power may develop, when we are trying to avoid that?

I note what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that because of the quasi-judicial position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I cannot anticipate his decision on Sizewell.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to refute the allegation that the Government are holding up the report on the linkage of leukaemia with nuclear power stations? Will he also confirm that coal-fired power stations produce more than double the radiation emissions of nuclear stations?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government would certainly not wish to intervene to hold back the report, which has been sent to the printers. I understand that it took longer than expected because the authors took longer than expected to assemble the material.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has today given a full description of the report, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I understand that a summary of the findings prepared by one of the authors shows that in the CEGB nuclear power stations, taken as a group, no indication of an abnormal pattern for leukaemia was found. On the second part of the question, my hon. Friend is right in saying that in coal-fired power stations the collective committed dose equivalent is about 5 manSieverts per GW year of electricity generated and that for nuclear stations it is less than 2 manSieverts. There is, of course, much more coal-fired electricity.

The important point is that the overall dose from either source is very small indeed compared with the dose to the population from natural background radiation.

Is it not a significant coincidence that the best estimate for the amount of energy that could be saved by conservation is about 20 per cent. — the same as the amount of energy currently produced by nuclear power stations?

The hon. Gentleman produces a very interesting statistic.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are at greater risk from radon gas and the common X-ray than from nuclear power stations? Does he also agree that if the Labour party proposals were implemented it would take nothing short of 20 years to phase out nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the dose to the population from the nuclear industry is very small indeed compared with that from naturally occurring sources. I am happy to say that I am not responsible for Labour party policy on nuclear power, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is preposterous.

Has the Minister consulted the American Government, who will explain to him very clearly the massive popular opposition in the United States to the pressurised water reactor, which explains why the Americans have not ordered one for 10 years? Is the Minister aware that, without ordering such a reactor for 10 years' the Americans, who have fewer other fuel resources than we have, have been able to manage perfectly well?

For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I do not wish to comment on matters that were the subject of the Sizewell inquiry.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the complaints that hon. Members persistently receive from companies in their constituencies about the access to cheap energy enjoyed by their French competitors? Is it not a fact that even if we have relatively low economic growth in the future there will be a disproportionate increase in our demand for energy which can be met effectively and economically only by our relying to a considerable extent on nuclear generation?

My hon. Friend is correct in what he says about the French. On the question of nuclear generation, I should prefer to rely on what I have already said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the implications for energy policy of the report of the Layfield committee into the proposed Sizewell B pressurised water reactor.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters about Sir Frank Layfield's report.

I am grateful to the Minister for his staightforward answer. May I pursue a matter already touched on by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)? Will it be possible to have the OPCS and medical review on the leukaemia link before our debate next Monday? The Minister knows that there is pressure for that, despite the answer about the precis given by the Secretary of State for Social Services. Would it be possible to obtain information about the post-Chernobyl review, about which I expect the Minister has received certain representations, before the debate next Monday? The House will want to be as fully informed as possible, and it would be helpful for hon. Members to have the full information before we debate Sizewell.

We have briefly discussed the report this afternoon, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I note what the hon. Gentleman said on the other matter. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will consider these important issues before he comes to a decision.

Further to the question by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), do not the residents of Aberdeen receive more radiation from the granite out of which their houses are made than the residents of Sizewell receive from the power station?

My constituency covers part of Aberdeen and a large area of the Cairngorms, where the predominant rock is granite. I have not, so far as I am aware, been badly affected yet.

Is the Minister aware that I have had plenty of representations about nuclear power in my constituency, bearing in mind that it is a mining constituency? The Minister stands there speaking with a forked tongue, because he says one thing at the Dispatch Box but other things when he is in the Department. Why does he not come clean and give the people, rather than the individual hon. Member, the opportunity to decide? His Government have a majority of over 100 and can totally ignore me.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would never dream of speaking to him with a forked tongue. I am sure that when we debate these matters the hon. Gentleman will be ready to make his own contribution.

Would it not be helpful if members of the Liberal party were a little more careful with their language? When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) refers to the leukaemia link, he presumably means the alleged leukaemia link, which in my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was clearly shown not to be a link at all in terms of harmful health problems. Will my right hon. Friend therefore encourage people to be aware that CND and others are constantly trying to denigrate the civil nuclear power industry through this alleged link between leukaemia and nuclear power stations, which is patent nonsense?

I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said and I could not agree more. It pays, when reports are complex and important, to read and analyse them properly and not to come to instant conclusions.

Has Sir Frank Layfield written to the Secretary of State to raise the matter of the Chernobyl disaster, which was not covered in the Layfield report, and will we have a statement before the debate next Monday?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be speaking in the debate next Monday, when the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put his point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further plans he has to improve energy efficiency in 1987.

We intend to build upon the success of Energy Efficiency Year by developing the 14-point programme of action that I outlined on 26 January 1986.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although great progress has been made in alerting the nation to the benefits of energy efficiency — especially during a successful Energy Efficiency Year—there are still hundreds of millions of pounds to be saved by energy efficiency in the home and work place? Will he particularly encourage public bodies to look at the example set recently, by Surrey county council which signed an agreement to extend its contract energy management to several other sites in Surrey?

I had the opportunity of congratulating Surrey county council personally at the national energy management conference. My hon. Friend is right to point to a number of initiatives that are under way among local authorities and to say that there is still considerable waste, which we estimate at £7 billion a year. Although some progress has been made, there is still much to do.

Will the Minister recognise that, according to the latest figures that his Department has provided, 12·5 million homes in Britain are inadequately insulated against the cold? A large number of those homes are occupied by poorer people who cannot afford the cost of insulation. Will he ensure that more funds are made available to expand the neighbourhood energy action initiatives? Will the Minister ensure that the keep warm project in my constituency receives adequate funding to enable it to carry out its much-needed work?

When the Government came into office there were six neighbourhood energy action schemes. Currently there are 360, with a further 180 planned. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the Government's efforts in that respect. I shall check the availability of finance for the hon. Gentleman's local project.

I applaud the Government's activity in this sector. However, will my hon. Friend have talks with my hon. Friend the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for energy conservation, to see whether some of the more extensive plans applied to Northern Ireland could be applied to the rest of the United Kingdom?

Yes, of course I will.

Will the Minister confirm the following facts at the end of Energy Efficiency Year: only 37 per cent. of all households have loft insulation to current adequate standards, the budget for the programme has been cut from £24·5 million to £13 million and the Government propose to withdraw grants for millions of householders if the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way?

The hon. Gentleman has a tremendous capacity for getting the facts wrong. He should be aware that 89 per cent. of lofts are insulated, and the Government have already put an extra—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he would hear the facts. The Government have already put an extra £1·5 million into the homes insulation scheme this winter, and under the new scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will lay before Parliament in due course, the number of people who can benefit from 90 per cent. grants will increase by about 70 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any applications from the Central Electricity Generating Board for a new power station other than that relating to Sizewell.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the month of February to discuss power station orders.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly. The only application which he has for consent to construct a power station is that for Sizewell B.

Do not the suppliers of electricity generating plant urgently need new orders if they are to avoid redundancies and keep their skilled teams intact? Because of this, and in view of the possible shortage of electricity in 10 years' time, will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to support a programme of ordering new power stations?

I am aware that some manufacturers of power plant equipment and those who work in the industry are concerned about this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has before him just the one application. However, as I said earlier, if he receives such applications he will endeavour to deal with them as quickly as he can.

The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what he said earlier, that if applications were made for two new coal-fired power stations he would not discourage them. Is he aware that if consideration was being given to strengthening the south-east electricity grid link, Scotland could import two power stations because of the surplus capacity, and we would not need Sizewell?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall have an opportunity to debate this matter next week and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all the evidence presented to him. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right that my right hon. Friend should await the results of the debate before he comes to a decision. The debate will give an opportunity for these issues to be raised.

Is the Minister aware that there is great suspicion in the engineering industry that the CEGB is holding back on placing orders for coal-fired stations until the Government decide about Sizewell? While this is going on the engineering industry is in a desperate state as it waits for orders, and month after month hundreds of workers are losing their jobs. In the end, we may no longer have the engineering capacity to manufacture the turbines and other equipment needed to carry out the orders.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, particularly from the exchanges this afternoon, my right hon. Friend has an application before him for a power station. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what he said about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.

At the Council of Energy Ministers, which is planned for 31 March. I am pleased that during the British presidency it was agreed that more Community collaboration should be organised in this sphere.

Is the balance between United Kingdom national research and Community research into alternative sources of energy about right? Has the meeting cif Community scientists about alternative sources of energy, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 November last year, taken place, and if so, what was the outcome?

I believe that there is a place both for Community-sponsored research and for research sponsored by national Governments, as the needs of national Governments are quite often different. Many projects have been supported by Community funds and I hope that that will continue. On my hon. Friend's second question, the chief scientists have still to meet, but I understand that that meeting will take place shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what lessons his Department has drawn from the recent cold spell about energy conservation.

The recent cold weather confirms the importance of my right hon. Friend's campaign for energy efficiency in every sector, particularly with regard to roof and wall insulation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the success of the Government's community insulation projects. However, does he agree that we still have centrally heated gardens and warm streets resulting from heat emanating from homes, in which that heat should remain?

In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, will he consider some means whereby rebates on rates or the community charge may be made available to individuals and local authorities to ensure that housing insulation satisfies certain requirements, something with which other countries cope far better than us?

We shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's points. It is right to pay particular tribute to neighbourhood energy action for its tremendous achievement in organising so many people to help those who could not afford insulation. By the end of this year the Government's insulation projects will have helped 450,000 homes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people who could take action do not do so.

Can the Minister confirm that only 37 per cent. of households have adequate loft insulation in line with Government standards?

I have tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman that currently almost 90 per cent. of lofts have insulation, although most of that is inadequate. Surely it is right to focus the greatest help on those less able to help themselves. That is why, in 1980, the Government introduced a 90 per cent. grant under the home insulation scheme. So far that has helped about 500,000 elderly and disabled householders on low incomes to insulate their lofts. We are determined that there should be more progress under this important scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the activities of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

I am pleased to report that British Coal Enterprise has just approved its 1,000th project. At the end of January the company had committed £22·1 million and had helped to create nearly 14,000 new job opportunities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer. When I first entered the House 30 years ago it was the aim of most people to get as many underground workers as possible out of the mines because it was such a rough, dirty and nasty job. It is rather nice to know that British Coal Enterprise is proving that it can provide alternative jobs. Will my hon. Friend keep up the good work?

I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's generous comments to the management of British Coal Enterprise. I stress once again that the Government are committed to the success of that company.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the value of capital investment made by British Coal in 1986; and how much of that was devoted to the western area.

The western area of British Coal received £69 million of the £660 million invested in the industry during 1985–86.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts made by British Coal to invest in the western area? That is excellent news for the coal miners in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that for three weeks running the miners at Littleton and Lea Hall collieries have produced record outputs per man shift? Littleton colliery is producing 30,000 tons weekly, which is a record.

British Coal is currently investing almost £2 million a day in the coal industry. So far, the Government have invested £5 billion in the coal industry since they came to power in 1979 — far more than the Labour Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the response that we have received from the men and management of the industry. Those record productivity figures offer the best news to the industry that it could ever have.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the number of people employed directly and indirectly in the development of North sea oil and gas.

The Department of Employment estimates that 26,400 persons were employed in the oil and gas extraction industry as at September 1986. Figures for employment in the supply industry in the United Kingdom as a whole are not available.

Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Development Agency and other agencies forecast losses of up to 30,000 jobs in the industry in the next two years unless there is an increase in activity? Has the Minister any proposals to put to the House for the development of the 90 discoveries within 20 miles of existing installations to encourage activity and to save us from a rapid decline in self-sufficiency?

There is concern about jobs, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the fact that last year we approved new developments worth over £2 billion, which will generate work. As recently as a couple of weeks ago I approved the Audrey gas development, worth over £80 million. Work is continuing. In addition, the early repayment of petroleum revenue tax has improved the industry's cash flow by £300 million. I understand the problems. We are watching what is happening in the offshore industry closely because it is important to our economy.

asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will undertake a study of the impact of the arts on employment.

Two studies are currently under way. I am participating in the funding of one of them, and I await the results with interest.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the criteria adopted for the study will not mean robbing Peter to pay Paul. Will the Minister consider developments in Sheffield which have created employment, particularly at the Leadmill centre, with its new recording studio? The constraints on that project are now only financial. Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to stop running round the country like a philistine taking a crack at every local authority, especially in Sheffield, where he condemned the new recording studio which has given new vision to many young people in Sheffield?

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has tabled his first question to me on the arts, and that at least 47 other questions have been tabled by Opposition Members. I welcome the Opposition's new-found interest in the arts. More questions have been tabled today than at any other time since I have been responsible for the arts. I welcome that warmly.

The two studies are important because they will give us information about the impact of the arts on the economy. That information will be helpful to us in assessing the value of the arts in both the public and private sectors.

I look forward to my visit to Sheffield next week. I have great admiration for the work at the Crucible theatre and for other arts activities in that area.

As Britain is flourishing as one of the arts capitals of the world, and as our theatres, concerts, operas, ballet, art galleries and museums — our heritage generally, not excluding military bands — attract foreigners whose spending generates employment and income, will the Government continue to build on that strength?

I agree that we have a remarkable record, which is illustrated by the large numbers of overseas tourists who enjoy our arts activities. If every hon. Member in the House supported our overall encouragement for increased resources for the arts, including those from the private sector, the arts would have even better prospects.

asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the future of the Sherman theatre, Cardiff.

I have received three representations. The university college, Cardiff is in touch with the Welsh Arts Council and the local authorities concerned about the future of the theatre.

Will the Minister make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the desperate plight of this theatre? It is an important theatre, especially in terms of Welsh language productions. There have been precedents whereby the Welsh Office has given one-off payments, such as in May 1979, when a £750,000 trust was set up. The income from that led to the installation of a professor of geriatric medicine in the National School of Medicine in Cardiff. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will make such representations.

Both my right hon. Friend and I know the importance of the Sherman theatre to Cardiff and, indeed, to Wales. I observe that the University college has decided to give a tiding-over sum running into early 1988. This will give time for the theatre to look for other sources of funds. The Welsh Arts Council already gives considerable sums and it is reasonable to look to local authorities to play their part too. The South Glamorgan county council plays its part, and other local authorities should look upon the Sherman theatre as a good investment for their areas.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Cardiff city council already gives generously to one theatre in Cardiff and to the finest concert hall in Britain? The county council should certainly give more support, but there is room for central Government short-term financing which will, unfortunately, be necessary over and above anything that the university will give. The university funding is ceasing at short notice.

I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this theatre. The Welsh Arts Council receives money direct from the Arts Council of Great Britain—taxpayers' money. It gives a sizeable sum and is taking a keen interest in the whole question of the future financing of this theatre.

Does the Minister not feel that the Government have some responsibility for the continued existence and wellbeing of university theatres in general? When UGC funding dries up, is it not important for the Government to provide interim finance so that the wellbeing not only of the theatre in Wales but of those in Exeter and Oxford can be preserved?

I must reiterate the point that I have already made, that the Government through the Welsh Arts Council, are already giving considerable support. For this financial year the Welsh Arts Council is giving £250,000 to the theatre. This shows the importance that it attaches to it. With all these theatres, it is partnership and the variety of sources of finance that are important. That is why it is right to look to local authorities to play their part.

asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the development and extension of the Royal Opera House.

I have discussed the development plans with the Royal Opera House and have met representatives of the Covent Garden Community Association.

Will the Minister practise a little open government here and allow the public to know what is going on in this matter, which is of some significance to the arts and to public expenditure? Will he do two things? First, will he publish the 1975 trust deed so that the public can see the terms and conditions on which the land for the development of the opera house was granted? Secondly, could he explain what is the interest, if any, of the Royal Opera House in the Lyceum and how the financial involvement of the London Residuary Body might be concerned in this project? Unless he gives some more information to the public on these important matters, people will feel that public expenditure and the future of the Royal Opera House are not in safe hands.

I am quite happy to give as much information on this as I can. The Royal Opera House came forward with an imaginative plan for its long-term development. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the plan involves raising about £55 million, and the opera house proposes that at least a substantial proportion of that, about £30 million, should come from commercial development. It is important that the opera house should be able to prove that it can raise this money from the private sector. That is its objective. I shall look at the question of the publication of the deeds and whether that is possible. In the meantime, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the long-term proposals, which are subject to planning approval and to approval by me, are imaginative and should be carefully considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that just before Christmas the all-party arts and heritage group examined the plans and proposals and found them exciting, imaginative and entirely realistic? Like me, does my right hon. Friend wish the Royal Opera House every success?

I am pleased that the Royal Opera House has put forward imaginative plans. Clearly, it is important to realise that they have to go through certain stages, which includes planning approval from Westminster city council. After that I shall have to consider, as the trustee under the deed of covenant, whether I can allow this to go through. Like my hon. Friend, I broadly praise the long-term objectives.

asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met with the Association of County Councils to discuss the future of the Public Library Service.

The Association of County Councils has not sought a meeting to discuss this matter with me, but I shall be happy to see the association if it does.

Is the Minister aware that there have been 200 library closures since 1979, a 34 per cent. cut in book funding per head of population since 1979 and a 20 per cent. cut in the same figure for the county of Cumbria? Are the Government simply anti-culture?

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the first time that he has put an oral question to me—

No. Withdraw.

If that is not true, I am happy to withdraw it. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject of arts and libraries. I hope, therefore, that he will welcome the fact that the amount of money allocated to local authority libraries and museums will increase in the coming financial year by 15 per cent. I hope he will also welcome the fact that, compared with a decade ago, when the Socialists were last in power, there are more books in libraries.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what action he is taking to improve staff reporting and appraisal throughout the Civil Service.

All Departments are introducing new appraisal systems to cover staff in non-industrial grades. The new systems must focus on results achieved in relation to planned objectives. Early evidence shows they are being well received.

I welcome the openness of the system that my right hon. Friend has just described. It compares well with the snoops being appointed by many Labour local authorities to push people in local authority employment in places such as Ealing and Brent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am grateful also for the increasing openness in the Civil Service, especially on appraisals. There is an increasing move in the Civil Service to relate pay to performance, which is also resulting in higher productivity.

Will the Minister accept the gratitude of the House for any part that he played in getting the Prime Minister to accept the loyalty and dedication of the Civil Service and to show her admiration for it — elements that were lacking over the previous seven years? Will the right hon. Gentleman now go on to ensure that many of those civil servants who are leaving the Civil Service are encouraged to remain in it?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to take advantage of his question to say that recently the Management and Personnel Office tabled an annual report for the first time, copies of which are in the Library. This gives a clear message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the importance of the Civil Service and its dedication and loyalty. That is true of the vast bulk of the Civil Service.

Returning to the subject of staff appraisal, is my right hon. Friend aware that in my experience, which goes back a long time, the Civil Service and the armed forces are very much better at staff appraisal than are a great deal of industry and commerce, which is a shame for industry and commerce?

There may be a considerable amount of truth in that. The modern methods used by today's Civil Service are as good as anything in the private sector.

Is the Minister aware that the research commissioned by the MPO shows that women are consistently marked down in terms of promotability? What steps will he take to reverse that trend?

There is an Equal Opportunities Office and, as employers, we are totally pledged to equal opportunities within the Civil Service. In the service as a whole at least half of the Civil Service comprises women, but they are employed principally in junior positions. Obviously, our interest is to persuade more women to serve in senior positions, in long-term careers, and to do our best in that direction.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his estimate of improvements in productivity in the Civil Service as a result of management reform and other changes since 1979.

About 90,000 Civil Service posts were saved between April 1979 and April 1986 by general streamlining and greater efficiency. That is an improvement of well over 10 per cent. of the size of the Civil Service in 1979 and a major contribution to the overall reduction of 19 per cent.

I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that one of the management objectives of any enterprise must be value for money? Does he consider that cost efficiency might be achieved by contracting out some of the ancillary services within the Civil Service, such as catering?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Clearly, the objective of the Civil Service is to get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. The evidence of the past few years shows that our achievement is solid. We have saved just under £1 billion of taxpayers money by improvements in productivity as a whole and reductions in the size of the Civil Service, and we have been able to improve services as well. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's points.

While the Minister is considering improvements in productivity, surely he will not accept the nonsense that we saw in the press over the weekend about members of the Civil Service who are supporters of the Militant Tendency. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not follow the ideas of McCarthy in the United States of America and extend the concept so that people must take a loyalty test before they can be members of the Civil Service?

I have not, as yet, had any evidence of that drawn to my attention. However, a question on that subject has been tabled for me for tomorrow. As the hon. Gentleman may know, long-standing arrangements have been designed to prevent extremists gaining access to highly classified Government information. Political affiliation is not a factor in recruitment to the public service. The Civil Service has a long tradition of political impartiality. The only requirement is that civil servants should serve the democratically elected Government of the day with loyalty and integrity. The vast majority of the Civil Service do so.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage exchanges between civil servants and industrialists, other than full-time secondments.

We have introduced the Whitehall and industry scheme, under which young civil servants can spend short periods on attachment to business organisations. Under another scheme, civil servants can he attached, on an unpaid basis, to the boards of private sector companies.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that there are practical difficulties in encouraging full-time secondments'? However, I welcome the increase in them in recent years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more initiatives could be taken to encourage part-time secondments between industry and the Civil Service, and vice versa, which would be beneficial to both sides? Will he consider ways in which more civil servants could be appointed to non-executive, albeit unpaid, posts on public and private industry boards?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the problem. It is singularly important that there should be the greatest degree of interchange between the Civil Service, other parts of the public sector, and, principally, the private sector. As he knows, I am trying to persuade other Departments to increase the number of secondments from the private sector and the number of inward secondments from the private sector to the Civil Service. I am looking at ways of doing that, including non-executive and unpaid directors, short courses with businesses and our training courses, to seek a greater interchange between the two.

Does the Minister agree that the numbers involved are still pitifully small and that his remarks are, therefore, very welcome. I, too, acknowledge that there is a great deal for people from the private sector to learn by working in the public sector, in which the constraints and the whole way of life is entirely different from that in the private sector.

The hon. Gentleman is right and I am certainly doing my best to encourage that. It is not, as was said earlier, an easy process to arrange, but, as the hon. Gentleman may know, several important posts in the Civil Service are being filled by outside people for short periods.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will provide more information on the work and achievements of the Management and Personnel Office.

Information on aspects of the work of the Management and Personnel Office is published frequently. On 28 January, for the first time, a report on the work of the MPO as a whole was published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I shall consider producing a similar publication in future years.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have had the opportunity to meet members of that Office are grateful for the chance to learn more about its work? Does he also accept that progress towards eliminating discrimination against people with non-white skins is moving much more slowly than some of us would like? Can he assure us that that will be a priority within that Office?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in this subject, and I am certainly anxious for hon. Members on both sides of the House to have a chance to learn more about the workings of the Civil Service. On his last point, it is very much our policy as employers to pursue the principle of equal opportunities for all. My hon. Friend may know that several studies are taking place about the ethnic origins of people recruited to the service. I hope that this will help us in our overall campaign to encourage the maximum number of ethnic minorities to join.

Is the Minister aware that many of us will not be happy with the inadequate reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? Whatever answer he may give tomorrow—

Order. We are discussing question 88.

I am dealing with the management of personnel in the Civil Service, Mr. Speaker. Many of us believe that there must be the widest possible opposition to any sort of McCarthyism. If the Minister is worried about extremists, he should be worrying about the Cabinet.

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. No one has ever suggested that there is any sort of McCarthyism. We have well laid-down procedures for dealing with any problems in the Civil Service, and the vast bulk of civil servants are loyal and impartial and do their job properly.

Later——

On a point of order arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed the enthusiasm of the Minister for the Arts for the number of questions tabled by my hon. Friends in an attempt to scrutinise the Government's appalling record on the arts. At an appropriate moment in the parliamentary year will you consider granting more time to this matter so that my hon. Friends can explore fully the Government's bad record?

rose——

Order. Is it on the same matter?

It is related, Mr. Speaker.

Let me deal with one matter at a time. First, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) knows that it is not for me to decide which questions to take on which day. That is for the usual channels. Nevertheless, I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, because I wish to see the Chamber as full as possible all the time. Forty-seven questions to the Minister for the Arts is extremely good.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Arts Question Time for 10 minutes every three weeks is greatly valued by hon. Members who care about the arts, is it not an abuse for Opposition Members, who, by and large, are not philistines, suddenly to table 47 questions in one day so as to—

Order. That is certainly not an abuse. It is good news that there is such a great interest in the arts.

rose——

Order. Hon. Members must be seeking to raise a matter on which I can rule. I shall take points of order now because, as I said on Thursday, there is no statement today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not expected that, if hon. Members table questions, they should turn up to ask them? That has not happened today in the case of many of the 47 Opposition Members who tabled questions to the Minister for the Arts. That is a gross discourtesy to him and the House.

rose——

Order. Only the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) was not present for Arts Questions today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) exited stage left in high dudgeon because he was unable to get in at Arts Question Time? If we were given more time, perhaps he would not have to leave so abruptly.

I have no idea why the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) left the Chamber.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It must be admitted that 10 of the 47 questions were not tabled by the Labour party. May I suggest that the chances of hijacking an Arts Question Time by tabling so many questions make it extraordinarily difficult to question the Minister in respect of his prime responsibility to the arts. Would it not be possible to have one open question per session?

rose——

Order. This process only delays us. I am sure that the whole House wants to see Question Time taken seriously. From the Chair, I welcome the fact that hon. Members take such an interest in Question Time. I would like to see the Chamber full all the time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that the fact that the Liberal Members were not able to ask the questions that they felt they wanted to ask is nothing to do with your control of the Chamber, but with their dilatoriness in tabling questions?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the request put to you by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that Arts Question Time might be extended, will you bear in mind that it is estimated that it costs an average of £70 to answer a parliamentary question? There is a view that the £2,520 of public money that it will have cost to answer the 36 questions tabled so energetically by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central would perhaps have been better used towards action on the arts.

On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall deal with one thing at a time. I should say to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that the timing of questions is not a matter for me. I have already said that.

On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could consideration be given to looking at our procedures enabling us to raise matters of great importance? As I understand it, you are not in favour of the abuse of Standing Order No. 20. You may know that on Thursday, during business questions, I raised the acute plight of the Palestinians who are facing starvation in the Lebanon. The situation has hardly changed. It may be argued that we have an opportunity of asking the Foreign Secretary oral questions every five or six weeks. I took the opportunity today to look at the questions that are on the agenda for Wednesday. I found that there is one question, No. 12, which may be reached and which you may allow to be extended to include the topic I have chosen. The other question is No. 22, which it is likely will not be reached.

I ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in the country at large—however important arts questions and the rest of today's business is—there is acute anxiety as to whether Britain, through the international agencies, could play some part in trying to bring relief to people facing starvation. Is there no way, on a day such as this when there is not too much business, for such matters to be raised?

If by chance today's business were to conclude earlier than anticipated, there may be other opportunities.

Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that I rose in my place briefly but was not called and did not exit left in a hurry. However, you give preference to people wanting to make maiden speeches. You may not have been aware that I was trying to ask my maiden question to the Minister for the Arts. I hope that you will take that into consideration next time.