asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the percentage increase in standing order and unit charges for electricity, since May 1979.

The standing charge for electricity supplied under the standard domestic tariff has increased by 127 per cent. since May 1979 and the unit rate by 80 per cent. but smaller consumers benefit from the standing charge rebate scheme. Standing charges have not increased since April 1982, and domestic unit prices have not increased on average this year.

Does the Minister accept that these are quite disgraceful figures which show that as a direct result of the Government's policy the standing charge for electricity has gone up by almost three times the rate of inflation and the charge for electricity unit prices by getting on for double the rate of inflation? Will he now give an undertaking that not only will there be no increase in standing charges for the rest of this Parliament, but that he will use every endeavour to get a reduction in standing charges?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Secretary of State for Energy, introduced an examination of standing charges through the Electricity Council. The report is now available in the Library of the House, and discussions on that will no doubt continue within the industry, looking for ways of improving the situation.

Notwithstanding the excellent effort of the last Administration in reducing standing charges on bills of £9 or less to 50 per cent. of the bill, does my hon. Friend accept that pensioners in particular face hardship in the standing charge that they pay for electricity and gas —and, indeed, water—and will he do all that he can to mitigate that hardship?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. It is true that many people on smaller incomes, particularly pensioners, suffer substantially because of the high standing charges. That was the reason for the benefits that were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Energy.

Is the Minister aware that standing charges are a cause of great concern, not only for pensioners—understandably so—but for all other people who receive any state benefit, whether unemployment or otherwise? Does he accept that if unemployment benefit is cut by the Government the standing charge will be an increasing burden on those people? Would it not be a good idea for the Government to take a lead in abolishing the standing charge and go back to proper price fixing for the nationalised industries, instead of the artificial prices fixed by the last Government?

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in suggesting that somehow the standing charge is a wholly false charge. Many of the costs incurred by the board have to be passed on, including capital charges, interest charges, and the cost of the connection itself, as well as the costs of metering and billing. Those charges have to be correctly assessed and costed. The Deloittes inquiry looked into those matters, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines the report, which is in the Library.

I do not, of course, wish to pre-empt anything on which the inquiry might report, but is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable satisfaction that was felt at the reduction in standing charges for electricity and gas during the last Parliament, which was a great help to many elderly people? Will my hon. Friend proceed with caution before abolishing those charges, because he may well find that the cost per unit will go up, and that will inflict hardship on the very people whom he is trying to help?

My hon. Friend is right. All hon. Members should realise that if the standing charges correctly convey the charges which the board incurs are removed, the money would have to be found from elsewhere in the system. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the steps taken by the last Administration, which have already brought substantial benefits to consumers.

We have been reviewing this matter endlessly. When can we expect the results of the Government's conclusions on the review, which has now been made available to us?

The report itself is a matter for the electricity supply industry, and I strongly urge it to make early recommendations based on the findings, which have only just been made available.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current development programme for oil and gas resources in the United Kingdom.

Yes. Twenty-one offshore and two onshore oilfields, and seven offshore gasfields are currently in production.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his many right hon. and hon. Friends will miss the previous right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray)? I am sorry that he is no longer a Member of the House, but rejoice in his translation to another place. I also welcome my right hon. Friend to this portfolio.

Order. We must have shorter questions, please.

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall certainly find it hard to follow my former right hon. Friend, who was particularly active in obtaining a high degree of participation by British firms in North sea oil. I am only sorry that the Labour party does not appreciate the result that has been achieved so far.

Will the Minister say something about the nature of the development of Marathon's Bray field? Will he confirm that at present that field does not have an annex B and that, therefore, it is a little presumptuous of the company to make wholesale press announcements on the development? In particular, will he give an assurance that British steel will be used in any construction on the field?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we want to see the maximum participation of British industry. I intend to continue that policy as vigorously as possible. I shall certainly scrutinise the annex B proposals carefully.

Bearing in mind British Petroleum's recent 8p increase in the price of its petrol, the third increase this year, which will almost certainly be followed by other major companies, will my right hon. Friend refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Does he agree that capitalism and Conservatism are about genuine competition, not price-fixing at the public expense? Does he further agree that a company with a £30,000 million turnover a year can in large degree decide what is a profit and what is a loss?

Only one company has announced an increase and there is considerable competition. We shall wait to see what happens to that and other companies. As my hon. Friend knows, this matter was looked at recently and it was concluded that there was adequate competition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new experiment of allocating licences by auction is much to be preferred to the dangers of allocation by ministerial or executive discretion?

Different systems have their place in different circumstances. I do not want to be dogmatic about it at this stage, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for the privatisation of the coal industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce proposals for privatisation in the coal industry.

I have no such plans at present.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that reply will be met with great satisfaction by Labour Members, but are there not skinheads on the Conservative Benches who want to hive off the profit-making sections of the coal industry? Will he resist the blandishments of those wretched people?

I know of no skinheads in the Conservative party. If, at some time in the future, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers pleaded with me to provide some co-operative for miners, I should have to consider that carefully.

Might it not be a good idea to sell the coal industry to the miners?

Yes, but I do not think that the miners would consider it an equally good idea.

rose—

Order. I apologise. I should have called the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who had a linked question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend recall his excellent proposal some years ago for giving council houses to the people who live in them? Does he not seriously think that the proposal put forward some years ago by our former colleague, Mr. Benn, to put the ownership of the pits into the hands of some of the miners has some merit and could advantage the miners, the taxpayers and the production of coal?

It is important that Britain has a successful coal industry. Therefore, I have replied to the question by saying that there is no such proposal at the present time. I was not aware that a predecessor of mine, Mr. Benn, had made this proposal, but that makes it rather more dubious than I had previously thought.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no proposal to resell the resources of the Vale of Belvoir to the Duke of Rutland or anyone else? If that is not his proposal, why is there the present delay, and when will work begin in Asfordby?

I agree that the project is of immense importance to the coal industry, and I hope that decisions will be made speedily. I have had no application from the Duke of Rutland.

Will my right hon. Friend at least consider the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recent recommendations that the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 should be amended and, in particular, that opencast coal mining should be more privatised and the monopoly marketing organisation, which it regards as against the consumers' and industry's interests, got rid of?

As my hon. Friend knows, the private sector already has quite an interest in opencast mining. Several activities connected with that take place in the private sector. I have not yet had time to study the commission's proposals, but I shall certainly do so.

Has not the Secretary of State given an important answer to the question that has been addressed to him today? Does he agree that to some extent it is addressed to the miners' conference, which is now meeting in Perth? Is the right hon. Gentleman specifically telling the House that he and the Government have no plans to sell off the coal industry to their friends in private enterprise?

Yes, there are no such plans. I can say to the miners' conference that a successful mining industry is of immense importance to Britain and is one of our great resources. I shall do all that I can to see that it is a success.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he plans to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the future contribution of the coal industry to the United Kingdom's energy requirements.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board; and what matters he expects to discuss.

I have already met the chairman twice and I shall meet him regularly to discuss all aspects of the board's business.

Now that the Secretary of State has a new job, will he try to find a better man than MacGregor for the chairman's job? Will the right hon. Gentleman show more faith in the coal industry than his predecessor did by giving enough investment to stop the hit list of 70 pit closures, involving 65,000 jobs? Will he make a start by reversing the decision to close Cardowan?

I hope, devoid of any prejudice or previews, that the hon. Gentleman and members of the mining industry will judge Mr. MacGregor's chairmanship according to the results. He is a man of immense ability, with a deep desire to see the coal industry succeed.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the NCB, will he tell him that he now recognises that it would be quite wrong to put a nuclear power station in the middle of the Northumberland coalfield at Druridge bay? Does he realise that such proposals are part of the background against which miners are judging the closure of Lynemouth colliery, which was announced this weekend? That, as well as the fact that some of the men at Lynemouth will not be transferred to the highly profitable Ellington pit, is leading to great opposition to the proposal.

Whether a colliery remains viable and economic is a matter for the NCB and there is a procedure by which the NUM is fully consulted. At a meeting that I had last week with leaders of various unions representing the mineworkers one of the leaders urged that that procedure should continue, and it will.

Does the Secretary of State realise that there are deep anxieties in the South Wales coalfield at reports of 70 pit closures, with 70,000 miners to lose their jobs and the coal industry's capacity to be cut by about 25 million tonnes? When the right hon. Gentleman talks to the chairman of the NCB, will he try to get him to understand that, despite the present recession, we should not run down our industry so that when there is an economic upturn we shall not have the necessary coal?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well from his long connection with and interest in the coal industry that throughout its history pits have closed because they were uneconomic. If I wished to make a party point I could compare the volume of closures since the war under Labour Governments with the volume of closures under Tory Governments. But that would be embarrassing for the Labour party, so I shall refrain from doing so.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that stocks of coal now total 55 million tonnes, a 9 million tonnes increase on last year, and that the main job of the new chairman is to market coal and not necessarily to produce it? Does he agree that the future of a viable industry must rest on the sale of coal?

My hon. Friend is completely correct. In the one discussion that I have had with the future chairman of the National Coal Board he expressed to me the immense importance of improving the marketing of coal. If he succeeds, I know that he will be supported by miners and all connected with the future of the mining industry.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will he instruct him to come clean with the miners who much prefer the truth to a veil of secrecy? Will the Secretary of State also ask the chairman to let the miners know what the production capacity of the industry will be at the end of his three-year contract, and how many men over the age of 50 years will then be employed in the industry?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that miners wish to know the facts and to examine the position on its merits. As far as I know, Mr. MacGregor, and, indeed, his predecessor have attempted to do that. The industry is important to the country's long-term future. I believe that the present chairman and the future chairman wish it to succeed in that goal.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the coal board, will he tell him that his Department will give its full support to the board's efforts to sell more coal to our EC partners? Will he also bear in mind that the excellent scheme for converting industry's oil-fired boilers to burn coal needs the support of his Department as well?

The conversion scheme has been important. The matter is partly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I shall discuss it with him. The sale of coal, whether to Europe or elsewhere, is of immense importance to the future of the National Coal Board and the miners. I shall be examining the issue with the chairman of the board.

The Secretary of State will be aware of Mr. MacGregor's reputation in the steel industry, where, to put it mildly, his industrial relations style was highly provocative and where he was responsible for the destruction of thousands of jobs. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that Mr. MacGregor will not be allowed to develop his own nostrums and will be kept under firm check and control by the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for Energy?

The job of the National Coal Board in its entirety is to try to pursue policies which are in the interests of the future of our coal-mining industry. From the one discussion that I have had with Mr. MacGregor, I believe that his objectives in improving sales, efficiency and productivity, and of course in continuing a massive capital investment programme, are the policies required for the future of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on policy towards the future of the coal industry.

The Government are committed to the development of a modern efficient and viable coal industry.

Following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report, is it not clear that the coal indsutry has moved into a wholly unsustainable position? Is there not, therefore, a need for a new "Plan for Coal" which recognises the realities of the market and ensures that investment is directed to new and profitable pits rather than to uneconomic and old ones?

Yes, Sir, but I think, in fairness to the present chairman of the National Coal Board, that a great deal has been done to try to attract investments to the more viable coal-producing areas of the country. Exciting and important investment programmes are available for the future which should be pursued. It is also true that, with proper consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers, the uneconomic pits, which do not have a future, have to be closed.

Either now or in his speech on the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Bill later today, will the Minister comment convincingly on the point that, while the country must now expect to forfeit perhaps considerable income from the offshore oilfields to maximise the take from those fields, at the same time we can expect to see coalfields or collieries closed, where reserves will be locked away to save expense? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point in order to maintain his view, which appears to be a trifle more progressive than those of the barbarians behind him?

We have some exciting prospects for investments in the mining industry. I was fortunate enough to be responsible for this subject when the Selby coalfield was first discovered and gave the original go-ahead for its development. Now, in other parts of the country, there are similar opportunities. It must be in the interests of miners and the mining industry that the substantial investment that is needed for the long-term development of exciting resources is made. Long after oil disappears, the coal industry, like agriculture, for which I previously held responsibility, will remain.

In view of the exchanges today, will my right hon. Friend take time when he meets the chairman of the coal board to discuss the development of future coalfields and whether they are really necessary, bearing in mind their severe environmental impact? I have particularly in mind the proposed development in mid-Warwickshire.

Yes, environmental impact must be carefully considered in any planning application, but, as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, I know of few organisations that have done more than the National Coal Board to retrieve the environment after development has taken place.

The Opposition welcome the Secretary of State's comments about new exciting areas for coalfield development, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Government took office in May 1979 not one new pit has been sunk? Is he further aware that if that policy continues it will inevitably mean a contraction of the coal industry?

The hon. Gentleman must know that since the Government came to office there has been a massive capital investment programme in the collieries in new plant and machinery. The Selby field has been developed and similar fields are now available. The National Coal Board, which has a massive investment programme this year of £800 million, must decide where that money is best invested.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will have discussions with the chairman of the Electricity Council about disconnection of supply.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Electricity Council from time to time as necessary but he has no immediate plans to discuss this matter with him.

I note that reply, but is the Minister not aware that disconnection is a real problem because, despite all the supposed promises and the supposed codes of conduct, many people, especially the elderly and disabled, often face the disconnection of supplies? Is it not time that, at local area level, clear guidelines are given before disconnections take place? Will the Minister seek to make this point to the chairman of the Electricity Council?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about disconnections. He and the House will be pleased to note that the volume of disconnections this year is about 25 per cent. down on last year. In the first quarter of this year a further 10 per cent. reduction took place compared with the first quarter of last year. The electricity industry is seeking to reduce the difficulties. The Electricity Consumers Council is monitoring the new code of practice and is specifically examining the problem.

Does the Minister accept that when the procedures under the code of practice and the fuel direct scheme break down families can be disconnected and remain so for lengthy periods? Does he accept that that must cause hardship? What steps is he taking to establish the extent of the problem and to ensure that when consumers are disconnected they are not forgotten?

The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate the extreme hardship that is caused by delays in reconnection. The Electricity Consumers Council will be looking at that problem when it examines the operation not only of disconnection and the duress that some people must suffer, but the speed with which they can be reconnected.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the price disadvantage United Kingdom heavy users of electricity face against some European countries; and if he will make a statement.

The latest evidence is that energy prices to United Kingdom industry compare well in general with those on the continent.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some vital industries experience grave disparities compared with similar companies on the continent? Will he consider whether the tariff structure can be tilted to give greater discounts to heavy industrial users of high load electricity?

I shall examine the problems connected with energy supply to industry. About 98 per cent. of firms in Britain pay advantageous prices for electricity compared with firms in Germany, Italy and Holland, and the same as firms in Belgium. Only France, mainly because of its nuclear development, can claim to have lower energy prices. I shall examine carefully any particular problems.

Will the Secretary of State re-examine his figures? Is he aware that it is said that electricity prices in Italy are 50 per cent. lower than they are here, in France about 40 per cent. lower, and in Germany 25 per cent. lower? If that is so, does it not place British industry at an unfair disadvantage? Other Ministers have fiddled while electricity has burned. May we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not follow their example, but will do something positive so that British industry can compete fairly with other countries in the EC?

I dispute the hon. Gentleman's figures. My advice is that prices in Germany and Italy are above prices here. Complaints have been made in Germany and Italy about the advantage that British industry has over their industries. I shall examine the matter carefully.

Does not the use of nuclear power, particularly in France, help to keep power costs low for industry? Will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to bring home to those in the United Kingdom who campaign against nuclear power the disastrous effect that the implementation of their policies would have on industry and, therefore, on employment?

France has obtained considerable advantages from the development of its nuclear programme, which is reflected in the prices offered to its industry. Governments of any complexion must examine the possible role of nuclear energy in Britain.

I have listened for two or three years to the same answers to the same question. Is there not a major gap between sections of industry and the Department of Energy? As the new Secretary of State, will the right hon. Gentleman bring fresh thinking to the issue instead of repeating the stale old answers that we have had for years?

I shall repeat stale old answers if they are correct. In the last four years I have spent much time in Germany and other countries. I have read their press and heard their Ministers complain about the advantages that we have in terms of energy prices. Perhaps they, too, should look at their stale old answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the level of his departmental resources allocated to encouraging energy saving in industry.

Yes. Moreover, I am implementing a number of organisational changes within my Department as part of our commitment to set up an energy efficiency office to increase the effectiveness with which the resources are used.

The announcement about setting up an energy efficiency office will be widely welcomed. Is there not a strict limit to what industry can achieve by better load management techniques and the like, and cannot many investment projects produce dramatic savings, often in industries which are short of investment resources—for example, the paper industry? Will my right hon. Friend consult the Department of Trade and Industry about the possibility of stimulating a major investment programme in energy-saving projects?

I shall consider anything that is economically viable. The Government already have a number of incentive schemes which are going quite well. This year we are spending over £103 million on various conservation measures. I agree that the matter is important. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

Is the Minister aware of the concern about the needs not only of industry but of individual consumers, such as motorists, and think again about his response to the request to refer the petrol price increase to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is it not disgraceful that petrol prices should be increased at the start of the holiday period, when the consumer is most vulnerable? As the Government are keen to refer all public sector organisations to the scrutiny of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman make a start by referring this large private sector organisation to ensure that justice is done?

I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the competition in that industry. Many companies are involved, whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of an announcement by only one company.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current cost of Government research undertaken into alternative forms of energy.

I expect my Department to spend between £13 million and £14 million on research into new and renewable sources of energy in 1983–84.

I welcome the proposed increase compared with what was spent five years ago. Alternative forms of energy can form only a small and marginal part of total national energy needs, but will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage research and development? Will he bear in mind that it is beneficial for us to have as wide a range of alternative forms of energy as possible and to encourage Britain to have what are known as clean and renewable forms of energy?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he welcomes what my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said in May about assistance to the Severn barrage study and the announcement last week of the £11 million that we are giving to the Camborne school of mines for research there. They are two recent examples of the Government's commitment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Does the Minister accept that we are playing with the problem compared with the massive expenditure on the nuclear programme? Does he agree that if money were put into research and development we could not only save on existing forms of energy but could open up export markets for alternative energy?

I agree that the matter should not be ignored, but one should not go overboard either. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are spending four times as much as the Labour Government were spending five years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future structure of the National Coal Board.

I shall endeavour to see that the structure of the coal board is appropriate for it to achieve the strategic objective that the Government have set for it.

When will my right hon. Friend publish the objectives for the new coal board chairman? Will he confirm that they will cover at least two matters—an undertaking from the Government that they will not prevent the NCB from closing loss-making pits and that the chairman will be obliged to publish the financial results for individual pits as soon as possible?

I shall certainly examine my hon. Friend's second suggestion. A procedure already exists under which the NUM and other mineworkers' unions agree that any proposal for closure is discussed by the management and union representatives. I believe that that should continue.

As the structure of the coal board should cover the open cast executive as well, will the Minister give the same answer as he gave earlier in respect of the coal board—that there are no plans to privatise the open cast sector?

I said that there were no plans at present to privatise any of the activities of the NCB, but that does not mean that I exclude any consideration of it in future. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Obviously not. As I said in reply to an earlier question, if the president of the NUM were to put forward a constructive idea, I should certainly consider it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is essential for all parties to keep an open mind on the question of the introduction of private capital? Is he aware that several peripheral businesses, such as Sankey in the building merchants' sphere, compete with the private sector, and that there is no reason for them to remain within the perview of the NCB.

My earlier reply made clear the present position. The main activity, as my hon. Friend's remarks make clear, is mining. I am anxious that the coal industry should succeed in the decades to come because it is an industry of long-lasting and immense importance to the British economy. That is why I believe that the approach that has been made in recent years by the present chairman, and will I think be made by the future chairman — namely, getting an economic and sensible coal industry—is of immense importance to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average domestic quarterly standing charge for gas at the latest convenient date; and how this compares with 1979.

The average domestic quarterly standing charge for gas is at present £9.46; in June 1979 it was £1.91, but, as a result of changes in the tariff structure, the two figures are not directly comparable.

Will the Minister assure the House and gas consumers that, unlike the previous Parliament, there will be no tax on gas in this Parliament?

Certain planned increases in the price of gas took place over three years. That process has now been completed and in the corning year we would not expect increases to be more than the rate of inflation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will set up a Select Committee on Procedure to cover all aspects of House of Commons business.

I am aware of the interest in a general review of procedure that has been shown in all parts of the House. I am still considering this matter in the light of the views that have been expressed.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he appreciate the necessity for a review of procedure? Does he agree that one matter that should be considered is the way in which Back Benchers do not have the facility to have urgent matters which occur in their constituencies debated in the House? Will he consider either changing the Standing Order No. 10 procedure to permit that to happen or recommending that some other procedure be implemented so that a legitimate matter of concern to an hon. Member may be debated quickly and briefly, but with a Minister present?

Should it be the decision of the House to set up a Select Committee on Procedure with a very general remit, I am certain that one matter that would receive urgent attention would be the present Standing Order No. 10 arrangements.

Regardless of whether a Select Committee on Procedure is established, and as it will be an urgent task of this Parliament to establish the Select Committees of the House, will my right hon. Friend reconsider re-establishing the old interdepartmental Select Committees, such as those on the nationalised industries and science and technology, which did an outstanding job in the past?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on recognising a side wind whenever there is one. The question deals with a Select Committee on Procedure, and I am afraid that I cannot go further than what I said in reply to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller).

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the handling of Scottish Bills is a matter requiring attention by the Procedure Committee? Does he appreciate that it would be wholly unsatisfactory if the Government were to bring back the police and Criminal Evidence Bill with substantial proposals to amend the Scottish law without proper consultation with Scottish Members and representation of Scottish interests on the Committee?

The Government's views on the reintroduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill are well known, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's reservations. On the wider issue of dealing with Scottish matters in the House, I find it inconceivable that any Select Committee on Procedure would survive without having to address itself to those matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important matter which should be referred to a Select Committee on Procedure is the question of Standing Committee procedures? Is it not complete nonsense that a Standing Committee, such as the one on the Telecommunications Bill earlier this year, should spend 120 hours considering three clauses followed by 50 hours considering the remaining 81?

I must remind my hon. Friend of Mrs. Beeton's dictum—"first catch your hare". Once we have resolved to have a Select Committee on Procedure with general terms of reference, I have no doubt that timetabling will be a matter for consideration.

If and when the House decides to set up a Procedure Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman advise that Committee to look at the way in which the parliamentary year is now conducted? Many hon. Members—as I look round the Chamber now, more perhaps than for some time past—have young families whose holidays are not as well catered for as they should be.

The right hon. Gentleman and I are profiled as "usual channels", and he will recognise that that is a matter that we would have to discuss through those channels. However, I say at once from this Dispatch Box that I have a very lively sympathy with the point that he raises.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will bring forward proposals for the setting up of a separate Select Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Northern Ireland Office.

I have no plans to do so.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take offence when I say that, coming from a staunch friend of the Union, I find that a somewhat puzzling and ambiguous reply. Has he noticed that although Standing Order No. 99 permits many departmental Select Committees to look into the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Office, with few exceptions they have so far refused to do so, on the ground that Northern Ireland has nothing to do with them? Has he also noted that in terms of the way in which business in the House is conducted, the Government have come forward with proposals that have resulted in a massive increase in the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Office? What does he intend to do to uphold the rights of the House of Commons in the matter?

I say at once that I am anxious to meet the anxieties of my hon. Friend, and I hope he does not find that too controversial a reply. Hitherto, departmental Select Committees have been able to look at Northern Ireland affairs, and the Northern Ireland dimension, if one may put it in those terms, has been examined by both the Education and the Trade and Industry departmental Select Committees. The question is whether we want a specific Committee, as suggested by my hon. Friend. At present I am not persuaded that there is an imperative for that, but I am happy to examine that and other problems which concern him.

As there is no chance—and there has not been for some years—of any progress with Northern Ireland policy, would it not be wise to set up a Committee to look at the whole question of future policy for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind some of the initiatives which have been taken by the Government of the Irish Republic in the last few months, mainly the forum.

That suggestion and the source from which it comes would give rise to great anxiety on the part of those in Northern Ireland concerned to maintain the Union, and on that basis alone I must resist the temptation.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the development of Committees of this House, and perhaps the other place, for Northern Ireland would be warmly welcomed by those of us who believe that there should be one legislative assembly for the whole United Kingdom, and should not such Committees, if set up, sit both at Westminster and at Stormont?

I accept that as a legitimate point of view. It is also legitimate to say that a departmental Committee of this United Kingdom Parliament should have within its ambit the consideration of Northern Ireland affairs.

Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland now has its proper representation in the House and has an Assembly, unlike any other region of the United Kingdom, would there not be a danger, if we set up a Select Committee, that Northern Ireland would have a disproportionate amount of parliamentary scrutiny?

That underlines admirably the measured caution of my original answer.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the financial management initiative.

Good progress is being made, but work on the White Paper reporting on Departments' programmes of work was held up somewhat by the general election. We hope to publish it soon, although it may not now be possible to do so this month.

If it is not possible to publish the White Paper this month, will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be possible to do so before September? Will he also confirm that it is vital to have good and efficient people in the Civil Service, and good systems, and that senior Ministers should take an active interest in management? What will the Department do to ensure that this happens?

I assure my hon. Friend that the drive for better management has the full support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who continues to take an active and close personal interest in this work. Since the election my right hon. Friend has drawn this issue to the attention of Ministers who are in charge of Departments and asked them to give it their personal attention.

What progress is being made with the introduction of MINIS, or similar management and accounting information systems, in Whitehall?

Considerable progress is being made. My hon. Friend will know that the adoption of systems similar to MINIS is part of the financial management initiative. I assure him that good progress is being made.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make it his policy to establish a Civil Service dispersal policy which can benefit the northern region.

The Government remain committed to the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 and have no plans for any further dispersal. Regional needs will continue to be taken fully into account should there be a need to locate work in future.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's refusal to implement the Hardman report's proposals, irrespective of the statement that he made in his main answer, has caused resentment throughout the northern region? To what extent do we in the northern region figure in the Government's consideration of Civil Service placements in future? Will we get our share?

The Government made clear their attitude to the Hardman report's recommendations in July 1979. Their attitude was widely welcomed, especially by many of the civil servants concerned. The amended dispersal programme, which was announced in July 1979, is being continued. The interests of the northern region will be taken into account if there is a need to relocate existing work or to locate new work.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we have a sufficient number of senior civil servants at under secretary and assistant secretary level in the north-west and other regions?

I hope that there are sufficient to carry through the work that is required of them by the Departments. It is for Ministers to take responsibility for staffing levels in their own Department's work in any particular area of Britain.

Does the Minister recall that I raised this issue with him on dozens of occasions in the previous Parliament and received no satisfactory response? As the number of unemployed in the northern region is the highest in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, is that not a sufficient reason for the Government to reconsider their attitude and to cease being so inflexible and stubborn?

I recognise and acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's persistence. He has asked the same question and I have given the same answer on many occasions. I recognise the problem of unemployment in the northern region, but I hope that he will recognise that, compared with other regions, the northern region has a fair share of Civil Service jobs.

As the Minister is not bringing new jobs to most of the north-east, will he make it his business to persuade other Ministers not to take jobs away from the hard-hit communities within the region? Does he realise that the transfer of senior posts from Newcastle to Leeds and the closure programme for tax offices is hitting many communities in the north-east that are much affected by unemployment?

It is important that Departments should seek to get better value for money and have more efficient methods of working. I do not believe that they should artificially preserve jobs that are not required and thereby act against their efficient running. Those must be the right criteria. It would be wrong if the Government, or a particular Department, subsidised and retained unnecessary jobs in the Civil Service at taxpayers' expense.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he is satisfied with the security of documentation inside the Civil Service with regard to confidential papers.

Not completely, but considerable efforts are made to keep classified material secure and to identify those who break the rules; and security arrangements are kept under constant review. The unauthorised disclosure by any employee of information entrusted to him in confidence by his employer is a deplorable breach of professional trust which calls in question his right to continue in that employment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, following the general election, there is now nothing left to leak in Whitehall? Will he try to stop discussion papers being leaked in the name of policy papers? Has not the time come to stop marking discussion papers "secret" or "confidential" in order to avoid this happening?

I assure my hon. Friend that many secrets are kept soundly in Whitehall, and that should be so. Having had some connection with the Ministry of Defence, I am pleased that security measures for such documents are, in the main, fully maintained. I think that there would be concern throughout the House if the result of the leaking of confidential documents was that Ministers received less frank advice than that to which they are entitled. The Labour party's attempts during the election campaign to exploit some of the leaked and stolen documents brought great discredit upon the individuals concerned. I am glad that their attempt to make political capital was a dismal failure.

I recognise that there is a need for clarification, but does the Minister accept that Britain is more secretive in its processes of government than any other democracy in the Western world? Is it not time that we had a review of the freedom of information provisions of the law and became altogether more open about the processes of government so that Parliament could operate a more effective scrutiny of the Executive?

I should not seek to make the value judgment that the hon. Gentleman has attempted to put before the House. Since 1979 the government of the United Kingdom has been more open. The Conservative Government have made more information available to hon. Members and to Select Committees than did the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported before 1979.

Were not the leaks during the election at least as much an indictment of the Government as of those who caused the leaks to take place? Was not the leaking the reaction of those who were utterly frustrated at the shameful fraud that they could see Ministers committing against voters? They knew that while those same Ministers were making announcements about unemployment benefit they were meeting behind closed Committee doors and considering options that refuted the cynical statements that they had been making on election platforms.

If the right hon. Gentleman is attempting in any way to condone civil servants' breach of the trust that rests in them by leaking classified documents, I must repudiate everything that he has said.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied that sufficient opportunities exist for the employment of non-civil servants within the Civil Service on temporary appointments; and whether he is satisfied that civil servants are able to gain experience outside the Civil Service on a similar basis.

Good progress is being made, as is shown in a report on our interchange programme, which I am placing in the Library' of the House, but of course we always welcome further opportunities. The results for 1982 are very encouraging. The total number of secondments continues to grow, and rose by 20 per cent. between 1981 and 1982 to very nearly double the level when the initiative was launched in 1977.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful response. Will he undertake to keep an open and receptive mind towards increasing the number of such schemes, because there are great advantages to be gained for the Civil Service and industry if each has direct experience of working in the other medium?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can give him that assurance. It is good for industry and commerce and the Civil Service that we have more exchanges and secondments. It is beneficial for all concerned.

Has not the Prime Minister, in her appointments to top Civil Service posts, her sacking of the Think Tank and her axing and humiliation of Ministers who dared to disagree with her, displayed an obsession to surround herself with boot-licking yes-men? Is not the blinkered style and personality of the Prime Minster the great deterrent — [HON MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading, as hon. Members can see. I say this with passion. Is not that the greatest deterrent to the recruitment of people of real ability to the Civil Service? Does not that mean that only neutered clones will search for such posts?

I utterly reject that criticism of the present recruits into the Civil Service. As far as I can judge, the right hon. Gentleman was reading a question that he drafted before the general election. Does he not recall that he had it wrong then? Would it not he wise to make a resolution, now that he has been readopted and re-elected, to forget his silly vendetta of criticism against the Prime Minster before the election?