asked the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives have been taken by his Department to encourage the conservation of energy in public buildings.

A major objective of the energy efficiency campaign is to promote the better use of fuel in industrial, commercial and public buildings. The public sector, along with industry and commerce, has been encouraged to take advantage of the new energy efficiency survey scheme, the demonstration project scheme and the information and advice provided by the Energy Efficiency Office.

I am encouraged by that reply. How are industrial users of energy comparing with public sector users, particularly as there is now a need to conserve energy throughout the country?

The main energy efficiency campaign was launched only at the end of last year. I am glad to say that the response at the breakfasts publicising the campaign throughout the country was extremely encouraging. All the evidence from the follow-up programme indicates a high take-up.

Why does the Minister think that people who work in public buildings should worry about energy conservation when MPs, as a result of Friday's payroll vote, are being given cash incentives to use energy-inefficient vehicles? Does he agree that it is now self-financing to sell a second-hand Mini and to buy a second-hand Rolls- Royce?

Order. The question relates to public buildings.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative. Will he look again at the terms of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 to see whether it is possible to reduce both the maximum and minimum temperatures stipulated in that Act?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I shall examine it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present position concerning the industrial dispute in the mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current situation in the coal industry.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal industry.

When I first met the leaders of the three mining unions in June 1983 I made it clear to them that if they and the National Coal Board wished to come to me with joint proposals on the future of the industry I would always be willing to meet them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that his reply ducks the question on the Order Paper? Is it not now obvious that there will be no settlement between the two parties to the mining dispute? Does he further agree that he has an obligation, through his high office, to meet the president of the NUM just as he has been meeting the chairman of the National Coal Board, the second party to the dispute? If he is not prepared to do that, are we to take it that he is prepared to sit back and join the Prime Minister in a shoot-out?

I have repeated on many occasions that the Government have intervened on a massive scale to ensure that no single compulsory redundancy takes place, that massive investment will continue and that a decent wage will always be available. Mr. Scargill has publicly made it clear on every occasion that he is interested only in every pit, no matter how uneconomic, remaining working. Everyone agrees that at the talks last week the NCB was understanding and did all sorts of things to make a settlement possible, but there was no move at all by the NUM.

Following that answer and in view of the anxiety in some circles about the effect upon a mining community of closure, can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about the operations of the enterprise company? Will he confirm that it is organised and sponsored by the NCB, designed to bring new business to the areas concerned and, if operative, would do much to remove the understandable anxieties of closely linked communities?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware that there have been many pit closures under all Governments in the past, and a whole range of regional aid policies have been applied. I am pleased to say that the NCB has announced the creation of a new enterprise company which will certainly provide funds to assist new businesses coming into the areas for accommodation and for professional advice. There is no doubt that that is an addition to all the services which have been provided, and which are so important for the mining communities.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the miners, who have been on strike for five months and have made enormous personal sacrifices, are supported by their wives and communities in trying to defend not only their jobs but future jobs for their sons and grandsons? Is he further aware that vulgar and obscene abuse by the right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers simply shows that they have no awareness of the deep commitment that leads the miners to continue their battle for the future of their communities?

If the right hon. Gentleman were to tell the strikers and the families affected that this Government are paying the miners better than the Labour Government paid the miners and that this Government are investing twice as much cash as the Labour Government did, they might go back to work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Basildon Labour party, which was collecting funds for striking miners in Billericay high street on Saturday, was using ballot boxes? Would it not be a better and more logical use of those boxes to take them to the mining communities and allow the miners to ballot on whether they want to be on strike?

It is an interesting fact that the day that Mr. Scargill announced that he was changing the rules on balloting, the Leader of the Opposition urged that a ballot should take place. Since Mr. Scargill has not taken advantage of that, the Leader of the Opposition has remained silent.

Does the Secretary of State concede that the role in which he has cast himself, as a slick salesman of sleekit against the NUM leadership, ill befits the dignity of his office? Does not the Prime Minister's slanderous remarks about the enemy within show that the Government do not in any way understand the deep commitment of people in my community — from Oakley, High Valleyfield, Blairhall and other communities—to defend their communities and jobs? Unless the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister understand that, there is no hope for conciliaton in this vexed dispute.

One does not need to be much of a salesman to defend a position in which we have agreed to invest more than was envisaged in "Plan for Coal" and to ensure that there is not a single compulsory redundancy in the industry.

Is it not clear that Mr. Scargill and his friends are engaged in a political battle of propaganda? Is it not true that even if, at the end of the strike, Mr. Scargill is chopped into 1,000 pieces and fed to Mr. MacGregor's dog, Mr. Scargill will claim it as a propaganda victory to poison Mr. MacGregor? Will my right hon. Friend use every opportunity to point out to the people of this country the real and serious underlying issues that are at stake in the dispute?

The serious underlying issue is that the coal industry, with the investment envisaged, the potential for converting industries to coal and the potential for export markets, has a marvellous future. The tragedy is that this wholly unwarranted industrial action is jeopardising that future.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that the worst way to try to settle this grievous dispute —grievous to everyone and to the country—is for the Government to say that the miners or their leaders are the enemy within and to compare them with Fascist dictators? Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed to be associated with such a campaign? Will he demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House tomorrow and apologises to the miners of Britain?

No such remarks have been made about the miners—[Interruption.] In fact, the miners' interests are being undermined by political objectives which have nothing to do with the coal mining industry.

As the Government have an impeccable case in this dispute, and as the prime purpose is political, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to mitigate loss by taking tougher action? Will he also do his best to encourage firms affected by secondary picketing to take a tough line?

The decision whether to take action on secondary picketing must be left to the people concerned in balancing the advantages and disadvantages of using the legal rights that they enjoy. The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the type of mob violence that has taken place throughout the dispute is effectively dealt with under the law. That is why, tragically and sadly, more than 4,000 arrests have had to be made.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to make representations on two matters for which he has no direct responsibility but for which he has a strong moral responsibility? First, will he seek to change the regulations by which PAYE refunds to miners are not being paid, remembering that there is great hardship and that it is the miners' own money? Are they not entitled to it? Secondly, is he aware that in my constituency some miners' children are now unable to get new shoes—[Interruption.] That interruption from Conservative Members shows their lack of sensitivity. Some miners' children are unable to get new shoes because of the strict interpretation that is being placed on the regulations. Will he make strong and urgent representations to the Departments concerned on those matters for which he has responsibility?

The laws governing PAYE and social security apply universally across the country. It would be absurd to change regulations as a result of an industrial action in which no ballot has taken place and when one third of the miners are working.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to remove all restrictions on the import of coal, and when does he expect the NCB to start paying off miners who are anxious to leave the industry?

The second matter which my hon. Friend raises is for the NCB to consider. It is a pity that the desire of a number of miners to take early retirement— and thereby make jobs available for others — has been delayed by this industrial action. The answer to his first question is that imports are continuing.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most outrageous features of this dispute so far is that there has been no ballot of those who have been involved in this action for the last five months and who have been suffering so much hardship as a result? As the NCB has put forward new proposals on closures, does he feel that the time has come—he would also resolve some of the arguments that are going backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House—to put that new package from the NCB to the mineworkers?

I would very much welcome it if the NCB decided to put that package. It is difficult for employers to decide to put a package, particularly as, with the sort of victimisation that is going on at present in certain mining areas, I doubt whether such a ballot could be successfully conducted by the board. It is a matter of great regret that, certainly for the first time in our lifetime, a strike has been called without a ballot being held, and it is significant that one third of fields which have decided to hold ballots have been at work throughout the dispute.

As the factors which govern the viability of individual pits are, and always will be, infinitely varied, will my right hon. Friend tell the president of the NUM that many Conservative Members believe that the offer which is now available is too good to refuse and that, if refused by the NUM, should be withdrawn?

The wording that was offered last week was acceptable to every reasonable observer, and there was not one criticism suggesting that the NCB's offer was a bad or unfair one. It is a pity that that wording was not immediately acceptable.

At his next meeting with the chairman of the NCB, will the Secretary of State ask him about the number of pits that have already been closed, and the possible closures that may come after this dispute is over, not because of the inefficiency of the miners or their lack of productivity and effort, but because of bad management?

I cannot comment about the allegations of bad management of pits, but the formula suggested by the NCB is that if there are reserves of coal in a pit which, after investment, could he sensibly and beneficially obtained, work at that pit would continue.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Bill Sirs, chairman of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, said on Thursday that Mr. Arthur Scargill was prepared to bring about the collapse of the steel industry for his own political objectives, and that the support of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and of the National Union of Raliwaymen was based on similar political motives? Is that not a disgrace, and should not the Labour party dissociate itself from the leadership of the NUM?

I agree with my hon. Friend; but I am pleased to say that, throughout the dispute, coal and iron ore have continued to be delivered to every steel plant in the country. I know that the House will be pleased to hear that the week before last steel production was at a higher level than it was before the dispute started.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this dispute is about jobs and the preservation of jobs and communities? People find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has not met senior officals of the NUM in the past 20 weeks. Instead of hurling personal abuse, will the Secretary of State use his office to call both sides together? The talks were adjourned only last Wednesday. Will he ensure that they are resumed at the earliest opportunity?

No, not when the only point on which Mr. Scargill says that he is unwilling to yield is the principle that every pit in the country, provided that it has reserves of coal, should continue to be operated, irrespective of huge economic losses. He has said that he will not give way, and he has repeated that before and after every meeting. As the right hon. Gentleman knows. at last week's meeting the NUM did not move at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what change he expects in offshore oil production by 1 January 1987 as compared with 1 January 1984.

The rate of offshore crude oil production in January 1984 was 2·52 million barrels per day. By 1987 the average rate of production is expected to be in the range of 1·6 million to 2·3 million barrels per day.

I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that we are all anxious to ensure that the level of offshore oil production continues at a reasonably high level because of the importance for onshore work of bringing new fields into production. Do the Government propose any changes with regard to future licensing to ensure a greater content of work being given to British firms than has been the case up to now?

What matters most of all, looking into the future and the kinds of fields that will be developed, is that the new technology that will be required to work those fields is developed and generated in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the special new conditions that I have laid down in the ninth licensing round, which should make that possible.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of North sea oil exploration is three times higher than it was in 1980, thanks to the measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Last year, a record number of wells were drilled in the North sea. In the first half of this year, even last year's good figure has been improved upon by 30 per cent. The outlook for the future is very encouraging.

Does not the Minister's answer suggest that, even by the ed of the present Parliament, we shall witness a decline in oil production? Does that not lead the right hon. Gentleman to the view that those of us who argue for a more moderate depletion rate have common sense on our side? Can we expect to see an end to self-sufficiency in oil during the early 1990s?

The hon. Gentleman has ignored two things. First, all existing fields are performing better than expected. Secondly, if he had studied the estimates of new reserves he would have seen that they are at very much higher levels as a result of new work which has been done. We can look forward with optimism to future production.

Further to the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Wallace), does he agree that his statement about the rundown of reserves will add to the anxiety of those who, like many in my constituency, depend heavily on the onshore construction business? The Minister is to meet a delegation from Ross and Cromarty district council later this week about the current dearth of orders there. Will he have anything to tell that delegation about additional steps to be taken by the Government as the rundown takes place?

I did not refer to a rundown in reserves. I referred to a rundown in production as a result of the size of the earlier fields. Reserves are at a higher level than at any time, but some of the fields have yet to be discovered or developed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the problems of the coal industry in south Wales.

The chairman of the NCB has sound plans for the future development of the coal industry and its markets. The future of the south Wales coalfield will not be helped by miners damaging the steel industry and encouraging steel plants to look elsewhere for coal supplies.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has said, this is a fight for jobs. When the Minister meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will he remind him that three collieries have been closed in the Ogmore constituency since 1979? Wyndham Western in Nantymoel was closed on 7 January this year. There has been a total loss of 1,500 jobs in the Ogmore constituency. Is the Minister aware that one of the collieries on the hit list is St. John's colliery in Maesteg, closure of which would mean a further loss of 842 jobs? Is he aware that at present unemployment in Maesteg stands at 24 per cent. and that, if the colliery is closed, male unemployment will shoot up to 45 per cent?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the jobs of miners depend upon the number of customers that can be found for the coal that they produce. I ask the hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to the effect on steel workers at Llanwern? If those workers are denied access to the raw materials for producing steel, that will in turn bring about a substantial reduction in jobs not only in the steel plants but in the coal industry. A total of £20 million was invested in south Wales in the past financial year. The prospects for investment this year would have been higher, but because of the dispute all the bets are off.

Is it not true that the coal strike has been very damaging to jobs in the steel industry in south Wales and that that in turn threatens jobs within the coal industry supplying the steel works? In any discussions that he may have with the chairman of the NCB, will my hon. Friend remind the chairman of the vital importance of safeguarding the position of those miners who have carried on working throughout the strike, as at Point of Ayr in north Wales?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those miners in north Wales who have continued to work. They recognise that the future of the industry vitally depends on producing coal from effective mines at prices that the market will accept.

Would it be too much to ask the Secretary of State to be a statesman for once, instead of perpetually attacking the NUM leadership? Is he aware that that is counter-productive? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the dividing line between the two sides is marginal? If he would take a more sensible stance and intervene in the dispute, it could be resolved very quickly.

If that is the case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a mine that has no beneficial product for Wales is a mine that must have serious consideration for closure.

What hope can my hon. Friend offer to miners' wives in south Wales, such as the miner's wife who wrote to me —because she was ashamed of her constituency MP—saying that her husband had been on strike for 19 weeks and wants to go back to work? They have a nice house and she is frightened that the windows will be broken or smeared with paint. She is frightened that her husband will be injured by what she calls Scargill's bully boys.

It is well evident that there are intimidatory activities going on that bear no relationship to the average miner's view of his industry and certainly no relationship to the standards of behaviour in south Wales.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the south Wales mining communities deeply resent and reject the squalid comparison made by the Prime Minister last week between the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands and the miners' strike? Is he aware how many youngsters from our mining communities fought in the Falklands for the rights of those islanders, 7,000 miles away, to remain in their community? Is he aware that miners are also fighting to remain in their communities? Will he at least dissociate himself from the worst remarks made by the Prime Minister last week?

The remarks of my right hon. Friend have already provoked a great deal of comment. She was referring to the danger of militant activities undermining the state. The hon. Gentleman's view of these matters is fair and I am sure that he agrees that the undermining of democratic institutions starts with those who refuse to accept the right in the rule book for members to be balloted before being called out on strike.

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

I have no plans for bilateral discussions with the European Commission. A Research Council is scheduled for October.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient research into alternative sources of energy is being undertaken by the Community? Are the Government pressing it to increase the research programme?

If my hon. Friend looks at what has been done in the Community and at what national states have done to complement the Community programme, he will see that considerable worthwhile work is going on. I am sure he agrees that it is important that the work done by member states is co-ordinated so that the Community programme is effective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the atmospheric pollution caused by the burning of coal should be assessed as a cost and be taken into account when we consider how to meet our future energy requirements?

That must be taken into account, but one must remember that some alternative forms of energy also have an impact on the environment in various ways. We cannot look at one energy source in isolation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many persons employed by the National Coal Board retired from, or voluntarily left, coal mining in the last year.

I understand from the National Coal Board that 21,641 men voluntarily left coal mining in the financial year 1983–84.

Is not that figure in stark contrast to the fact that no mine worker has been forcibly made redundant in the past year? Bearing in mind that the Government have also vastly improved the redundant mine workers' payment scheme, are not those two facts evidence that the Government are adopting a sensible, sensitive and statesmanlike approach to a great industry, which offers our country a great future?

There is no doubt that the early retirement and the voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those in any other industry in this country and more generous than those in any other coal industry in the world.

As the right hon. Gentleman says that 21,641 men took voluntary redundancy last year, why on earth did he allow the NCB to put forward a provocative package that has resulted in a 19-week strike?

The provocative package to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a package which contained a guarantee that there would not be a single compulsory redundancy.

How many coal faces have been irretrievably lost as a result of the present strike, and how many jobs are likely to be lost as a result of the general geological deterioration of pits?

It is impossible to give an accurate figure. In reply to another question we mentioned the collieries that are now causing concern, but there is no doubt that serious geological damage is being done.

The Secretary of State has given his interpretation of the negotiations that were adjourned last week, but, having spoken to both sides in the dispute—unlike the right hon. Gentleman— I can tell him that that is not my reading of the situation. Will he now meet Mr. Scargill and listen to his interpretation of the talks?

I have informed all union leaders connected with my Department that if any of them at any time wishes to talk to us, we would be only too willing to respond. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the accurate interpretation of those talks. He knows that the Leader of the Opposition, presumably on somebody's advice, said that the leaders of the NUM had asked for talks to go on the next morning, but had been refused. However, I am pleased to say that the NCB has issued a statement saying that that was totally untrue.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity sales in 1982 and 1983 was accounted for by industrial users and domestic consumers, respectively.

The proportions of total electricity sales in England and Wales accounted for by the main groups of consumer were, domestic consumers in 1982, 37 per cent.; in 1983, 36 per cent.: industrial consumers 38 per cent. in both years, and commercial consumers 21 per cent. in both years.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, and for all that he and his Department are doing to help the heavy users, but will he bear in mind that heavy users such as the glass industry have enough problems with foreign I mports? Will he do all he can to review the situation and to give more help to heavy users, particularly the glass industry?

I respect my hon. Friend's interest in the glass industry, and no doubt it stems from the very large cullet plant established recently in his constituency. I can assure him that much has been done to bring United Kingdom prices well into line with those in the rest of the EC, and the CBI is now reasonably satisfied with that. There is, however, a small minority—roughly 2 per cent. — of firms for which there is some competitive disadvantage, and I very much hope that that problem can be gradually resolved in the intensive electricity sectors.

Is it not true that industries which use electricity desperately need cheap electricity if they are to sell their goods abroad? Is that not another reason why we simply must have a modem and cost-effective coal mining industry? Is it not, in addition, another reason why we simply must find a solution to the mining dispute which enables us to have cheap coal and cheaper energy prices?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At 86 per cent., coal remains the largest single component of electricity fuel generation costs, and the future price of coal is crucial to the future price of electricity.

How does the Minister measure prices here against those in European countries? Time after time industries, and particularly the processing industry, have complained about unfair competition and have pointed, in particular, to countries such as France where electricity for bulk users is far cheaper. Why is something not done to assist industry, instead of just talking about it?

There are two answers to that question. First, the CBI and not the Government commissioned the report, and the CBI has all the evidence from its members and consumers. Secondly, the cheaper electricity in France is entirely due to a very substantial increase in nuclear power. I assume that the hon. Gentleman applauds that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the total cost of the coal dispute.

The total cost of the dispute will depend on how long it lasts. To date, one thing is clear —the dispute has cost the miners themselves some £380 million in lost wages.

I agree that the cost will probably depend on the length of the dispute, but will my hon. Friend confirm the view that I have heard, that the total cost to date is in excess of, or perhaps approaching, £10 billion? Does he recognise that it is not the Government, but the public, who ultimately pay?

I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that many purely speculative figures are being bandied about in regard to the ultimate cost of the dispute. The fact remains that the public will eventually be at risk if our coal industry is not competitive in terms of price and therefore produces more expensive electricity.

Does the Minister agree that the dispute has cost far too much already? Will he have a word in the Secretary of State's ear to ask him if he will meet the chairman of the NCB to do one thing—to tell him that he is sacked? Does he agree that the chairman has been an utter disaster and that it is time that he retired and took his old-age pension?

The hon. Gentleman, who should know better on these matters, should recognise that the chairman of the NCB has asked for further major capital investment in the industry and has gone ahead with the Asfordby project. It is the chairman of the NCB who wants improvements in the redundant mine workers' payments scheme to ensure that not one man is made redundant compulsorily and it is the chairman of the NCB who believes in the future, when coal can be produced at prices that will lead to an increased volume in the market.

Is the Minister aware that we saw a shudder go through the Government Front Bench when the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) suggested that the cost of the miners' dispute might be £10 billion? None of us has used that figure before. Does he agree that the dispute will be damaging and costly? In answer to a previous question, the Secretary of State denied that the NUM had asked that the talks that broke down should carry on into the morning. Is that not a classic illustration of why the Secretary of State has a responsibility to meet both sides to resolve this damaging and costly dispute?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there have been 35 hours of negotiation on proposals that were made at the NUM's request as far back as 6 March. He also knows that the negotiations have resulted in a close examination of the proposals and in some changes in how the NCB is presenting its case to the NUM. All that is required is some recognition of the fact that the NUM must accept that the closure of uneconomic pits is an essential ingredient in the restructuring of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation of the Sleipner gas field negotiations.

A decision will be taken as soon as possible.

I remind my right hon. Friend that there is already a large trade imbalance with Norway, whereby we take more than one third of its exports and Norway takes only 11·8 per cent. of our exports. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Department has very much in mind the great opportunity for British exporters to export to Norway if the contract is concluded, especially as it will bring approximately £20 billion to Norway—a country with only 4 million people?

My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that aspect of trade with Norway. I assure him that I will bear his point in mind. I am sure he will would be the first to acknowledge that the Sleipner gas issue raises a number of matters of great importance.

Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the possibilities that has been aired about the Sleipner field would extend the lifetime of the Flotta terminal in my constituency? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner the decision is made the better, because uncertainty has a damaging effect?

I do not believe in just reaching decisions. I believe in reaching the correct decisions.

If the Government approve the deal, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the British offshore industry will have a fair chance of participating in the work?

This is a matter to which the report of the Select Committee on Energy has rightly drawn attention. I assure my hon. Friend that that is a point that I will bear in mind during my discussions with my counterparts in Norway.

Will the Minister gives us an assurance that he will not link the decision on Sleipner with any decision on direct export of gas to Europe from the British North sea, because that will have serious and considerable consequences on depletion policy and prices? Will he make a statement to the House about the decision which raises, as he pointed out, many serious issues about which hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked repeatedly at Question Time?

One must look at all aspects of this matter, including exports. Any Government would be failing in their duty if they did no do so. I fully understand the interest of the House, which has been exemplified at Question Time for a long period. It is the intention of myself and my right hon. Friend to keep the House properly and fully informed once the decision is reached.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the workings of the services of the House, in so far as they relate to his responsibility.

I am sure that improvement is always possible. If my hon. Friend has a specific issue to raise, I shall gladly draw it to the attention of the Services Committee.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Might I take him at his word and ask whether he will do something about the lift service in this building? Is he aware that it has deteriorated recently and that reports to that effect to the usual channels get nowhere? I am raising the matter on the Floor of the House in an attempt to get something done.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will not be wholly reassured when I tell him that the lifts are essentially the responsibility of the Property Services Agency, which has an extensive lift improvement scheme. I shall therefore look forward all the more to hearing from my hon. Friend and taking up whatever point he has in mind.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House on radio? Does he agree that that broadcasting would be greatly improved if he were now to innovate and televise the House?

I think that my hon. Friend's question strays just a little far from the original one. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not drift into consideration of televising the House. I should have thought that if there was anything wrong with the sound broadcasting of the House it was more to do with our contribution than the editing.

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 Services Committee has recently made a report to the House, including the design brief for phase 1 of the new parliamentary building. I hope that the report will be published shortly.

Is not it a fact that, after the great fanfare some months ago about improving office accommodation for hon. Members, the work that the right hon. Gentleman has just described is considerably behind schedule? What progress is being made on the principle that the Government adopted some time ago in regard to moving staff from the Palace: to make more accommodation in this building available to hon. Members?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of the charge of having issued any fanfare on anything, least of all on anything to do with my responsibilities. I do not believe that it is true that the schedule for this work has fallen behind. My answer today is precisely the same as my answer when the hon. Gentleman last questioned me on this matter — the premises should be available in 1990. The hon. Gentleman asked how much additional accommodation will be made available in the Palace of Westminster with the utilisation of the Bridge street building. The conventions of the House do not enable me to anticipate the report that will be made available in early August, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that about 100 desk spaces will be made available in the Palace of Westminster as a result of the new plans.

Will my right hon. Friend refer to the appropriate authority or committee the idea of buying the Crown Agents building and moving some people who do not have to be here out of the Houses of Parliament so that people who need to be here can have accommodation?

I shall happily look into that matter in the context in which the question was put.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the great disappointment among new Members of Parliament at the fact that they are unable to fulfil their parliamentary and constitutional duties because of the lack of available space? Will he bear that aspect in mind when looking at the programme for the future and ensure that that programme does not fall behind?

I expect that all those new Members will be seeking reselection, notwithstanding the hazards to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait and to note the tangible benefits of the development of the Bridge street site, because, frankly, nothing else of comparable value is available on the horizon.

Is there any evidence that hon. Members work better in the House or in their constituencies if they have larger or more comfortable offices?

I believe that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that idea, but that does not diminish the passion that attends these debates.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is satisfied with arrangements for access to the Terrace during the time of restoration of the Palace of Westminster.

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to all those who are concerned with the current restoration and cleaning of the face of the mother of Parliaments our congratulations on their superb job and the pleasure that they give to those who work here and see that work? How long will the rest of the job take? Will it include the Victoria tower? What will be the cost?

I readily acknowledge the warm tribute which the hon. and learned Gentleman paid to those concerned with the restoration work on the Palace of Westminster and the success that has attended that work hitherto. Work on the Terrace elevation, which will be commenced in September 1984, will last for two years. There will be four stages in the completion of that work, and every care will be taken to minimise inconvenience to Members and to the House generally. I shall look into the cost and inform the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Are the authorities confident that the Terrace is secure against terrorist access from the river?

Yes, they are.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are engaged in the implementation of the financial management initiative.

As these changes take root in Departments there is increasingly no clear-cut distinction between staff working in connection with the financial management initiative and the line managers and others who plan and allocate resources. During 1983–84 some 300 staff were directly engaged in developing and implementing the plans published last year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the progress made on FMI is extremely encouraging? When does he expect that his Department will publish the next White Paper? Is he satisfied that Departments are making sufficient information public about the implementation of FMI within their Department? Recently a number of Departments have refused to place the information in the Library.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouraging remarks. The White Paper which was promised for the end of July, will, I think, be published on Wednesday of this week. It will have a separate chapter covering each Department's contribution to the work. My hon. Friend will be aware that I favour the widest possible publication.

Will the Minister ensure that this FMI does not result in local managers following the example of the assistant group controller who is alleged to have told Inland Revenue staff that they should reduce their work load by tearing up letters from taxpayers and ignoring refunds for previous years to which taxpayers may be entitled?

I have seen press reports to that effect, but I have no idea of the truth of the matter. I shall certainly be looking into it and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that all Departments in Whitehall are now fully engaged in the FMI? What is his latest estimate of the financial savings expected to flow from it?

It is better for me not to pre-empt the White Paper that is coming later this week. I ask my hon. Friend to await its publication. I am sure that he will study it carefully and see that encouraging progress is being made.

What instructions have been given to civil servants to draw up contingency plans for clawing back the £1,000 that has been given to many employees at Cheltenham should the judgment of Mr. Justice Glidewell be upheld by Lord Lane and his colleagues?

If such contingency plans were needed, and I do not comment upon that at all, they would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Should not the FMI be far more interested than it is with the quality of service? Is the Minister aware that in the Inland Revenue the count of unanswered post at the moment stands at over 3·5 million, much the same as it was last year? Future plans to reduce Inland Revenue staff by one in four—far more than is needed for computerisation—mean that the public can expect no better service in the future as a result of this initiative than they have now.

I repudiate the broad thrust of what the hon. Lady is saying, although I admire her ingenuity in bringing that aspect of Treasury affairs into Question Time today.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the Management and Personnel Office's responsibilities for security in the Civil Service.

As shown in its management document 1984–85, which was published on 15 June 1984, the Management and Personnel Office's responsibilities for security in the Civil Service are to formulate and monitor personnel and physical security policy.

Is it unusual for persons appointed by the Civil Service Commission to be refused appointments by the Government Departments to which they have been allocated, presumably on the ground of their political views? I hasten to say that I am not talking about the Ministry of Defence, but about the Departments of the Environment and of Transport.

I think I can answer that, in general terms, yes, it is unusual. I would be prepared to draw the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend to any particular example that the hon. Gentleman cares to give to me.

As the International Labour Organisation found that security was not an adequate ground upon which to exclude people from their rights to freedom of information, have the Government had any discussion with that organisation as to how they are to retain their membership of it while banning that right for the civil servants at GCHQ issue?

As I thought the hon. Gentleman was well aware, matters concerning GCHQ are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Matters concerning the International Labour Organisation are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. In any case, the GCHQ is now sub judice because it is before the Court of Appeal.

Is the Minister able to tell the House how many employees of the Management and Personnel Office attended comprehensive schools?

With notice, I shall try to obtain that information from the Department's records.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has completed the evaluation of the surveys of the ethnic origins of non-industrial civil servants in the north-west and the county of Avon; and if he will make a statement.

A report on the surveys is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library.

Will the Minister give the House the assurance that once the report is available and has been evaluated—which means now—the Government will cease their current scandalous practice of refusing in all their Departments to carry out the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality—which has had a code in force on the subject since 1 April this year—so that we may see the Government taking a lead in being fair to people instead of dragging behind those whom they are encouraging to go forward?

I believe that the Government have taken and will continue to take a lead in seeking to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in employment in the Civil Service. I hope that that view is supported in every quarter of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that affirmative action in any respect is not the answer to the problem, and that merit and qualification will always be the main criteria for appointments to positions of the sort that have been mentioned?

Yes of course merit must be a criterion, but it is also very important, as I hope my hon. Friend will agree, that racial discrimination does not occur anywhere in this country, and particularly in employment in the public service.

Does the Minister agree that only by monitoring to check whether racial discrimination is taking place can we feel assured that the Civil Service is applying a true equal opportunities policy? If the results of the experiment are positive, will the Minister introduce a system throughout the Civil Service at the earliest opportunity?

A decision on future surveys will be made as soon as possible. Discussions are taking place with some of the unions, which have appeared to change their policy towards these matters recently.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current mining dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about the miners' strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' dispute.

I refer to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

As Mr. Scargill's forecasts of the level of coal stocks have repeatedly proved to be so wildly inaccurate, should it not now be clear to every miner in the land not only that Mr. Scargill is an isolated and discredited figure but that his words can no longer be trusted on this matter or anything else?

It is true that before the beginning of the dispute it was said that there were only eight weeks' supply of coal at the power stations. That was repeated in March, April and May, and again more recently. As my hon. Friend said, the allegation has always been proved to be totally unjustified. There are at present many months of stocks at the power stations.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must agree, from the exchanges across the Floor today, that he and the Government are the discredited people. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the strategy of the Government of which he is a Cabinet Member is to starve the miners into submission, and that that strategy will not succeed?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, after a ballot, one third of the miners are working, and if he wishes to accuse anyone of endeavouring to starve people into submission, he has done so in respect of a Government who have invested more in coal than any other, and guaranteed that there will be no compulsory redundancies.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 23, which was tabled in my name, has been missed out.

Question No. 23 refers to lead in petrol. We have been dealing with the mining industry in Question No. 21. The hon. Gentleman's question was not included in that grouping.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 46 was tabled by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), a Liberal Member, asking how many hours the House has sat after midnight. Have you had any indication from the hon. Gentleman as to why he was not present to ask his question at 3.15 pm?

No, I have had no indication why the hon. Member was not here.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have come to your attention that today's Order Paper contains 114 questions tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the subject of the Falkland Islands. That will cost the taxpayer a large sum of money. Would it not have been a better plan for the hon. Gentleman to write a letter instead of tabling so many questions?

Order. Every hon. Member has the right to table questions, if he judges that he wishes to have the answers to them.