asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made towards a decision on the proposed purchase on Sleipner gas by the British Gas Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are considering the proposal by the British Gas Corporation to buy Sleipner gas. A number of gas producers and consumers have made representations about the proposal. A decision will be taken as soon as possible.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British Gas Corporation has made a commitment to purchase all North sea gas that becomes available, plus Sleipner gas? If so, is it not in the interests of BGC and of the British economy to go ahead with that agreement? Will he also tell us the truth about the battle between the Treasury and his Department regarding the agreement, as we do not want another huge increase in gas prices, as is apparently advocated by the Treasury, with the backing of the oil lobby?

The right hon. Gentleman, with his great interest in these matters, will be delighted and relieved to know that there is no great battle going on between myself and the Treasury on this matter. As he knows, this is a major and fairly complicated transaction, involving a great deal of detail, and it is right that a matter of such magnitude should be considered very carefully. It is important to ensure security of supplies for the industry in a way that will not retard the development of our own North sea resources. That is the Government's object in their examination of the proposal.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not be bullied by the British Gas Corporation into a hasty decision before he has fully considered the implications for the offshore supply industry, loss of revenue, balance of payments and, above all, the price of gas as it will affect the consumer?

My hon. Friend's comments illustrate the importance and magnitude of the decision. Clearly it must be thoroughly examined, and that is what the Government are doing.

In relation to the estimated cost of Sleipner gas, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that exploration of the smaller areas of gas, including those in the southern North sea, confirm that the proposal should be pursued, as the gas cannot be found in our own areas?

It is important to develop those areas and not to take any decision that would detract from or stop those developments. Bearing in mind the future requirements of this country, and with the Frigg field, for example, going out of supply, there is no reason why we should not have a transaction which will guarantee the continued development of the North sea, as the hon. Gentleman requires, as well as ensuring security of supplies.

Will the my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be possible for the British Gas Corporation to renegotiate the contract both to extend the maturity of the final date for taking all the gas and to reduce the quantity in any one year? Will he also confirm that it would be possible to link any decision on Sleipner with a decision to allow or not to allow United Kingdom gas exports?

Anything is possible, of course, and a range of complicated considerations are involved. The Government are anxious that there should be continuing development of our North sea resources, especially in the new frontier areas into which we are now moving. There is also a great need to ensure the security of gas supplies to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the refurbishment of power stations.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have frequent discussions with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about various matters, but detailed questions such as this are a matter for the board.

Will the Minister consult the chairman and bring forward the refurbishment of the power stations, since that would provide desperately needed jobs in engineering and help firms such as NEI Reyrolle, in my constituency, which is having to pay off skilled men who will be lost to the industry?

I appreciate fully the importance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but he will recognise that the CEGB has a long-standing and effective policy of purchasing British goods and services provided that prices are right and competitive. Some 99 per cent. of the board's procurement spending is on British goods and services.

Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comment about getting value for money, will he bear that factor in mind if he speaks to the chairman of the CEGB? Does he agree that although we all seek refurbishment and hope for many coal-fired stations, this must depend on coal being available in the future at a more economic price that at present?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that so far the CEGB has taken no decisions on whether to convert or to reconvert any of its oil-burning capacity to coal.

May I remind the Minister that I referred to this matter several months ago and that the hon. Gentleman in turn referred it to Sir Walter Marshall, who wrote to me explaining the constraints on capital expenditure? May I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) mentioned? The heavy power industry is now in a desperate plight, with no new orders on the horizon. As a consequence there could be a complete collapse of the provision of power engineering in Britain, with no guarantee that it could be re-established once there was a renewed requirement for it.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the CEGB has contacts with the engineering industry. Details of its repair and maintenance programmes are available to those firms which seek to take advantage of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his inquiries in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy which local authorities have expressed a firm interest in the development of energy conservation areas; what action they are now taking; and with what involvement from his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made in the establishment of energy conservation areas.

Dudley, Newcastle and South Glamorgan have expressed a firm interest. Dudley is embarking on its project following recent approval for grant-aid under the urban programme, and Newcastle is awaiting a final decision for urban aid funding. The energy efficiency office has strongly supported both these applications. South Glamorgan is currently considering a similar project in Cardiff.

Is the Minister aware that that is a shameful reply to my question? His Department has done nothing since April 1983. When will the Department live up to its responsibilities for energy conservation and give the local authorities the support that they need to get stuck into programmes? It will not be long before the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box in haste to talk about increases in prices, yet on energy conservation he appears to be half asleep.

If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should be ashamed that I had not listened to the answer to the question. I said that we had supported these programmes directly. Work is well ahead on them. All the Department's various schemes on conservation are available in these areas when they get off the ground, and the Department has to do a great deal in terms of initiative in getting them under way.

What success is being achieved in the appeal to industrialists to conserve energy?

There has been an extremely good response. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been conducting the campaign in a number of centres throughout the country. We are now following up some of those original campaigns. We are enormously encouraged by the response and by the action being taken by industry as a result of my right hon. Friend's initiative.

The Minister says that his Department has been shoving for these energy conservation areas. Can he say how much money has been spent directly by his Department on setting them up? As I understand it, the present position about these areas involves nothing but words from the Department.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. Money is available under the urban aid programme. In addition, when schemes are set up, there is the total availability of other energy conservation schemes. The purpose is to make better and fuller use of the available schemes in a co-ordinated manner. That is precisely what is happening.

After all those words, I understand that only three authorities have approached, applied or inquired in any serious fashion. Does the Minister intend to take any further initiative to arouse interest among local authorities? May it not be that, as a result of all the cuts imposed upon them, local authorities feel that the Government will not support them?

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. Thirty-nine local authorities have expressed interest. The Labour party is not prepared to acknowledge the Government's success.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many days' supply of coal is currently available at power stations.

Coal stocks at power stations are sufficient to meet electricity demand for many months ahead.

Does not that information show that the miners strike is simply pointless and futile? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only result of the continuance of the strike will be a major loss of wages for miners and, in the longer term, a loss of customers and jobs?

Yes. Obviously, the miners have lost a substantial amount of wages. The tragedy of the timing of this dispute is that we were being successful in conquering new markets. In December, 78 applications were made for grants to convert to coal, but at present no one is applying. There is no doubt that the dispute is doing considerable damage to the prospects of the industry.

To what level will coal stocks have to fall and what consequences follow before the Government intervene in this dispute to try to find common ground between the parties and to seek a resolution of it?

The Government have already intervened in the dispute to a considerable extent. First, the Government have made available enough money to ensure that the miners have a pay offer which is better than that already accepted by the power workers and gas workers. Secondly, they have intervened to see that money is made available so that all miners will be able to remain in the mining industry if they wish to do so. Thirdly, the Government have intervened to ensure that what the coal industry has enjoyed for the last five years it will enjoy for the next three years — the biggest capital investment programme that it has ever had. All that is substantial intervention.

In view of the unnecessary and harmful strike that has continued for so long—one never knows when it will come to an end—may there not in the end be many more pit closures than were originally envisaged?

I very much hope that the miners will reflect upon the range of offers and opportunities available. With the chance to conquer new markets and the rewards of a massive capital investment programme, there is good potential for the industry's future. At the moment, it is being damaged and harmed. I hope that that harm will cease as quickly as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that answer is not satisfactory at all? With his great responsibility for energy in Britain, is it not time that he intervened in the mining industry dispute? Is he aware that there will be no winners and that it is time somebody got the parties around the table for realistic talks? Is he further aware that many miners' families are suffering great financial hardship? Has he not some responsibility for that? Does he think that, like his boss, he can continue to sit on the fence, getting sadistic pleasure out of people being bashed into submission?

I take no pleasure at all from disputes in the coal industry. That is why I and my colleagues decided to make arrangements for a decent pay offer, to make sure that there was no need for a single redundancy and to ensure that massive investment would continue. Two of the three mining unions have been prepared to get round the table. I suggest that this coming Wednesday the NUM will have another opportunity, and I hope that it will take advantage of it.

Has my right hon. Friend read the article in The Times today by Jimmy Reid, a leading figure in the Labour party? Does he agree with him, that the way the NUM's national delegate conference has been used to circumvent a national ballot is equivalent to the House cancelling a general election and that, if the Labour party continues to deny democratic rights to miners, it can never be considered worthy of holding office in Britain?

I have read that article. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, it must be said on the day that Mr. Scargill persuaded the delegate conference to change the rules on balloting, the right hon. Gentleman came out in favour of having a ballot. I notice that since then he has not repeated that request, but I hope that he will soon do so.

Given not only the great suffering of the miners and their families, but the loss of trade, to which the Secretary of State has referred, and the long-term danger to the pits, surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot continue to stand back in this dispute? He must get stuck in, get people together, and get a solution to it.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should persuade miners that, with a decent pay offer, no need for a single compulsory redundancy, and the massive investment programme, there is no need for them to suffer hardship.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, because there is hydro power and substantial oil as well as nuclear power, coal stocks at power stations in Scotland will last almost indefinitely?

There are substantial coal stocks at Scottish power stations; and coal stocks at power stations throughout the United Kingdom will last for a very long time.

The Secretary of State refers constantly to no redundancies and jobs for all miners. Does he not realise that the dispute is about jobs for future families? Would the right hon. Gentleman not fight for a future for his child?

Yes, I do realise that. I believe it is right for the Government to declare that in the next few years they will make available another £3 billion for new capital investment to ensure the future of the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend contrast this Government's proved commitment to the future of the mining industry with what is happening under the Socialist Government in France, where the high-cost pits are being drastically closed down and miners are being made redundant, partly because the nuclear industry has proved so much more competitive?

The French Government were elected upon a promise to increase coal production by 50 per cent., but they have now decided on a programme to reduce coal production by 50 per cent. In fact, they have also decided to reduce the number of miners by 50 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his posture is unbecoming to the high office that he holds, and that this attitude that he, on behalf of the Government, will sit it out until the power stations run out of coal is tragic for the industry and for the nation? Is it not in the national interest for him to intervene directly in this dispute and to use the powers of his office to get people round the table to seek a solution?

I used the high office that I hold to ensure enormous financial provision to guarantee a decent pay offer, no compulsory redundancies, and record investment in the coal industry. That is using my high office to the great benefit of the mining industry.

Does the Secretary of State realise that he seems to be going rather further than the National Coal Board in saying that there will be no compulsory redundancies, certainly not within particular coalfields? Does he accept that, while he appears to be emphasising the fact that the Government have intervened, he is not doing any service to the industry, to his Department or to the community at large by flatly refusing to take part in tripartite negotiations?

I repeat that there are negotiations to be conducted by the industry, if it desires to do so. Two of the mining unions, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are willing to do so. Only one union has decided, month after month, that it will not have such talks.

Is not one of the saddest aspects of the dispute that the president of the NUM, who persistently forecasts that coal stocks will run out, is consistently proved wrong, and that we are losing trade to Poland, because thousands of tons of coal are now coming in on long-term contracts, to the detriment of south Yorkshire and south Wales in particular?

I do not know of any long-term contract with the Polish Government at this stage. Therefore, I cannot comment on that. It is true that 13 weeks ago the president of the National Union of Mineworkers said that there were only eight weeks of stocks at the power stations, that two weeks ago that there were 10 weeks of stocks, that six weeks ago there were nine weeks of stocks, and that now there are eight weeks of stocks. In fact, there are many months' coal stocks available at power stations.

How long does the Secretary of State intend to stand idly by watching the mining industry, for which he has prime responsibility, gradually crumbling into disrepair? Why does he not invite the chairman of the National Coal Board and the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to his office to discuss the future of the industry? Talks might then ensue which could bring an end to the dispute.

I repeat that the Government have not stood idly by. They have poured money into capital investment and into making available a decent pay award. They have been far less idle than the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) was a member, on pay, decent terms for voluntary redundancy and capital investment.

The question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) goes to the centre of the problem. The Secretary of State's failure to intervene is an absolute disgrace. He and the Prime Minister are hoping for a defeat of the miners instead of a defeat for the policy of Mr. MacGregor. They should get round the table for discussions, the Secretary of State could play his part, and we could work out a policy on energy that would be based on growth and expansion.

If there is any disgrace in the dispute, it is the attitude of a party that urges people to strike when the Government are investing more, paying more and looking after miners better than that party ever did.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current situation of the industrial dispute in the coal mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress in talks to resolve the dispute in the coal mines.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer these questions together.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for intervening now, because I know that you prefer points of order to be raised at the end of Question Time, but if I do not raise my point of order now it will be too late.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he may be a happier man.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Has he noted reports of intimidation of the wives and families of individual miners? Does he understand how abhorrent that practice is to the vast majority of people, and has he any evidence to suggest that intimidation or other measures are reducing the numbers who are continuing to work?

On cannot measure the effects of intimidation by the numbers going to pits on any one day. I can only say that at the end of last week we had record numbers working at the pits, and I am pleased to say that this morning more miners arrived at the pits than at the same time last week.

My right hon. Friend has observed the dispute at close quarters in recent weeks. What percentage of the dispute does he believe is due to miners' genuine grievances and what percentage is due to the demonic and relentless ego trip of the most mischievous trade union leader in British history?

There is no way of judging the views of individual miners. All that one can say is that the majority of the fields that have had the opportunity of a ballot decided to work.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he should take no joy from what is happening in Mansfield, because the Nottinghamshire miners are as opposed to the NCB policy as anyone else? The other dispute is an internal one within the industry.

I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman's case that there are two entrenched positions. The programme for the coal industry, which is a good one that gives it the potential for expansion and opportunities to conquer new markets, is something that the Coal Board is happy to discuss. Two of the mining unions are prepared to discuss it, and I hope that the other mining union will think carefully and will also be prepared to discuss it.

The question refers to a statement. Is the Minister aware that we have yet to have a full-scale debate in the Chamber on the dispute, which has gone on for 10 weeks? — [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is sitting next to him. Is he not aware that this dispute has lasted for 10 weeks and that not only miners' families but the whole of the nation will suffer if he does not take his head out of the sand and do something about it?

The best way to do something about it is to bring to the attention of miners the reality of what is on offer to them, which is good for their future and good for the present health of the mining industry.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the country will have noticed that there has been no plea from the Labour Benches for Arthur Scargill to meet the Coal Board with the other two unions on Wednesday? Is he aware that many people in the coal industry, particularly where I live in Yorkshire, did not want to go on strike but were driven out by flying pickets and intimidation? I am waiting for that plea from the Labour Benches.

I should naturally welcome it if the Labour party endeavoured to persuade the NUM to come to the negotiations. Some weeks ago it urged a national ballot, but there has been no sign of its doing so recently. Perhaps it will revert to that plea.

Does the Secretary of State realise that there is no possibility of an early end to the dispute, particularly given the feeling that many of us have come across in our constituencies at the weekend? Is he aware that the Government's attitude of pretending that this has nothing to do with them is not seen as the correct stance? Does he agree that, above all things, the economy is suffering, and he has responsibility for that, together with the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet? Will he take action before it is too late?

It is because I consider that the coal industry has an important and major future in our economy that I persuaded my colleagues to provide the finance for a decent pay offer, with no compulsory redundancies, and a massive investment programme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do more to persuade the leaders of the NUM that that is what it is about.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the longer this dispute continues the greater the likelihood of an increase in power prices, which will be directly attributable to those who have stimulated and preserved the strike? Is he further aware that this strike could threaten the jobs of those employed in energy-intensive industries, many of whom would have given their eye teeth to have the redundancy terms that are now offered to the miners?

It is true that the voluntary redundancy and early retirement provisions, the capital investment and the pay offered in the coal industry make those in other industries jealous. They will particularly resent it if their jobs are threatened by industrial action when all this is on offer.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give a simple answer to a simple question, face up to the Government's responsibility and accept that the Government should intervene and call for both sides to come together? Will he take that responsibility and call an early meeting of both sides to try to resolve the dispute?

The Government's responsibility was to see that miners and the mining industry had a good future. That responsibility we carried out rather better than it was by the last Labour Government.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that there are any lessons for the mineworkers to learn from the strike in the steel industry in 1980? Is it not true that although the immediate problems of blast furnaces and coke ovens at various large steelworks have been resolved for the time being, the long-term problem is hanging on to markets, with over-capacity in steel in Europe? Is not the strike in the coal industry placing at risk the jobs of thousands of steel workers?

I am pleased to say that, to date, production of British steel has been maintained at a high level and I hope that this will continue. There are about 1 million tonnes of sales of coal opportunities for Durham alone, which may be put in jeopardy if this action continues.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us feel that it is unlikely that Mr. Scargill will enter into realistic negotiations until he is under more pressure to do so from his members? With that in mind, and acknowledging the degree of commitment, in terms of investment, that the Government have given to the coal industry, will the right hon. Gentleman publish as soon as possible a comprehensive plan for energy in which the balance between nuclear generation, oil, coal and other sources of energy would be spelt out much more clearly than the Government have yet done?

The hon. Gentleman is asking for the type of publication that goes into great detail about future projections. However, developments and activities on the international scene as well as at home can bring about enormous variations. Nevertheless, I can say categorically that, in terms of energy, we are blessed with a good oil industry, a good gas industry, a nuclear industry and a major coal industry, and that it would be crazy for any Government not to keep all the options fully open and keep all those industries active and successful. They have an international as well as a national application.

Are we not living in the strangest possible world, when Mr. Scargill, who is obviously an honourable man, tries to make people believe that the coal industry is being run down by a wicked and uncaring Coal Board and Government, when in fact £3 million a day of taxpayers' money is being spent on the industry? Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what a real rundown would look like? If the engineering industry in the midlands were given a subsidy of £3 million a day, there would be the industrial prosperity of a new age.

Order. One at a time.

I believe that this very substantial capital investment programme is in the interests not only of the miners but of the nation. The position in our economy is that we may be able, as part of a move for energy efficiency, to persuade many industries to convert to coal. We were doing that, and I am sorry that the strike action is damaging that prospect.

Is it not time that the Government abandoned the pretence that the strike is not having a serious effect on the national economy and admitted that the uneconomic use of oil in power stations, the additional police costs, and the loss of coal and other production is costing hundreds of millions of pounds?

I have never suggested that industrial action in any major industry does not damage the economy. That is why we created the conditions in which there was no need for industrial action.

If that is the case—and because of the seriousness of the situation—will the Secretary of State use his good offices to invite Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Scargill to his office this week to discuss these matters? The Secretary of State could tell them what he has just told us and could hear the arguments in the other direction.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should also have a meeting with Mr. Scargill — [Interruption.] I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should say to Mr. Scargill, "As the Government and the NCB are currently investing twice as much in the industry as we did and paying the miners much better than we did, why are you on strike?"

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board about cutting its costs.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the chairmen of both the Electricity Council and the Central Electricity Generating Board. The industry's progress in controlling costs is one of the subjects that we discuss.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of reducing electricity price increases is for the CEGB to cut its costs and improve efficiency? What incentive can my right hon. Friend give the CEGB to do that, in the interests of the consumer?

I must remind my hon. Friend that the CEGB is doing just as he asks. The cost of producing electricity in the United Kingdom is falling, because improved productivity has been the order of the day. The CEGB deserves credit for improving its efficiency and for reducing costs, though that is also due to the Government's success in bringing down inflation.

If coal stocks at power stations are as high as the Secretary of State told us in answer to question No. 4, why is the CEGB burning so much expensive imported oil?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the CEGB is burning more oil than it had planned to do—

Why?

The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise the importance of doing that to ensure continuity of supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report progress in reducing unnecessary waste and duplication of European Economic Community member countries' research into alternative forms of energy.

Information on national programmes is exchanged between member states in Community research groups, bilaterally and within the International Energy Agency. Waste and unnecessary duplication should accordingly be avoided.

As I understand that the appropriate Council of Ministers meeting next week will consider and, for all I know, approve the next research and development programme into alternative forms of energy, will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in the light of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's admission some weeks ago that there was unnecessary waste and duplication, the programme will be examined carefully? Although many of us welcome the fact that Government funds made available for research and development have more than tripled, they are wasted if there is unnecessary duplication.

Not unusually, my hon. Friend is well informed. I hope to represent the Government at the Energy Council next week. I assure my hon. Friend that if the matter comes up for discussion I shall go to it with his words ringing in my ears.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further evidence he has received concerning the practice of some landlords in charging more for electricity than the relevant area board; and if he will make a statement.

I have received no recent evidence about overcharging by landlords for electricity supplied. However, the Office of Fair Trading has recently issued a consultative document on the resale of electricity, which I am considering.

Is not a report to my hon. Friend on this very matter long overdue? Does he not agree that it is wrong for landlords to charge a price for electricity that is above the official price and beyond what is reasonable for administrative purposes?

I understand my hon. Friend's question, but he will be aware that when the matter was last re-examined in 1977 it was recommended that there should be no legislative change. There is now an investigation sponsored by the Electricity Consumers Council, and comments on the consultative document have been invited until the end of June. Until we have received those comments, we cannot consider that the matter is final.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the effect each month that the miners' dispute continues on the number of coal mines which will be able to operate safely when the dispute ends.

Responsibility for the maintenance of safety at NCB collieries rests with the board. It is seeking to limit the deterioration in conditions at those pits that are not working, but difficulties will increase with the extension of the stoppage. If remedial action is not taken as and when safety problems appear, this could prevent some pits re-opening at the end of the dispute.

I trust that my hon. Friend is aware that coal faces become geologically unstable if left for a period of time. As this crisis has been continuing for two and a half months, will my hon. Friend give us hard facts as to how many mines have been partially closed or are likely to be closed, and how much machinery has been lost? Is he also aware that, although Mr. Scargill is against closures, he will probably be responsible in the long run for more closures than he expected?

My hon. Friend will be aware that Bogside in Scotland was closed for safety reasons, and that a coal face at Rossington in the Doncaster area was sealed recently, with £2 million worth of equipment on it. The face would not have been lost but for the strike. If the NUM, when asked, had been willing to help by moving the face, it would have been saved.

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

The New Building Sub-Committee of the Services Committee has, I understand, made good progress in its examination of how the new parliamentary building should be developed and its accommodation allocated. I understand that its proposals reflect the view, expressed by many hon. Members in the debate of 22 November, that staff should, as far as possible, move out of the Palace to enable an increased number of hon. Members to have rooms near the Chamber.

When are hon. Members likely to occupy the offices? There are rumours that the work is already behind schedule. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that there is to be no cut in the original financial allocation for the project?

I understand that phase I of the Bridge street building should be available for occupation in early 1990. Although I can only take note of what the hon. Gentleman says about financial restraint in the project, I am certain that the Government will balance a proper sense of economy with the previous commitment.

I welcome the news about the new Bridge street building. Will my right hon. Friend note the growing number of American research assistants who appear to be occupying the desks and office space of Members of Parliament?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I only hope that completion of phase I of the Bridge street building will not, by virtue of making more accommodation available, compound the difficulties by raising expectations among research assistants.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although this place might be an attractive museum, it is a working slum? Will he treat the matter with a great deal more urgency than he seems to be demonstrating?

I cannot in any sense guarantee to give it greater seriousness or urgency than I have shown in my reply.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he will arrange for the chairman of the Public Accounts Commission to have a regular day for answering oral questions.

Following discussions through the usual channels, I have arranged that oral questions to the Member answering for the Public Accounts Commission will start not later than 3.15 pm on every sixth Monday beginning on 25 June 1984. Questions to the House of Commons Commission will next be answered on 4 June and every sixth Monday thereafter, starting not later than 3.15 pm as at present. Questions in respect of the arts will continue to start at not later than 3.20 pm on those days.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a helpful beginning and will give some of us an opportunity to ask why this new body has decided that it must occupy luxury premises in central London at high cost to the taxpayer?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It would be helpful to put it before the Public Accounts Commission. I am sure that the whole House will await with interest the reply to the question, of which we have been given a trailer.

Does the Public Accounts Commission deserve to be given as much time as that on the Floor of the House? I am asking that as a member of the Committee.

Time will reveal.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose that the House shall not sit on Whit Monday.

No. I think it appropriate that the House should as far as possible conform to the practice of the country at large in these matters.

Did not my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and does not he himself, regret the supersession of Whit Monday as a public holiday? Should not Parliament and people be enabled once again properly to celebrate the birthday of the Church?

I have to point out to my hon. Friend that the decision to go for a fixed spring bank holiday was taken when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was at the Department of Trade in 1964. My hon. Friend may recall that that was introduced with the full-hearted consent of ecclesiastics. Experience since then does not suggest any great public pressure for the reversal of such a policy. I fear that my hon. Friend's anxieties may be overtaken if the modish innovators of the Church are successful in getting a fixed Easter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what rent is paid to the House authorities by Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. for the facilities it has within the precincts; and if he will make a statement.

No rent is paid for the rooms occupied by the Transport Office, operated by Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. Equally, Cooks makes no charge for providing what I am sure hon. Members will recognise as an important service.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are thoroughly grateful for the excellent service that we receive from Thomas Cook? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no discount is given to hon. Members for that service? Will he tell the House why Thomas Cook pays no rent, in view of the reasonable profits that it makes?

On balance, I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that Thomas Cook provides an extremely good service. I am sure that that is partly reflected by the terms and conditions on which it operates within the Palace of Westminster. With regard to my hon. Friend's specific question about payment of rent, I cannot answer him immediately with authority, but I shall look into the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that is an unsatisfactory answer? Thomas Cook receives vast profits for this commercial operation when compared with its other branches. Should not Thomas Cook pay a rent, and should not the contract for providing those services be open to competition provided by other companies?

I cannot confirm or deny the nature of the profits achieved by Thomas Cook in its operations here. It is true that there is a case for considering giving another agency the opportunity to bid for this business. That is currently under consideration by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. As soon as I can comment upon its findings I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, following his answer about competition, that many reputable travel agencies and companies would be only to pleased to put in quotations for occupying that office and handling the travel business?

I can assure my hon. Friend that those factors will be taken into account by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in the study to which I have referred.

Since the company has the use of the office free of rent, will the Leader of the House have published in the Official Report an outline of exactly what hon. Members receive at Thomas Cook which they would not receive or would pay for at a normal office?

I shall be happy to consider that.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service for what areas of recruitment policy the Management and Personnel Office is responsible.

The Management and Personnel Office has the central responsibility for all aspects of recruitment policy for the home Civil Service. However, it is for individual Departments to determine their own recruitment needs within those wider personnel management policies. The Civil Service Commission, which forms part of the MPO, undertakes the recruitment of staff to grades at broadly executive officer level and above; Departments themselves carry out recruitment to the more junior grades.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. As I understand that the number of civil servants has been reduced by more than 100,000 in the past five years, with very few forced redundancies, at least among non-industrial civil servants, is my hon. Friend satisfied with recruitment policies for the service, which presumably have been diminished, and which might inhibit that noble service in getting the right people for the right job?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have achieved their target of reducing numbers in the Civil Service by over 100,000 since we came into office in May 1979. In the non-industrial Civil Service, that has been done with few redundancies. The number of recruits has come down from about 64,700 in 1978 to 29,300 in 1983, and the number of people leaving the Civil Service voluntarily has also decreased.

Has the Minister's Department undertaken any research into, and comparisons between, growth in the Civil Service and that of middle management in the private sector? If there has been research, will it be published? If not, will the Minister instruct the Department to carry it out?

I shall consider that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

At what grade will the new head of the Government accountancy service be appointed? What new steps are being taken to recruit properly qualified accountants to the Civil Service?

I am sure that the House will share the regret and concern of the Government that no appointment has yet been made for the head of the Government accountancy service. There have been exchanges between the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and the Government about that matter, and I understand that they are being pursued. Suitable candidates are being interviewed by the permanent secretary to the Treasury and the head of the home Civil Service, who advise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that appointment. I hope that they will be successful in getting the right candidate for that very important job.

Have not the cuts in the Civil Service been made at a heavy cost to the state and its services? Is it not true that there are not enough Inland Revenue officers to cope with revenue arrears? Is it not the case that Customs and Excise officers cannot deal with the problems developing in our ports and in the collection of VAT, and that Department of Health and Social Security officers cannot deal with the confusion over supplementary benefit? Has not this exercise in reducing civil servant numbers damaged the interests of the state and of the British people and created greater confusion in Government Departments?

The answer to all those questions is no.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters were discussed at his last meeting with the Civil Service unions.

There have been no further meetings since the two meetings referred to in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 12 March, at which the subjects discussed were Civil Service catering and GCHQ.

Is it possible for my hon. Friend's Department to review the accuracy of the estimates regarding the manpower consequences of legislation? Will he examine the envisaged savings from the transfer of housing benefits from the Department of Health and Social Security to local authorities? The transfer was estimated to make an enormous saving in manpower and to save a great deal of work, but appears to have created additional work for both the DHSS and local authorities.

The primary responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I shall certainly consider the matter.

What is the position of the GCHQ employees who refused to abandon their trade union membership? What is happening to them? Is it not ironic that during the year when we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Tolpuddle martyrs a Tory Government should penalise men and women because they wish to exercise their democratic right to belong to a trade union?

I repudiate the implications of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Detailed questions, such as those in the first part of his question, should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

During discussions with the Civil Service unions, was the Scott report considered, and was progress made towards eliminating the indexing of Civil Service pensions?

That was not discussed with the Civil Service unions. I refer my hon. Friend to a debate that we had during the autumn of 1982.

Is the Minister aware of the strength of feeling which is building up in the Civil Service because the Government are unwilling to recognise how much pay has fallen behind that in the private sector? Does he agree that that is demonstrated by the figures produced by the relevant body? Will the Government respond before there is an explosion in the Civil Service similar to that in the teaching profession?

The Treasury is responsible for Civil Service pay, and questions about that should not be raised at this Question Time—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may be astonished to hear that, but I answer questions about matters concerned with the Management and Personnel Office, which do not include pay and numbers. It is not for me to instruct Opposition Members about normal ministerial responsibilities. Pay negotiations are taking place. Quite apart from the procedural point, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment on the details of those negotiations.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, and despite disagreements with them, will he pass on to them the gratitude of many hon. Members for the courtesy, consideration and efficiency shown by civil servants in dealing with our constituency matters?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His sentiment will be shared widely in the House.

Following the line of previous questions to the Minister about GCHQ and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), is the Minister aware of the historic link between Cheltenham and Tolpuddle? Cheltenham was the first town to petition the House against the sentences of the Tolpuddle martyrs 150 years ago. Does he see the historic irony of the Government's attack on trade unions in Cheltenham today?

It is totally absurd to link the historic events at Tolpuddle with recent events at GCHQ.

How can the Government justify the forcible transfer of the 100 trade union members at GCHQ, given the Treasury Solicitor's clear commitment in a letter written on 22 March—which I hope the Minister has had an opportunity to read—to take no action against those who decide to retain their trade union membership until the court case is completed? How can the Government justify the steps that they are taking?

No action is being taken compulsorily to transfer people until the results of the court action are known.