asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement regarding the consultation which took place between the National Coal Board and his Department before the announcement on 3 February of the cessation of production at Bogside mine in Fife.

Colliery closures are a matter for the National Coal Board, which has well-established arrangements, agreed with the mining unions, covering procedures at local and national level. These do not call for consultation with my Department, and none took place.

Is that not an extremely innocuous reply in the circumstances? As in England, the NCB sees fit, in its wisdom, to ask the mine managers' union to give cover, while in Scotland it has decided not to request similar cover for maintenance and safety, will the Minister institute an inquiry, preferably public, into all the elements surrounding the problems affecting the Bogside closure on 3 February, so that there will be a halt to the NCB's vindictive attitude in Scotland, which is causing disruption in the coalfield?

I regret that the hon. Gentleman should see fit to criticise the NCB management in any part of the United Kingdom on such a matter. I do not intend to intervene in a matter involving safety provision. That must be for the local NCB management and the active discussion of those involved.

In view of the increasing numbers of pit closures in recent months, what changes have taken place in the closure procedures used by the NCB? Is the Minister aware that there seems to be a new element of dictatorship in pit closures? Who is responsible for the introduction of that dictatorship—the chairman, Ian MacGregor, or the Department of Energy?

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to a range of pit closures, all of which have been through the normally accepted procedures, and all of which have resulted in closure by voluntary redundancies. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that over 11 years there were 295 closures and over the years both management and many others commenting on the industry have said that that is essential if the industry is to recover some viability with its enormous loss-making capacity.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on his strong point. Does the Minister agree that there appears to be a change in procedure and an escalation in the effect of pit closures? Will he comment on the report in The Observer yesterday, which forecast the loss of 37,000 more jobs over the next 12 months, with 30 pits to close? Will that also lead to a change in procedure? What has the Minister to say to that?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to infer that there has been any change in procedure. The procedure for the evaluation of pits is traditional in the industry, is annual in extent, and covers every pit in the United Kingdom, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The facts of the closure are similar today in relation to decisions taken to those during the period of the Labour Administration when, in 11 years, 295 pits closed.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had regarding further North sea gas-gathering projects; and whether he will make a statement.

I am in regular touch with the oil industry over its plans for offshore developments, including, as appropriate, plans to expand or extend the present gas-gathering infrastructure.

As the Government's failure to back an integrated gas-gathering project in 1981 now means that we have to import more expensive Sleipner gas, and as private industry has failed to respond to the initiative at the end of last year for a gas-gathering system in the central North sea, do not the Government have a duty to take an initiative in this matter to ensure future continuity of supplies from our resources and to avoid the loss of, according to one estimate, up to 20 per cent. of our North sea gas reserves?

Before making such remarks the hon. Gentleman should learn more about the facts. It is wholly untrue that, as a result of not preparing certain pipelines in previous years, we shall now be dependent upon importing gas from Norway. As the hon. Gentleman should know, we have been importing gas from Norway for some time. It can even be argued that certain changes in the pipelines in the period that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will mean that the gas will be available in the 1990s, when it will be more needed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in 1981 the integrated gas-gathering line proposal was sunk and sabotaged by the Cabinet, against the advice, it appears, of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the Minister of State of the day? When shall we have in place a comprehensive gas-gathering pipeline, whether financed by the private or the public sector?

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to learn that a great deal is going on at present. Three major schemes have been approved during the past year. I am very confident that what we are now seeing is the completion of a network which will bring us a great deal of gas at the time when we need it. Compared with 1979, for example, the amount of gas flaring now required is down by 45 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the policy objectives of the Energy Efficiency Office.

The objectives of the Energy Efficiency Office are to encourage increased efficiency in energy use; to help all consumers to get better value for money from the energy they consume, and to increase industrial and commercial competitiveness.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one measure of success ought to be the effectiveness of the energy efficiency industries, which are now working at well below capacity? Will he brief himself on the recent meeting between the Energy Efficiency Office and the Structural Insulation Association, at which weaknesses in the working of the Homes Insulation Act 1978 and inadequacies in the building regulations were pointed out?

We are very carefully studying the results of that meeting. I am pleased to say that for the coming year there will be a substantial increase in the provision of grants for home insulation. I hope that full advantage will be taken of this. In all spheres, industrial and domestic, we are encouraged by the very considerable increase in activity over the past few months.

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Secretary of State for the Environment to enable financial guidelines to be given concerning insulation work for housing?

I am delighted to say that in one or two places where there were snags in the last few months of this financial year, as a result of overspending of capital allocations, it has been possible to have allocations of more than double for next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the increases in the domestic prices of coal (pithead price), electricity and gas that have taken place since January 1981.

The Department of Employment index shows that the domestic price of coal has increased by 22 per cent. over the period January 1981 to December 1983, that of gas by 54 per cent. and that of electricity by 21 per cent. The average pit-head price of domestic coal increased by 21 per cent. over the same period.

Bearing in mind the excessive nature of the increases, particularly with gas, where the price increase has been over twice the rate of inflation, why are the Tory Government, who claim to be non-interventionist, intervening to put prices up, thereby plunging hundreds of thousands of families into fuel poverty? Will the Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance now that no further demands will be made on the energy supply industries to raise their prices even further?

If the hon. Gentleman holds those views, he should start canvassing vigorously for the Tory candidate in Chesterfield. During the period for which the Labour candidate for Chesterfield, Mr. Benn, was responsible, domestic coal prices soared at much faster rates, as did gas and electricity prices.

In view of the Government expenditure programme for 1984 to 1987, under which the electricity and gas supply industries will have to pay considerably more to the National Coal Board, would it not be a fairer result to allow electricity and gas to make a takeover bid for the NCB?

I have detected no signs of eagerness on their part to do so.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures he gave the House confirm that the Government's commitment to energy conservation is based overwhelmingly on a reliance on pricing? Does he further accept that present domestic prices of coal, gas and electricity are higher than they need to be, higher than they ought to be, and that, for industry, they are higher than those charged by our competitors who pursue more intelligent policies?

No, Sir. Before the hon. Gentleman makes assertions of that kind he should look, for example, at the recent CBI survey, which shows that in the majority of industries that simply is not true. The CBI identifies a minority of industries where there are some problems, but it says that the majority of industries are very competitive. The astronomic increases in industrial charges that took place under the last Labour Government are in stark comparison with what has happened under this Government.

How do the prices of coal, gas and electricty in this country compare with those in other EC states?

Certainly over the past year prices in, for example, France, Italy and other European countries, have risen far faster.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the Government have any intention of altering the status of the British National Oil Corporation.

I do not envisage changes in the status of the corporation. The review of BNOC's operations promised by my predecessor to the Select Committee will be completed shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept that the creation of Britoil has been fairly successful, and that BNOC would benefit from a further splitting off into separate entities?

At present I have no plans to do that, but I agree that Britoil has been successful.

What would be the status of agreements with the oil companies, in terms of oil coming to BNOC, if any changes were made, and what losses does the right hon. Gentleman expect BNOC to make?

I do not at present anticipate any losses by BNOC, and I hope that during the past year it will have made a profit.

I remind the House of the crucial role that BNOC played in trying to stabilise oil supplies in this country during the crisis in 1979. In view of the serious situation that is developing now between Iran and Iraq in the Gulf, will the Secretary of State hold urgent discussions with BNOC and the International Energy Agency to ensure that we are better prepared than we were in 1979?

I agree that stability in prices is very important, and BNOC has an important role to play in that connection. As for consultation, I am in constant contact with BNOC.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of production subsidies to the coal industries of the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany, respectively.

Production benefits both from capital investment financed by the Government and from direct subsidies on coal production. The figures from the European Commission for production subsidies and investment finance in 1982 are:

Does the Secretary of State accept that in giving the figures in that way he is distorting them? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know that the Secretary of State is an expert at realigning figures. Will he not accept that it would be far fairer to relate the answer to the total tonnage and the number of people involved, instead of distorting the picture, as he did in his answer?

I am willing to compare those figures with those for any country in western Europe. No country in western Europe currently has such a good record towards its coal industry as this Government have towards ours. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a good look at the record of the Socialist Government in France on the coal industry there during the past two years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that subsidies of £1,000 million during the past year to the British coal industry are far too high, particularly bearing in mind everything else that we have to spend money on? Does he agree that they simply put off the evil day when loss-making pits must be closed?

It is correct to invest heavily in new coal production, because that will be far more efficient and economic for the future. The coal industry has an important part to play in supplying the country's future energy resources. This year the NCB will receive more than £900 million in subsidies, which is equivalent to £90 per miner per week.

Is it not true that the Secretary of State has twisted the figures yet again, and that the subsidy per tonne of coal produced in Belgium, France and Germany is much higher than in the United Kingdom? Those countries are supporting their coal industries for patriotic reasons, but once Mr. MacGregor has his way, under the direction of the Secretary of State, the coal industry in Wales and Scotland will be devastated, and the social consequences of running the industry down in the peripheral areas will be disastrous. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that compulsory redundancies in the coal industry will be inevitable?

I find that sort of nonsense from the Opposition quite remarkable. It could not be better illustrated than by the fact that their candidate at a certain by-election is the man who was the last Labour Minister responsible for the industry. In real terms, he paid the miners less, invested less in the mining industry, achieved lower productivity and gave less generous payments to redundant miners than at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline his timetable for privatisation within the energy industry.

I am of course examining the scope for transfers to the private sector in the state-owned energy industries. I will inform the House in due course of my conclusions.

Since, as my right hon. Friend just said, the coal industry is costing everybody in work in this country nearly £1 per week, does he have any plans for privatising it, and if not, why not?

I do not believe that the coal industry at the present time is in a situation in which we can consider privatisation. The important thing is to ensure that one takes advantage of the massive investments being made in order to produce an efficient and economic industry. That is what we are doing.

When does the Secretary of State expect the sale of the Wytch farm oilfield to be completed? Does he support the stand of the British Gas Corporation in refusing to sign and complete the arrangements abroad, given that such completion would deny the Government £3 million in stamp duty? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that asset, and any other assets, will be sold only at the full economic value? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a letter sent by his predecessor, advising the BGC to sell the Wytch farm oilfield to the Dorset bidding group at less than the full economic value?

I expect that completion of the Wytch farm sale will take place within a very short period of time. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I know of no such objections by the BGC. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the BGC has been negotiating with the group that put in the highest tender.

With his customary vigour, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, by the time of the next election, the domestic consumer has more than one choice as to where to buy his electricity or gas? Is my right hon. Friend aware that natural gas is still not available to many hundreds of houses in my constituency and that the local gas board has no plans to make it available? Surely the consumer would welcome competition in the industry, just as he welcomes it in British Telecom.

It is highly unlikely that two supplies of gas and two supplies of electricity would be available to individual domestic consumers anywhere in the world. There are not many free enterprise countries—certainly not Japan, America, Germany, for example — where there are two such options. I am certainly in favour of those industries being as efficient as possible. Under the 1983 Act, anyone is entitled to set himself up as a supplier, in competition, if he so wishes.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? The right hon. Gentleman spoke about there not being privatisation at the present time. Does that mean that he intends to privatise the industry at some future date?

I have made it clear several times from the Dispatch Box that I should be willing to consider any offer by the miners to form a workers' co-operative. If at any stage they wish to do that, individually or collectively, I shall be interested in considering it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although a change of ownership is necessary, the overriding need is for greater diversity of competition? Will my right hon. Friend therefore be cautious about privatising such industries without first removing their privileges.

I shall carefully examine any privatisation proposals to discover the advantages and disadvantages. I know that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the industry, will recognise that there is little likelihood of each household in his constituency being offered two gas supplies and two electricity supplies. That is the reality. Certainly one could have a system which is far less bureaucratic, less subject to political interference and with more incentive to efficiency than the present system.

Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he has no intention of privatising deep coal mine output? Can he now tell the House what he has in mind for privatising ancillary activities?

I repeat that at present I have no plans for the privatisation of the coal industry—certainly in the foreseeable future. The long-term future is a matter to be considered in the future. If we could put the coal industry in a position so that we could find a better system of ownership in the interests of the country, I should like to pursue that.

When encouraging or attracting private capital to present operations, will my right hon. Friend encourage the suppliers of energy to report their performance in return-on-investment terms, which are more comparable with the normal private sector measurements than the terms presently used?

Yes. That is a valid point which we shall look at.

Are the electricity and gas showrooms included in the Secretary of State's timetable for privatisation?

I have no specific timetable or proposals for privatisation at present. I am examining all the prospects, and I shall be delighted to inform the House as soon as conclusions are reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how long he estimates Great Britain will be self-sufficient in gas.

Estimates of proven United Kingdom continental shelf gas reserves are equivalent to some 14 years of gas consumption in Britain at 1983 levels. The life of United Kingdom continental shelf gas reserves is, however, prolonged by the availability of gas imports, which currently provide between 20 and 25 per cent. of total supplies to the British market.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of his answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) today, will he comment on Friday's press reports that the British Gas Corporation is seeking to import Norwegian gas at a price one-third higher than the cost of producing from British fields? Does my right hon. Friend or British Gas have any plans to import gas from Siberia?

I have no plans to import gas from Siberia.

Why not?

I should certainly like to send certain people to look at it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that extended self-sufficiency is hardly assisted by the extensive gas flaring to which he has already referred. Does he further accept that the position in 1979 was due largely to the special circumstances of the Brent field? Should we not have learnt to do a great deal better in the intervening five years?

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that we have done a great deal better. Gas flaring is now about 45 per cent. less than it was then.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), is my right hon. Friend aware that a varied minority of my constituents are extremely puzzled by the fact that, although some of them live within a mile of a gas pipeline, they cannot get gas supplies? I suspect that that applies in many areas. In the circumstances, because of their feelings in this respect, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation about the problem and consider bringing forward fresh legislation to make it much easier to extend gas supplies?

If my hon. Friend draws my attention to a specific case in his constituency, I shall be only too delighted to refer it to and ask the chairman of the BGC to consider it. The coverage of domestic users in this country is very high compared with most other countries. In many countries where there is freedom to operate private as well as public utilities, substantial numbers of the population do not have gas supplies made available to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will indicate the percentage of generated electricity produced by nuclear power in 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively.

In England and Wales, nuclear power supplied 11 per cent. of total electricity generated in 1981–82 and 14 per cent. in 1982–83. The latest estimate for 1983–84 is 14 to 15 per cent. Matters concerning electricity generation in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

In view of the excess that already exists in generating capacity in Britain—the percentage of excess depending, of course, on how one calculates it —does the Minister agree that any further investment in PWR-type reactors would be a waste of money, because we have more than enough capacity, in any event, without increasing investment in that area?

The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Sizewell B inquiry must remain sub judice for the time being. On his general point, he must agree that the importance of diversity in fuel policy lends great weight to the sensible development of alternative technologies, of which nuclear technology is one, and that is a central part of the Government's policy.

Does my hon. Friend think that the figures that he has given for generated electricity from nuclear power will be sufficient in future? Does he agree that by the end of the century we shall need at least 20 per cent. of electricity to be generated by nuclear power?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the obvious facts of comparison between generation costs in this and other European countries is that there are significantly greater percentages in European generation, and that of itself has given rise to complaint that our electricity prices are not quite so low.

If the Minister wishes to retain an efficient nuclear power industry in Britain, would it not be better to retain it within the public sector? May we have an absolute assurance that BNFL will not be privatised during the lifetime of this Government?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the future of BNFL is a matter which at present is naturally causing the greatest possible examination. He will agree that the operations of this industry must be of the highest possible standard of safety. That question will, therefore, continue to concern the Government, and we have committed full resources to achieve that.

Is not the price of electricity in France much cheaper than it is here because so large a proportion is generated by nuclear power?

My hon. Friend is right. The average price in France is significantly less for industrial users because of the high proportion of nuclear generation.

In answer to an earlier supplementary, question my hon. Friend referred to Sizewell B. Has he been given any information about when the inquiry will conclude and when the report of the inspector will be presented to his right hon. Friend?

The timing of the inquiry and all matters relating to it are in the extremely capable hands of Sir Frank Layfield, and he will come to his own conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual level of capital investment in the coal industry during the years 1974 to 1983.

Total capital investment during the years April 1974 to March 1979 and April 1979 to March 1983 was £1,472 million and £3,138 million respectively. I have arranged for the annual breakdown of these figures to be published in the Official Report.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NCB's investment in the Asfordby pit is the largest since approval was given by the 1970–74 Conservative Government for the Selby project? Is this not a further reason why the good voters of Chesterfield will be knocked over in the rush of miners to be first to the polls on by-election day to vote for the Conservative candidate?

There can be no question but that investment by Conservative Governments in the coal industry has been second to none. In the period between 1974 and 1983, £7·5 billion in real terms was invested in the coal industry. My hon. Friend is right to say that Asfordby is a powerful demonstration that the coal industry has a future, provided that it is productive, efficient and competitive in price.

Is the Minister aware that 700 men at Herrington colliery in my constituency are interested in his opinion that the coal industry has a future? They will set that against their meeting with Mr. MacGregor last week, when they argued that the pit should be kept open. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggested, would it not make sense to use some of the Government's investment to keep pits open where there is still coal, rather than create longer dole queues?

The hon. Gentleman will have to choose between exploiting reserves at prices that the market will find acceptable and regarding the coal industry from an entirely different point of view and allowing it to decline. When the Asfordby investment is completed, it will yield about 2·2 million tonnes per annum at highly competitive prices. Each coal board area must recognise these factors, and I believe that there is that recognition.

As the National Union of Mineworkers has failed to live up to its part of "Plan for Coal", is my hon. Friend satisfied that the nation is getting a decent return on its investment in the coal industry?

The nation has not been getting an adequate return on its investment in the coal industry for decades. It is high time that the Government, having control of the nation's economy, made strenuous efforts to ensure that that position is reversed. That is the object of my right hon. Friend's policy.

Does the Minister agree that some of the finest investment has been in some of the oldest pits and that that has resulted in production as well as productivity records being broken? Those engaged in the mining industry in my constituency can testify to that. We have read press reports over the weekend of Mr. MacGregor's so-called survival plan. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it will be seen in many coalfields not as a survival plan but as a recipe for the destruction of the industry?

I agree that there have been many instances of good returns from investment in old pits. There have also been many instances of considerable productivity improvements. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that an average improvement of 4 per cent. a year was achieved only last year, when it was the intention of "Plan for Coal" to achieve an annual improvement in the rate of produtivity of 4 per cent. That is the way in which the industry has to go.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Energy Efficiency Office has made of potential savings from energy conservation in industry, and, in particular, the steel industry.

The Energy Efficiency Office estimates that British industry could save 20 per cent. of its energy use from cost-effective energy efficiency measures. In 1982 prices, that is equivalent to a saving of £1·3 billion. There is considerable potential for further savings in the steel industry.

I believe that my right hon. Friend's answer demonstrates the value of the Energy Efficiency Office. Is assistance available to firms which wish to monitor energy conservation? Are any specific energy conservation projects available to the steel industry?

I assure my hon. Friend that grants are available for energy surveys and audits, for example. The Allied Steel and Wire project at Cardiff has produced energy savings of 90 per cent. with a six month pay-back. I am glad to say that the Government contributed to the survey that resulted in that success.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 30 per cent. grants are not available for firms in Scotland investing in ventilation control, draught exclusion and cavity wall insulation? What consultations has he had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this issue?

I have the closest collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. A great deal of progress is being made in Scotland as well as in England.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report progress on United Kingdom research into alternative forms of energy.

Continuing progress is being made in research on those technologies with the best prospects.

I appreciate that Government grants for research into alternative forms of energy have increased more than fourfold in the past five years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that research work is being undertaken in collaboration with other EEC countries to ensure that there is no waste or duplication of necessary effort?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that supplementary question, because I think that there is waste and duplication. I have recently had talks with a number of European colleagues who are responsible for energy to ascertain whether we can collaborate more closely. I am having talks next month with the American Secretary of State for Energy to see whether similar collaboration can be achieved with the United States.

What support is the Secretary of State giving to British firms that are developing wind energy as an alternative source of energy for the desalination of sea water, bearing in mind that that has considerable interest for Third-world countries and the export potential for British firms?

This matter is of interest. I know that the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that a few months ago I gave the go-ahead for a £3·2 million wind generator project at Carmarthen bay.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has issued any guidelines about the termination of gas and electricity supply to industrial users; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. This is primarily a matter for the judgment of the gas and electricity supply industries.

Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that industry and employment already suffer because of high energy prices and that in the tragically all too frequent number of firms going into receivership the gas and electricity boards have a responsibility to be flexible, especially towards companies such as James H. Dennis, in my constituency in Trafford Park, which went into receivership? Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the North-Western electricity board, in insisting on being treated as a secure creditor for all outstanding debts before it maintained the electricity supply was irresponsible, threatening as it did the survival of the company? Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he has just given?

I shall not reconsider my answer. I accept that there are occasions when there must be flexibility. I am sure that, as a matter of course, the gas and electricity boards have such flexibility. It is important that they act commercially in relation to their supply contracts. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a particular constituency case in mind. I am sure that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for these affairs in the Department of Energy will see him and discuss those matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board.

I meet the chairman of the NCB regularly.

Is it not suspicious that Opposition Members cannot get a straight answer about the reports in yesterday's edition of The Observer about the Government pressing the chairman of the NCB to close 30 pits and get rid of 30,000 jobs? When will the Secretary of State realise that closing a pit destroys a whole community? We are talking, not just about miners and their families, but about small and large businesses, the location of industry, and so on.

There is no direction from the Government to close any number of pits over a particular period. Therefore, any such report is untrue. Of course I recognise that pit closures cause difficulties to local communities. The hon. Gentleman, who has been a Member for a long time, will recognise that over eight years of Conservative government there were 68 pit closures, but over 11 years of Labour government there were 295 pit closures.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate the enormous seriousness of the rumours circulating in the north east of England about possible pit closures and redundancies, particularly the Bates colliery in Blyth? For example, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a rumour is circulating that about 800 men are to be made redundant in the north east as a result of secret redundancy plans of the NCB?

There is no such thing as secret plans, in the sense that there is an agreed procedure with the National Union of Mineworkers that has to be followed when pit closures are proposed.

Why does the Secretary of State not give a direct answer to the question about the MacGregor survival plan? It does not represent survival for the industry, as we see it. Are the facts in yesterday's edition of The Observer true or not?

I gave a direct answer. There is no direction from the Government about the number of pit closures taking place. Mr. MacGregor is following the procedures that were followed by the Labour Government when they closed 295 pits.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the new cross-Channel electricity link to come into operation.

I am advised that the CEGB expects to commission the first stage of the link in 1985, with the second following a year later. The House will recall that the link was approved in principle in 1978, in order to facilitate the transfer of electricity in both directions.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that there are two main benefits from that link: first, that there will be greater flexibility of supply at times of peak demand; and, secondly, that we shall be able to sell our surplus electricity to the European grid system at good prices?

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. There was, and is, intended to be a two-way benefit from the supply and distribution of electricity.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of the Electricity Council.

I have regular meetings with the chairman of the council.

Will the Secretary of State consider discussing with the chairman the question of electricity prices, particularly the disparity of prices for electricity from the same grid? The cost in inner city areas can be higher than the cost in nearby areas. Some of my constituents have to pay 15 per cent. more than people living in Chingford, just down the road in the same borough.

There are variations between different electricity boards. That has been so since the various electricity boards were set up in the regions. The hon. Gentleman has a problem in that his constituency covers the border between two electricity boards. I am sure that his constituents are relieved that the overall increase in the price of electricity is 2 per cent., and that the increase in standing charges is nil.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will arrange for the rota of oral questions to be amended to accommodate a period for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

No, Sir.

Does the Lord Privy Seal recall the abuse of Executive power in the House on 18 November 1983 when I attempted to relieve the distress of many disabled people by introducing a private Member's Bill? Does he agree that the Minister who was responsible for the Whipping on that day should be answerable in the House? Does he further agree that private Member's days, especially the abuse of Executive power on such days, should be fully investigated by the Select Committee on Procedure?

I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about there having been an abuse of Executive power on the date that he introduced his private Member's Bill. It seems to me that what happened then was exactly what had happened in the preceding Parliament on 21 February 1969 on the Disabled Persons' Pensions and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior). Consideration of such matters in a Procedure Committee is a possibility for the future.

Although the idea of Chief Whip's questions has a superficial attraction for both sides of the House, will my right hon. Friend firmly resist it, not least because he will know better than anyone else that the House works only because the usual channels are an entirely private method of communication?

I must agree with my hon. Friend. The virtues of the present convention of the usual channels are overwhelming, and it is that much more attractive than the prospect of the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.

If the Lord Privy Seal will not look at that type of oral question, will he have another look at the position whereby Welsh Question Time is in a three-week cycle, whereas Scottish Question Time, about which twice as many hon. Members are concerned, and in which many subjects involve the Scottish Office, is in a four-week cycle? Does the Lord Privy Seal agree—

Order. Is the hon. Member asking that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should answer those questions?

The powerful position of Scottish business in the affairs of the House excites general concern, but the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman could first be considered by the usual channels, and possibly ultimately by the Procedure Committee.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose the establishment of a Select Committee on Procedure to consider the procedure governing private Members' motions.

I hope to bring forward very shortly proposals for the establishment of a Select Committee on Procedure. If these are agreed to by the House, it will be open to the Committee to review any aspect of our procedures.

Declaring a non-interest as one who drew lucky in the ballot for private Members' motions, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give favourable consideration to the proposal that I have put forward on a number of occasions, in vain, that Members of the House should be given a better chance in the ballot by those who are successful having their names withdrawn for the Session or Parliament?

I took note of my hon. Friend's remarks at the beginning of his speech in a recent debate that he initiated on this topic. However, the matter should be considered further within the answer that I have given.

Instead of considering another Select Committee, will the Leader of the House consider abolishing the lot?

I suppose that that would provide a natural break in the sequence of events in our affairs. I shall give quite serious consideration to that point, but not until the next Select Committee has been established.

Does the Leader of the House agree that as long as there is time for private Members' motions, Front Bench speakers should have no right to abuse private Members' time, as they have increasingly tended to do?

All I can say is that it is an abuse, if that it be, practised by the Administration of which the hon. Gentleman was privileged to be a member.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on redundancy policies affecting civil servants.

As my hon. Friend is aware, by April 1984 the Government will have reduced the Civil Service by over 100,000 since 1979. About 10 per cent. of that reduction will be accounted for by redundancies, and it is our policy to rely on natural wastage to the greatest extent possible.

How many of that 10 per cent. were industrial civil servants who, by the nature of their employment, were doing specialist jobs and who therefore could not be offered alternative employment within the Civil Service? In the further proposals for a reduction of 37,000 civil servants by 1988, have the Government estimated the likely number of involuntary redundancies that will be entailed?

I cannot give the figures in precisely the form for which my hon. Friend has asked, but, of the 10 per cent., about 2,500 were non-industrial civil servants and about 8,000 were industrial civil servants. In the future rundown of the Civil Service we shall continue to rely on natural wastage as much as we can.

In view of the Minister's previous sympathetic reply on the question of secondment, is he prepared to consider secondment before redundancies are made for senior civil servants?

I am not entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman means by secondment in connection with the retirement of senior civil servants. There is a premature retirement arrangement which is used across the Civil Service, but I am not sure which of the examples the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he writes to me, I will try to give him a detailed reply.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the search for reductions in the Civil Service does not become an end in itself rather than a means to an end? In the Inland Revenue, civil servants who are taken away from inspecting taxes may be bringing in more than the Government save by axeing their salaries. Will my hon. Friend advise caution? Will he advise that, where reductions are made, they are effective and not just for the sake of reducing the head-count?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we should make reductions for the sake of effectiveness. The question of civil servants in the revenue Departments—the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise — was referred to in our debate on the Civil Service last October. I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks that I made then.

Is the Minister aware that the non-mobile, low-paid civil servants at GCHQ have three options — redundancy, accepting the ban on union membership, or being found work in one of the 10 Civil Service establishments within daily travelling distance of Cheltenham? Is he further aware that there are, at best, only 1,000 posts in the grade in question within daily travelling distance of Cheltenham and that there are over 1,000 civil servants in that grade in GCHQ? Do those civil servants not therefore have to choose between giving up their right to union membership and being blackmailed into redundancy?

There is no question of blackmail. The hon. Lady's facts are entirely correct. She drew them from my replies to questions. She should address her suppositions and detailed questions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the speed of implementation of the financial management initiative.

Good progress is being made in strengthening financial management in Government Departments but a lot remains to be done.

Exactly what role is the Management Personnel Office carrying out to ensure that the more that needs to be done is done?

Central Departments are advising Departments. I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters. He will find that progress is being made. We are committed to a White Paper in July this year to report on the plans that were announced last September. I am sure that it will show that significant progress is being made.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of civil servants are members of trade unions.

Detailed figures of the total number of civil servants who are members of trade unions are not available.

Apart from the major dispute, when the Government felt it right to withdraw automatic pay comparability, relations with the Civil Service unions have been marked by responsibility, integrity and co-operation. Will the Government bear that favourable record in mind when seeking solutions to current problems?

I am sure that they will.

Do not the reports show that quite a number—possibly a majority—of staff at GCHQ are refusing to abandon their trade union membership? Is the Minister aware that there can only be admiration for those who refuse to sell their rights in a democracy for 1,000 pieces of silver?

I utterly repudiate the hon. Gentleman's emotive language. My right and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has been answering questions about the figures involved at GCHQ. There is at least one more question on the Order Paper for answer later this week.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that among the civil servants employed in the Cabinet Office and other top echelons of the Civil Service there are many trade unionists and that there is no difference between their position and that of those at Cheltenham?

As I have already said, detailed numbers right across the Civil Service are not held, but there will certainly be civil servants in the Cabinet Office who are members of unions. I suppose that throughout the Civil Service about three out of four civil servants are members of unions, but the proportion varies considerably between Departments, between different levels in the service and between different locations.

How does the Minister know so accurately the number of trade union members at GCHQ, but not throughout the Civil Service?

I have not replied to a question about the number of civil servants at GCHQ who are members of unions. That information is not available to me. The hon. Lady will know that where the check-off system is working, we know how many civil servants are subject to that system; but we also know that there are other civil servants who are members of unions but whose subscriptions are not worked through the check-off system.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of civil servants are members of trades unions.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to question No. 41.

Is the Minister aware that this Thursday there will be a mass lobby of Members of Parliament by civil servants because they wish to assert their rights to be members of trade unions? Can the Minister explain why there appears to be a deliberate policy on the part of senior Civil Service officials to deny leave to those civil servants who wish to exercise their democratic right this Thursday to lobby their Members of Parliament?

A note has been circulated by the industrial relations division of the Treasury, as is normal in such circumstances. Granting leave is subject to management discretion. Departments will be dealing with leave requests in accordance with normal procedures.

Is my hon. Friend telling us that quite a number of civil servants at GCHQ and elsewhere are not trade unionists but that people at Cheltenham who never have been, do not intend to become and perhaps, for reasons of conscience, do not want to be members of a trade union will be offered £1,000 not to join one?

I understand that the offer of £1,000 is made to all staff at GCHQ who fulfil the conditions.

Has the Minister noted the increase in the percentage of senior civil servants who are not members of trade unions, who retire on large salaries and then take up highly paid jobs in industry, the City and commerce? Is it not about time that the rules governing that were looked at again?

The rules governing that were looked at by a Select Committee about three years ago, and certain changes followed. I understand from reading press reports that there is a possibility that the Select Committee will wish to look at the matter again.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 37, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), was not called. It deals with Opposition time and taking into account the composition of the House. Is it not interesting that the Liberal Member who tabled the question is not here to ask it, although the question relates to a topic that is of great interest to the House?

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) withdrew his queston. That is not unusual.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might interest the House to note that question No. 2 was also withdrawn, although that covered an important topic. As you said, Mr. Speaker, that often happens.