asked the Secretary of State for Energy what major research projects into alternative sources of energy are presently being undertaken through financial resources made available by the Government both in the United Kingdom and as part of any United Kingdom contribution to the European Community.

The United Kingdom, both on its own behalf and as part of the Community programmes, supports a wide range of research projects into alternative sources of energy. Currently the largest expenditure is on the joint European Torus work at Culham, the geothermal experiments in Cornwall and the Orkney windmill.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information and recognise the significant increases in grants that the Government have made for research into alternative forms of energy. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no duplication of research work undertaken by different members of the European Community? Does he agree that it is essential that the most effective use is made of the grants available, by ensuring close co-ordination between member Governments?

I cannot guarantee that there is no duplication, but I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an appropriate matter for co-ordination throughout the Community. I hope my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that the results of all research work supported by the Community are available to member countries. Therefore, we benefit from what happens in other countries.

Will the Minister give the figure of proposed Government expenditure and break it down into solar, wind and other forms of alternative energy sources?

Yes. The money that we are spending on alternative and renewable sources of energy amounts to £12 million a year and is increasing. It is now four times more than was spent by the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will reorganise the National Coal Board in such a way as to permit workers in different geographical areas to acquire shares in their respective newly formed enterprises.

I am always willing to consider any ideas that give miners a participation in the fortunes of the industry in which they work.

Would my hon. Friend be in favour eventually of a system of miners' co-operatives with access to private capital? If so, could he get the support of Mr. Arthur Scargill? If not, would that be helpful?

The National Union of Mineworkers has not so far expressed much interest. I am aware of the report of my hon. Friend's working party, which recommended that loss-making pits should be handed over free of charge. However, that has not resulted in much support.

Will the Minister assure the coalmining industry that he has no intention of embarking on privatisation of the National Coal Board's operations, especially deep-mined coal output? Secondly, will he discourage the National Coal Board from devolving its regions into regional commercial economic entities?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the first assurance for which he asks. The Government have no plans for the privatisation of deep-mined coal. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear during Question Time recently that privatisation within The coal industry would primarily involve the disposal of ancillary industries.

My hon. Friend will recollect that mines with fewer than 30 workers already exist in the private sector. Will he consider extending the number to 100 workers?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that there is a thriving small private sector, producing about 1 million tonnes of coal, but he will recall that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations about that are being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many consumers are paying their accounts to regional gas boards by means of pan-payment arrangements.

I am advised by the British Gas Corporation that the number of customers who have special arrangements for payment through the corporation's budget and other schemes is just over 2 million.

Does the Minister not consider that a very large total? Does he accept that the reason is that people cannot afford gas at present prices? Therefore, will he reconsider the proposed January increase in price, which is bound to threaten those on low incomes, the sick and the elderly, and may in a hard winter put some people's lives at risk from hypothermia?

Apparently the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my reply. The budget and other schemes, which cover a whole series of arrangements for payment, are for the convenience of customers and are welcomed by them. As for any hardship, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Government this year will pay out £350 million to help consumers with gas and electricity costs.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the reform which really helps the small consumer, was initiated in the last Parliament, under which the standing charge will never be more than half the total bill? Does he agree that it will help the elderly especially?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision of the British Gas Corporation and most of the area electricity boards was to make the standing charge no more than 50 per cent. of smaller bills. That was at the initiative of the Government, and it has generally been welcomed.

How many gas disconnections were there in 1982–83 compared with the preceding year?

I am afraid that I cannot supply that information without notice.

In view of the impending large increase in gas prices in January and the imposition of a £550 million gas levy every year, which is also passed on to the consumer, how many more people will need special assistance next year with their fuel bills?

There is a later question about fuel prices. The amount of help that the Government are giving to the less well off—I mentioned the sum—means that more than 2·25 million consumers benefit, and it is greatly appreciated by them.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his recent visit to China.

My visit to China was in response to an urgent invitation from the Chinese Minister of Petroleum during his visit to this country in September.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on what was obviously a most beneficial visit. Does he agree that, in addition to the advantages for Britain and China, the technology, transportation and financial services skills available in Hong Kong should also benefit that territory from the arrangements that he has announced today?

There is no doubt that the magnitude of energy developments in China is substantial. It is likely that the offshore oilfield, which is in the discovery stage, will be as big as the total discoveries in the North sea. The plans of the Chinese for increasing the size of their coal industry mean that eventually it will be six times the size of the British coal industry. Likewise there are big investment programmes in gas and power stations. It is obvious that the commercial skills and the many connections of Hong Kong will play an active role in all these developments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that, notwithstanding the important overtures that he has been making in China about offshore engineering activities, it would reflect much better on our export potential there if we could ensure the delivery and prospective construction of rigs such as the one in Scott Lithgow at present?

The important feature of any developments in the offshore industry is that contracts are competitive in cost terms compared with other nations and that delivery should be on time. That is what the Chinese will be looking for with any orders that they place.

This may have been a fruitful visit by the Secretary of State, but he was absent when the Cabinet decided to increase gas and electricity prices. How did the consultation take place? Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with the increases before he went? The House is entitled to be told.

I look forward to answering a later question on gas and electricity prices. I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's report of what happened in the Cabinet, which is rather different from the minutes of the meeting.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to respond to the third report of the Energy Committee, H.C. 314, 1982–83, on combined heat and power.

Assessment of this report is almost complete, and my right hon. Friend hopes to respond as soon as possible.

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, a number of the most promising urban areas, such as Sheffield, London and Tyneside, are anxious to proceed with full feasibility studies so that they can prove the cost effectiveness of providing cheap heat and overcome fuel poverty. Will my right hon. Friend not just speed up the assessment of the report, but give guidance to those local authorities and private enterprise industries which want to go into partnership with local authorities and the electricity supply industry on how the financing and the institutional structure can be organised?

This is a very important matter, in which the Government are extremely interested. We have had a study carried out by W. S. Atkins, which looked into the use of these schemes in cities, and so on. We are studying the report of that consultancy as well. It is sensible to look at the two together. As soon as we have completed our study of them, we shall make the announcements.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received in respect of the increase in gas and electricity prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the gas and electricity industries about the future level of prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received in the past six months urging that the price of gas and electricity be increased.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has replied to the letter sent by the chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council to hon. Members of this House on 10 November concerning future gas price increases.

I regularly receive representations on gas and electricity prices. The gas and electricity industries will announce any increases in the normal way.

Since the Secretary of State is no amateur in self-publicity—[Interruption.] I say that as a compliment—may we take it as rather more than a coincidence that the right hon. Gentleman has remained as silent as a Trappist monk since the announcement of fuel price increases was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Leaving aside what happened in the Cabinet, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to express what we are told by the Lobby is his private view, namely, that he wholly disagrees with the change; or is his silence explained by the fact that he cannot quite find the superlatives to reflect his respect and admiration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that rather wandering supplementary question. Gas and electricity prices will be decided and announced by the industries. The Government have no powers to fix gas and electricity prices. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits to see what the gas and electricity industries finally decide. Perhaps it was different during the period in office of the last Labour Government, when gas prices for the industrial user went up by 288 per cent. and for the domestic user by 73 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes neither economic nor political sense for the Opposition to talk of electricity price increases when the economy demands that a state monopoly should become more efficient, which is what its managers are trying to do? It makes no political sense to try to put the wind up pensioners before Christmas about increases which are not being imposed.

It is unlikely that any increases of any description will be imposed this year. That will mean that we will have had a 21-month freeze on electricity prices and a 15-month freeze on gas prices. That compares very favourably with what happened under Labour Governments.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither the gas industry nor the electricity industry is pressing for increases? Does he understand that many people, especially pensioners, have to choose between heating and eating each day? Does he also appreciate that there is no reason why such people should be the victims of the Government's economic incompetence, which is compelling industries to introduce fuel taxes?

The Government's alleged incompetence is as nothing compared with the incompetence of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. In reality, the British Gas Corporation is pressing for price increases. It has suggested that they should be introduced, under no pressure from the Government. Before the hon. Gentleman makes allegations of that kind, he should try to discover the facts.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need sanctimonious lectures from the Opposition about gas prices policy, in view of their record? Bearing in mind all future priorities, including the long-term investment programme and the fact that the Treasury take from the gas levy last year was, I think, £523 million, what does he think would be a fair figure for the levy over the next few years?

I shall not make a prediction without knowing the world conditions of prices and the finds from the North sea. We must consider the returns on capital of the two nationalised industries and their performance in keeping down prices recently. As I very much doubt that any increase in the foreseeable future will be as much as the increase in inflation in general, it can be said that industry and domestic users are benefiting to that extent at present.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the fuel tax increases proposed for next year will attack most heavily the sick, the unemployed, the elderly, and particularly people in those categories who live in areas such as Scotland, where it costs much more to heat houses? What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have to ease the problems of those people?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point out that, since the Government came to power, assistance to people in the categories that he mentions has increased three and a half fold. Moreover, the additions to help for those people has increased 40 per cent. more than inflation and energy prices.

I accept what my right hon. Friend has just said, but does he agree that one of the main burdens of pensioners and people on low incomes and social benefits is the relationship between standing charges on gas and electricity accounts and the amount of gas and electricity actually consumed? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of any proposal to increase the cost of fuels to talk to the undertakings to see whether a fairer relationship can be created so that people who economise actually save on their bills?

I understand my hon. Friend's view. I believe I am correct in saying that the British Gas Corporation, in any price increase that it may be contemplating, is considering making the standing charge a lower proportion of the total cost.

May we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that if the chairmen of the corporation and the electricity supply authority refuse to put up prices the Government will do nothing, because it appears from his answer that the decision is now for them? Does he agree that if the levy were removed there would be no need for any increase in gas prices? Will the Secretary of State say what effect on employment these increases will have in some of the major industries that use up to 40 per cent. of their costs on energy?

I categorically repeat that the statutory power on prices is totally with the nationalised industries and that the Government have no such powers. In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about loss of jobs, may I point out that, under the Conservative Government, the industrial price of gas has gone up by 89 per cent., whereas the Labour Government put it up by 288 per cent. Did the Labour Government think about jobs then?

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the Government's policy on energy pricing.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy by what amount he expects gas and electricity prices to rise over the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

In those areas such as electricity and gas, where there is a monopoly supplier, the Government consider that prices should reflect the cost of producing the energy and the need to achieve an adequate return on capital. Gas and electricity prices are determined by the industries concerned. I believe that gas and electricity prices will rise by less than the rate of inflation over the next two years.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some industries, such as chemicals, steel, paper and the metallurgical industries, will suffer heavily from increases? Will he therefore exempt them from the increases? Will he further bear in mind that chlorine producers in the United Kingdom have to pay twice as much for electricity as is paid by producers in France and that that will ulitmately mean that many chemical interests will have to transfer to France?

Many negotiations have taken place on this matter with the heavy users over the past six to nine months. Arrangements and new facilities have been made available, which I think have been of considerable benefit. I have had expressions of gratitude from some of the heavy users. France has, of course, an overall advantage in electricity prices, because it has a much larger nuclear contribution to its electricity supply, which is cheaper.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that energy prices are likely to rise by less than the rate of inflation over the next two years. Will he give the comparative figures for the rise in domestic electricity prices under both this Government and the last Labour Government?

Under this Government domestic electricity prices have risen by 81 per cent. Under the previous Labour Government they went up by 170 per cent.

In view of the real fear and misery among lower paid people when there is speculation about an increase in energy prices, will the Secretary of State stop looking backwards over the record of the Labour Government and of the present Government and look to the future? Will he look, in particular, at the first three months of next year, when the cold weather will hit the energy bills of the old and the low-paid particularly hard? Will he say when energy prices will be increased, and whether they can be delayed until after the likely period of cold weather?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to look back to the period of Government that made him leave the Labour party. I do not share his reluctance. The Government recently announced that heating allowances would be increased by 8 per cent., and that is well above any of the suggested price increases of either utility.

Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that one of the great problems, particularly in foundaries and in industries which are big users of electricity and gas, is that our prices seem to be rather higher than those of our competitors? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must keep in line if we are to compete in this difficult world?

I agree, but I should point out that recently our prices have not increased as fast as those of our competitors. In a number of European countries the increases have been much greater than in this country. We have had a freeze for about 21 months in one industry and 15 months in the other, with no prospect of increases other than below the rate of inflation.

The Secretary of State has reiterated for the second time that the Government have no jurisdiction over electricity and gas prices. Why has he said today for the second time that the British Gas Corporation is now pressing him for an increase? Who is it pressing, and why, if the Secretary of State has no jurisdiction?

I did not mean that it was pressing. I knew that BGC was interested in obtaining an increase. It will announce it when it wishes to do so.

As the Secretary of State attributed cheaper energy prices in France to the use of nuclear power there, can he explain why energy costs in Scotland are higher than in France, although Scotland has a higher contribution of nuclear power? Is it not a contradiction of Government economic policy that, to make industry more efficient and in an effort to make industry more competitive, the Government have apparently made industry less competitive as a result of the increase in energy costs that has just been announced?

There are a number of things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, no increase has been announced. That supposition is totally unfounded. In answer to what he said about Scottish electricity costs, I suggest that he looks at Scotland's capacity for electricity generation compared with its use, and also the use of coal. I should like to hear his observations on that.

The Secretary of State knows that there is no justification whatever for any increase in fuel prices. Is he aware that there will be much disappointment that he did not put up a stronger fight in the Cabinet against the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What provision has the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in public expenditure next year for the increases that we all know are coming? Is the Secretary of State aware of the damage that these proposals will cause to many people on low incomes and to British industry?

It is nothing like as damaging as the 170 per cent. increase in domestic electricity prices under the last Labour Government. I have been more successful in the battles in which I have been involved than the hon. Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the reasons for these increases, which will hit both industry and the consumer? Are these not merely public expenditure cuts which will affect the unemployed and the socially deprived?

The right hon. Gentleman talks as if vast increases have taken place, but he knows full well that any increases in either industry will be below the rate of inflation. Those on low incomes have already been protected. The gas industry and the Government consider that there is justification for an increase because gas from the cheaper fields is running out and more expensive gas must be purchased. That is a good, valid reason for some modest increase in gas prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss new investment in the Vale of Belvoir.

I have discussed the board's proposals for a new mine at Asfordby with the chairman on several occasions. As the hon. and learned Member will know, Mr. MacGregor has now stated publicly his support for this project and the Government are processing the board's application for investment approval.

Is the Minister aware that last week the chairman gave me a firm assurance that the Asfordby pit work would begin in time to dovetail into the rundown, redundancies and closures of other pits in the Leicester area so that the miners, including many of my constituents, would not be out of work and the industry would benefit? Will he confirm that assurance? When will the sinking of the shaft at Asfordby begin?

I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman—I recall that I wrote to him on this subject—that the Government must give investment approval to the sinking of a new mine. I also remind him that we must carefully consider the scale of investment involved—about £360 million. The detailed decision has still to be taken and, thus, I cannot give him the direct answer that he seeks.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that ultimately only the Government can approve the investment for this pit, which is in my constituency, not in Leicester, West? Will he ensure that the decision, one way or the other, is taken as soon as possible so that uncertainty can be removed?

; I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seesk on both counts. There will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with this matter.

Is the Minister aware that the miners in my constituency—I am not aware of any miners in Leicester, West—are anxious that this investment should go ahead and that the mine should be opened as soon as possible?

I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) the assurance that this matter is being dealt with as speedily as possible. We recognise that the House welcomes the view taken by the chairman of the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the average price of electricity per kilowatt hour in 1982 to customers in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, West Germany and France.

Information on overall average prices is not available. However, in 1982 a typical industrial customer paid prices in the following ranges in pence per kilowatt hour: in the United Kingdom—3·49p to 3·97p; in Germany—3·66 to 4·76; in France—2·73; and in the United States—3·83 to 7·21.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the devastating effect that gas and electricity prices will have on heavy users, particularly on beleaguered industries such as the glass industry? In my own constituency of Harlow we have United Glass, and on a projected increase of 6 per cent.—I sincerely hope that it will not be that—it will have to pay an additional £120,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend accept that the heavy users have a raw deal, and will he do something about it?

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's firm defence of United Glass, which has a substantial plant in his constituency, including the cullet processing plant, which is essential to the glass recycling schemes for London. My hon. Friend will be aware that special provision has been made for heavy users. Indeed, only those with a fuel usage of 80 per cent. have not enjoyed some of the benefits that have occurred. I also remind him that the CBI is examining the position closely and I have no doubt that it will make representations.

In that case, may we have an assurance that the Electricity Council will not increase industrial electricity prices in the new year?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter has been adequately and splendidly dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from industry in relation to energy costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received representations from industry on the current costs of electricity and gas.

I have received various representations.

Have not Conservative Members this afternoon made the Secretary of State aware of the fact that energy prices for British industry are higher than in most European competitor countries and the United States? As a result, are not competitiveness and jobs lost? Will he therefore reassure the House than any increase in energy prices will not lead to further losses in competitiveness and increasing job losses in British industry?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the last question, when he said that energy prices in Germany and the United States were higher than in this country. Only in France, with its substantial nuclear electricity power industry, are energy prices lower. We are well aware of the importance of energy prices if industry is to remain competitive, and in no way will we allow industrial energy costs to go up in the alarming way that they did under the last Labour Government.

If the right hon. Gentleman's friends in the CBI can persuade him that export-led industries will suffer from any price changes that may occur, will he seek to change the Government's policy?

Industry has applauded the Government's policy, which has meant a freeze on the price of one major source of energy for 21 months and a freeze on the other for 15 months.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that not all of industry is moaning about possible increases in energy prices as, thanks to the Energy Act, it now has the ability to go it alone? Does he also agree that there is enough room for improved efficiency within the electricity supply industry to make any price increases unnecessary and allow the industry to meet the Government's capital return requirements?

There is also considerable scope for improving energy efficiency in industry. We estimate that energy use by industry and domestic users could, with proper methods, be reduced by about 20 per cent.

In view of the massive energy profits last year—£660 million for gas and £330 million for electricity—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people now call them energy taxes rather than energy prices? Will he differentiate between a tax and a price?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a closer look at the figures. For example, gas profits were £188 million on a turnover of £6 billion and a capital of £12 billion. That is hardly excessive.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to invite applications for the ninth round of licences on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

I am currently considering arrangements for the next licensing round.

In view of the great success of the belated introduction of auctioning into the allocation of licences in recent rounds, will my right hon. Friend extend the use of auctioning in future licences? Will he recognise that the Labour Government's doctrinaire hostility to the market process persuaded them to give these valuable assets away to the oil companies as an uncovenanted benefit rather than selling them at their fair market prices, thereby gaining considerable revenues for the consumer?

I shall obviously look at these various issues in considering the next licensing round. It must also be remembered that what my hon. Friend advocates is not welcomed, particularly by a number of the smaller companies. The discretionary part of the last two rounds has enabled a considerable number of smaller British companies to become involved in exploration, which I welcome.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is now desirable to have a continuity of the regime and that the Government's record on tax changes has not been conducive to developments in the North sea? Has that ended and are future developments likely to sustain self-sufficiency will into the 1990s?

I certainly support the need for continuity. Indeed, it was for that very reason that the Government introduced the various fiscal changes which, this year, resulted in drilling activity in the North sea at the highest level we have ever had since North sea oil was first discovered. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the need to maintain continuity is an important aspect of our licensing arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total value of Government investment in the coal industry since May 1979; and how this compares with the corresponding amount of investment in the French and West German coal industry's.

Since May 1979 the National Coal Board has invested £3,500 million in coal production. Estimates from the European Commission indicate that over the same period the coal industries of the Federal Republic of Germany and France achieved only one third and one twentieth respectively of the level of investment in Britain.

Does my hon. Friend accept that those figures show our level of investment in the coal industry to be higher in relation to output than in France and West Germany? Should not priority now be given to achieving greater productivity and lower prices, so that we can capture the available coal markets?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the task before the industry is to increase its competitiveness by every means possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the future energy demand projections for British mined coal.

The Department's projections for long-term United Kingdom coal demand were given in the Department's proof of evidence to the Sizewell inquiry, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 7 October 1982. The projections envisaged a range of 100 million to 140 million tonnes in the year 2000.

Is the Minister aware that it was estimated in 1974, in "Plan for Coal" that about 120 million tonnes of deep-mined coal would be extracted in 1985, and that the industry is now producing about 105 million tonnes? Will the Minister come clean over the Government's attack on the National Union of Mineworkers for not being willing to run down the coal industry by 3 million to 4 million tonnes per annum, when they have fallen short of the targets set out in "Plan for Coal"? Surely the Government should be even-handed in their approach to the industry.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the 1974 targets were established against a given set of circumstances and that such circumstances can easily be overtaken by events. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to claim that that must be so. He must now accept that the main task is to increase the volume of sales by competitively pricing coal at the level that the market demands.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of orders for the North sea oil industry were placed with British companies in 1982–83.

In 1982 British companies gained 73 per cent. of a total of £2·2 billion in orders placed for goods and services for the United Kingdom continental shelf.

What are the prospects in this area in the current and future financial years?

There is a high level of activity on the United Kingdom continental shelf because of the fiscal changes introduced by the Government, and for other reasons. Prospects are extremely good because of the orders that have been placed and new developments, not only where North sea oil exploration takes place, but throughout the rest of the economy.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list in the Official Report the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of which he answers parliamentary questions.

I shall answer questions on behalf of my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that relate to his Duchy of Lancaster responsibilities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his copious answer. May I pursue with him a question about the magistracy? Bearing in mind the unique way in which magistrates are appointed by the Duchy, is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that people living in the area are fully aware of the ways and means of becoming magistrates in the county palatine?

If they are not, I very much hope that this exchange between my hon. Friend and myself will enable them to be so aware. I can assert that the system of appointment is very similar to that operated by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing new office accommodation for hon. Members.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate on 22 November.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what he said in the debate last week about the new building means that in no circumstances will the money set aside for that project be withdrawn? What is he doing to try to expedite the completion of phase 1? Does he agree that the five years before hon. Members will be able to use those offices is a long time?

I should like to say at once that the figure of £23 million that was mentioned in the debate as being available for expenditure on this project is committed in principle, and although it is subject to the normal PESC disciplines, I very much hope that it will be available to ensure that the project is completed in the time scale that has been set out.

Has my right hon. Friend had second thoughts about the proposal for preserving the undistinguished nineteenth century facade on 31 to 47 Parliament street? Has he had further thoughts about my protest last week that this should not be done and that, instead, we should give our architects an opportunity to design something to represent us in the twentieth century?

I thought that my hon. Friend put his argument with all the elegance of a preservationist rather than as someone seeking some monstrous new development in the facade of this phased development. Of course I have given thought to it, but I have come down unshakably on the side of the prejudice that I expressed at the commencement of the debate last week. If I were to do anything else I would not have been able to give the answer that I have just given to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand).

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be equally unshakable in his determination to see that the money is spent?

I cannot add to the answer that I have just given.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many officials for whom he is responsible are involved in his function of planning and supervising the Government's legislative programme.

There are no departmental staff for whom I am responsible as Lord Privy Seal, but I am able to draw upon official advice as necessary.

Is it not a fact that, in previous cases where British dependent territories have changed their status, legislation has been required? As, presumably, an amendent or annulment of the treaty of Nanjing will be proposed at some stage, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend's officials have yet turned their minds to this subject?

I am prudently advised to reply that while these talks are in progress it would not be appropriate to speculate about any future legislative requirement.

Whatever may be the number of officials involved in framing the legislative programme, is it not important that stupid Acts, such as the Act that has caused the present industrial dispute and brought the courts into industrial relations, should not be passed by the Government? Will the Leader of the House persuade his Cabinet colleagues to repeal the Act that has caused so much difficulty?

As I cannot recognise the hon. Gentleman's absurd premise, I cannot even offer an answer.

Will my right hon. Friend consider setting down in advance the times that the House will rise for recesses and, if necessary, have some flexibility on the times that the House returns?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but on the whole recess times are concluded without regard to the advice of officials.

As China and Hong Kong have suddenly been put on my right hon. Friend's agenda, notwithstanding his answer does he agree that in general terms it would be better to start making preparations for future decisions so as to get the best results for Hong Kong rather than wait too late, as 1997 approaches?

It is always flattering to be addressed as the Foreign Secretary, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I cannot go outside the terms of the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on his original question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what plans he has for the improvement of facilities in the House of Commons for disabled visitors; and if he will make a statement.

The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee is to review the matter in the near future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing frustration that the House fails to provide proper access for disabled people, especially to the Committee Rooms of Westminster Hall? Is he further aware that there is a piece of mobile equipment known as the Gimson Stairmate, which enables wheelchairs to go up and down stairs? If he is unable to find the funds to provide this piece of machinery, the cost of which would be less than half the cost of the stair rails that are being proposed, is he aware that we have an offer from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to lend us free of charge a Gimson Stairmate for the use of diabled people?

I recognise the anxiety to which my hon. Friend refers. I am certain that the mobile equipment will be considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee and that it will take account of the factors that have been mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider sympathetically the possibility of the Galleries that are currently reserved for special visitors being made available to disabled people, particularly where there is a need to translate into sign language for the deaf and when people need to keep their guide dogs close to them?

There should not be any difficulty about the provision of facilities for sign language transmission. As to the other point, which has been the cause of some difficulty in the past, I am certain that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee will wish to consider that.

Does the Leader of the House agree that not only should the physical facilities for the disabled be improved, but that hon. Members' facilities for debating such problems should be improved? Will he give an assurance that there will no repetition of the scandalous unofficial three-line Whip that took place recently?

The hon. Gentleman will know that this matter has been raised several times in the House. I do not think that on this occasion I can go very much beyond what I have already said.

Have the Services Committee and the Leader of the House considered the possibility of introducing some form of closed circuit television facility in another part of the Palace, not only for the disabled, but for the many others who cannot see our proceedings from the Chamber?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge that his question goes very much wider than facilities for the disabled and that, therefore, within the terms of this question, I cannot helpfully answer his point.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with trade union representatives of the Civil Service.

Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.

Why are the Government hell-bent on destroying another 37,000 Civil Service jobs by 1988, which will mean a job loss in the Civil Service of 139,000 since 1980? How can the Government justify staff reductions in Departments such as the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security when over 3 million are unemployed, over 7 million are dependent on supplementary benefit and about 9 million retirement pensioners and many other deserving cases on low incomes depend on the services of those Departments?

The planned reduction of 6 per cent. between 1 April 1984 and 1988 is a net figure. There will be some staff increases in the prison department, for example. The objective is to obtain improved efficiency and better value for money.

What is the response of trade union representatives to the proposals in the financial management initiative, especially the important step of devolving decision-taking to more junior managers?

I have not had a meeting with the Civil Service unions about the financial management initiative.

Bearing in mind the concern that is being expressd within the confines of the trade union movement over the representations of forestry workers, will the Minister give an assurance that he will give early consideration to arranging a meeting with those involved?

I imagine that that will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or, perhaps, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Responsibility will lie with one or other of my right hon. Friends in the first instance.

Is the Minister aware that cuts in DHSS staff have already meant that visits to pensioners to ensure that they have all the benefits to which they are entitled have been reduced to one call every three to four years and that the unemployed are not visited until nearly the end of their first year of unemployment? Does this not mean that pensioners and the unemployed are subsidising the cuts in the Civil Service and that they are in receipt of much poorer and much less efficient services as a result?

I do not accept that description, which is highly exaggerated and extremely partisan. The hon. Lady should address detailed questions on the DHSS or the Department of Employment to the responsible Ministers.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the redundancy policy in the Civil Service.

In reducing the size of the Civil Service, it is the Government's policy to rely on natural wastage to the greatest possible extent. By 1 April 1984 we shall have reduced Civil Service manpower by over 100,000, of which about 10 per cent. will be accounted for by redundancies.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that the 14 per cent. reduction in the manpower of the Civil Service over the past four and a half years has been secured with few forced redundancies? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the further planned reduction of 37,000 which was referred to by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), is achieved, if possible, without any forced redundancies?

The reduction of 100,000 has been achieved with about 2,500 non-industrial civil servants being retired prematurely on the ground of redundancy along with about 8,000 industrial civil servants. Every effort will be made in future to avoid compulsory redundancy. The Civil Service is a large employer and resignations and retirements provide a great deal of elbow room for reducing the number of jobs within the service.

If the Minister is determined to pursue that policy in the terms that he has mentioned, will he take on board events in Dundee, where the local vehicle licensing office has been given a sentence of death and where there are no alternative Civil Service jobs because it is an area of high unemployment? Does he accept that the great volume of civil servants is to be found in plusher areas such as London, where there is no unemployment problem? When circumstances arise, such as those in Dundee, will he ensure that alternative work is brought into the area to secure jobs for those concerned? The civil servants at the vehicle licensing office at Dundee secured their jobs only four years ago.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the great majority of civil servants work in the London area. The details, which I have provided on many occasions, show that only about one in four or one in five civil servants work in the Greater London area. The hon. Gentleman should direct his specific remarks about redundancies in Dundee to the Minister concerned. Efforts will be made to provide jobs elsewhere for those in mobile grades within the Civil Service. Some redundancies have taken place among non-mobile grades.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most popular policies of the Government in my constituency is that which has led to the prospect that we shall soon have the smallest Civil Service since the war? Does he understand that many of my constituents ask 'why the Civil Service should be the only section of the community that is immune from compulsory redundancies?

My hon. Friend does not have to wait for the news that we have the smallest Civil Service since the war. That has already been achieved. As I have explained, the Civil Service is an extremely large employer and it is possible, by changes in recruitment policy and by using the processes of natural wastage, retirements and resignations, to achieve the elbow room that is necessary to obtain job reductions.

Does the Minister realise that the public service is weakened by cuts in the Civil Service? In my constituency there is talk about closing the local tax office. If the closure takes place, many taxpayers will have to travel a great deal further to deal with their tax problems. Such a closure would be a false economy.

We must have a public service that is efficient and gives value for the taxpayer's pound. It is the Government's intention to continue to introduce measures to achieve that. If we have an inefficient service that fails to give value for money, there will be a burden on the economy which, at the end of the day, will cost jobs rather than maintain them.

How many of those involved in the planned reductions of manpower within the Civil Service have been transferred to other parts of the public sector?

With notice, I could try to provide that figure for the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will revise the annual performance review forms for civil servants.

Yes. We are currently discussing with Departments and the Civil Service unions major revisions to the procedures for staff reporting and appraisal.

As almost 90 per cent. of civil servants are judged to be above average in their performance, is the revision not long overdue? Will my hon. Friend confirm that any such revision will absorb the introduction of merit pay?

The reform is a useful one to be introducing. I fear that my hon. Friend may have misunderstood figures that I gave earlier this year, including the 90 per cent. rating. The 90 per cent. figure could represent those civil servants who are shown on the appraisal form to be working competently or better. Merit pay is under consideration.