asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he had with oil companies prior to the latest increase in petrol and diesel prices.

Product price increases are a commercial matter for the oil companies.

That was a short and sharp reply, but does my right hon. Friend accept that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to put 6p on the taxation of petrol, which seriously affected the rural areas, it should not be outwith the bounds of possibility for the Department of Energy, under the Secretary of State's control, to discuss with the oil companies the ever-escalating cost of petrol in the rural areas? It is having a devastating effect on employment, and my constituents and I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to take action, if possible, to seek reductions in petrol rather than continual increases.

I know that my hon. Friend has always been extremely active in this area, but he will agree —he and I represent the same part of Scotland—that there is considerable competition. I think he will be reassured to know that the Director-General of Fair Trading maintains a review of what is happening in the market. I am sure that he is aware of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while higher prices bring more revenue, lower prices reduce costs in all parts of the economy? Does he further agree that, in the rural areas, where we do not have reasonably priced fuel, there will be more depopulation and less industry?

I am very much aware of the problems in the rural areas, but the recent increases were very much related to what is happening in the crude oil market, and I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that.

May we have a fuller explanation of the Government's position on oil prices? On the one hand North sea oil prices are being cut, yet we are draining that oil at a mad pace, and on the other we seem to be on our prayer mats, praying that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will cut production and keep prices up. Do the Government want lower oil prices in general, or do they want OPEC to succeed in artificially keeping prices up?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have read the minute that was submitted to the House last week in relation to the British National Oil Corporation.

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

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 has any plans to meet the National Union of Miners to discuss the future of the coal industry.

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

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

Since I made a statement to the House on 22 October 1984, talks have taken place at ACAS between the National Coal Board and NACODS. After detailed negotiations covering a range of issues on which the NACODS executive had expressed concern, an agreement was reached between the National Coal Board and NACODS. The executive of NACODS unanimously supported this agreement and, as a result, the threat of industrial action was withdrawn.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but does he not agree that the House of Commons is owed a fuller explanation of what is happening at NCB headquarters, Hobart House, as it has just been announced that Mr. Eaton has been sent packing? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been talk about resignations and even sackings which can be traced back to the presence of Mr. Ian MacGregor at NCB headquarters? The right hon. Gentleman likes to talk about a policy of non-intervention, but is it not time that he took a grip of the situation, intervened publicly and told Mr. MacGregor, whatever he thinks happened over the weekend, that the strategy of starving striking miners into submission will not succeed and that only a principled and negotiated settlement can end this costly and damaging industrial dispute?

In view of the rumours that were circulating in the House just before Question Time I contacted the NCB and I confirm that Mr. Eaton, happily, remains in his duties. He very much agrees with the decision to cancel certain press engagements today while the situation following the disclosures at the weekend is being examined. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman once again.

It is no surprise that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said nothing about the extraordinary Libyan fiasco. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this has shown Mr. Scargill to be an even more evil man than his sternest critics had imagined? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NACODS agreement offers a far better opportunity of settlement for the miners—the people in whom we should be interested—than anything that might come from Libya? Finally, does my right hon. Friend imagine that this is the first time that the Bishop of Durham and Colonel Gaddafi have been on the same side?

In fairness, the disclosures of last weekend have resulted in the Leader of the Opposition very firmly condemning that attempt by certain NUM leaders. One cannot say that it was the NUM leadership as a whole, as most of the executive were not aware that the negotiations were taking place. I very much agree with the Leader of the Opposition in his condemnation. Some of the people involved attempted to suggest that it was simply obtaining a collection from fellow trade unionists in Libya, but Mr. Salem Ibrahim, whom Mr. Scargill and Mr. Windsor met in Paris on 8 October, is certainly not noted for his trade union activities. Mr. Mumtaz Abbasi, who accompanied Mr. Roger Windsor from Tripoli last week, is also not noted for his trade union activities. Among other things, he is a grocer, but his activities there are nothing compared with his activities elsewhere.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many people will not be impressed with the fact that he is more willing to answer at length parliamentary questions on the Libyan connection than on the industrial dispute itself? Why will the right hon. Gentleman not advise the NCB to table the "Plan for Coal" as the basis for a settlement?

Negotiations have taken place under the auspices of ACAS. ACAS made a proposal to both the NUM and the NCB, which the NCB accepted and the NUM turned down. The NCB then began detailed negotiations with NACODS and the resulting settlement was supported unanimously by the executive of NACODS. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself what Mr. Scargill's motive can be in continuing, after all that, to do such enormous damage to the coal industry, the miners and the mining communities.

In view of the unpleasant developments on some of the picket lines, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it was really only money that some of the NUM leadership was after when it went to Libya? Does my right hon. Friend understand that these new revelations have strengthened the resolve of the vast majority of the British people to take whatever may come in the way of inconvenience and difficulty in order to see the dispute through to a successful conclusion?

Yes, I believe that the British people were very suspicious of a leader who refused to hold a ballot when one third of his members who held a ballot voted decisively against strike action. They have heard from his own lips Mr. Scargill's complete commitment to overthrowing the type of system to which we have become accustomed in this country, and the latest disclosures this weekend have certainly aroused deep suspicions.

Does not the disclosure of the contact between Mr. Scargill and Colonel Gaddafi show once again the political nature of the strike? Does my right hon. Friend suppose that Mr. Scargill knows how trade unionists are treated in Libya?

Anyone who has studied trade unions in Libya will know full well that there is no free trade union movement in Libya, that there is no right to strike in Libya and that recently there have been vast numbers of public executions in Libya.

The repugnance that the country feels over the NUM's links with Libya is now boiling up to a point where people feel that enough is enough. Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what the negotiations at ACAS later this week will be about? Are not perfectly honourable settlement terms, accepted by NACODS, now on the table? Those terms should not be changed in any way, and the TUC and the Labour party should say that they wish to accept them. There should be no question of negotiation. Clarification perhaps, but no more negotiation.

Yes, Sir, I agree with the right lion. Gentleman. There is to be a meeting at ACAS on Wednesday because of the meetings that took place last week. ACAS finally asked both sides to put their position in writing, because there was some confusion about the position of the NUM on a number of issues. I understand that the NCB will clearly state in writing the basis of the agreement that it has reached with NACODS. I presume that the NUM will continue to state the wholly unreasonable and unwarranted demand, which it has made since the beginning of the dispute, that every pit should remain open. There is no doubt that a decent deal has been done with NACODS, and that should be the basis of an agreement.

Will the Secretary of State clarify what he has just said, as I understand that the NUM has never said that every pit should remain open? Three categories were drawn up in the negotiations under which some pits, even those with coal, would close. Exactly what is going on? Is the right hon. Gentleman like the NCB, which seems to know little about what is happening, even in negotiations?

Time and again — before and after every talk — Mr. Scargill has made it clear to miners that he will not tolerate the closure of any pit on economic grounds. That demand is utterly unreasonable. No Labour Government have ever conceded it and no previous leader of the NUM has ever demanded it. That is why many of us believe that Mr. Scargill has demanded it only to keep the conflict going.

Although I share the general distaste for Libya, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present oppressive social security regulations are scarcely designed to inculcate patriotic fervour in the coalfields? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on a matter that should come within his responsibilities—the decision concerning Mr. Eaton? Does he agree that the decision suggests to close observers that the NCB will now resume the somewhat inaccurate, often clumsy and always infuriating style of disinformation which infuriated my association, NACODS, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred? May we take it that the dismissal of Mr. Eaton will not plunge us back into disarray?

I can confirm that there is no dismissal of Mr. Eaton.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the coalminers' strike has been considered in the High Court and been found illegal? Is he prepared to act to ensure that the public are safeguarded? Is he also prepared to act against Mr. Scargill, as that might be in the country's interest?

Decisions on legal actions for an offence are not matters for me. The way in which the police have stopped the mobs closing steelworks, power stations and working collieries is a great tribute to them and a great condemnation of those who have organised the mobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the NCB, through its subsidiary Compower, in Cannock, has trained Libyans for many years, and that there is a contract between Libyan airlines and British Airways? Is it not odiously hypocritical for the Conservative party to raise this matter when President Botha and almost every other reactionary dictatorship in the world is always welcome at No. 10 Downing street? Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the dispute rather than the slurs?

I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman's blistering attack on the Leader of the Opposition, who has vigorously condemned this action.

He does not support Botha or the Chileans.

The right hon. Gentleman's views are probably best explained by the remarkable interview that he gave on the first day of the Labour party conference to his favourite newspaper, the Morning Star. He said:

"I do not believe the Labour Party has a future unless it comes to terms properly and finally with Marxism. Unless you are prepared to take on board his tremendous contribution, you are always going to have an element of the party that could float off into the SDP."

Answer the question.

The right hon. Gentleman's encouraging the NUM to link with Colonel Gaddafi will result in a few more floating off.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing evidence that thousands of miners, especially those in Yorkshire, the north-east, south Wales and Scotland, do not understand and know the details of the NCB's offer? If the talks fail on Wednesday, will he ensure that the Coal Board makes it absolutely clear, so that every miner knows exactly what is on offer?

Yes, Sir.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made absolutely clear our views on the Libyan position. I fully endorse them. We want to see the dispute resolved.

I am informed that Mr. Eaton has not resigned. In the coal mining industry, one union, the British Association of Colliery Management has never supported industrial action, NACODS, after patient negotiation, has reached an agreement which is backed fully by its executive, and one third of the NUM membership, in accordance with the NUM's normal tradition, held a ballot and voted decisively against strike action. The Labour party and the Trades Union Congress must decide whether they are on the side of BACM, NACODS and one third of the miners, or on the side of Arthur Scargill.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the present level of coal stocks.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest assessment of coal stocks.

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

The latest official published figures are for stocks of coal on 26 August. These show total stocks of 39·18 million tonnes, of which 15·5 million tonnes were at power stations.

In view of that satisfactory position, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those miners who continue to work in the face of grave intimidation and violence? Does he agree that it is in no small measure due to their efforts that the country can face the winter months with a fair degree of equanimity?

I pay tribute to those miners who, having voted to work, have worked in spite of appalling intimidation from mobs at their colliery gates. I also pay tribute to all those involved in the electricity industry and in the distribution of coal and fuel for the way in which they have ensured that the stocks at our power stations are as strong as they are.

If my right hon. Friend can confirm the rumour today that since figures were last published in August the position regarding coal stocks has improved and not worsened, will he also confirm that that may have resulted in Mr. Scargill's increasingly desperate forays for support from any cause, however vile? Will he confirm that there will be no further concessions to Mr. Scargill, which would enable him to claim a victory and deal a potentially fatal blow against the Government's historic mission to get more realistic actions among trade unionists?

Regarding my hon. Friend's last point, from the beginning of the dispute there has never been any justification for industrial action. There has been a good wage offer, a guarantee that no person will be made compulsorily unemployed, major investment and a community programme which has never previously been put forward. There has never been industrial justification for the strike. That is why those miners who decided to ballot voted against the strike. As to the negotiations, it is the view of the Government and the National Coal Board that the agreement made with NACODS is fair and reasonable and is the one upon which a settlement will be reached, if it is reached at all.

rose——

Order. I remind the House that this question is about the level of coal stocks.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. In the event of the NUM leadership seeking to protract the dispute further by its appalling tactics of intimidation, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that all steps will be taken to move stocks of coal to where they are needed before there is any question of power cuts, which would in any event harm the more vulnerable members of society?

I categorically give that assurance; and my hon. Friend will know, from the decisive vote of the electricians at the power stations, how passionately they are opposed to any damage being done to jobs or to the economy by power cuts.

Is there a contingency plan to use troops for the movement of coal?

No, Sir. I am delighted to say that the movement of coal is so splendid and good, and coal stocks are going so well, that no such move has been contemplated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that coal stocks would be even higher and prices lower if we had a more robust private sector able to compete with the nationalised monopoly? Will he urgently review the role of the opencast mining industry and of the private sector mining industry?

As my hon. Friend knows, the private sector already plays a considerable part in the opencast mining industry. I confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that there are no plans for privatisation. However, there could be vast improvements in productivity in this industry.

Will the Secretary of State explain how coal stocks have been assisted by increasing coal imports, especially with new contracts that have been established during the past six months?

As far as I know, no imports have gone to power stations, but there has been a substantial increase in coal imports. Such is the solidarity of the working classes that much of the coal is Polish and has been transported in Russian ships.

As the present level of coal stocks is in some way due to the amount of oil that has been used to replace coal during the past six months, at a greater cost, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that the additional cost will not be passed on to domestic or industrial consumers under what has been called a Scargill surcharge?

It is impossible to calculate the cost until we know the amount of stocks remaining when the dispute ends. A range of calculations must be made. One could mention the increased cost of oil, but, alas for the coal industry, £700 million capital investment that would have been made this year has not been made. It is a complicated sum that can be considered only when the dispute is over.

Will the Secretary of State confirm, or deny, that three working collieries in the Nottinghamshire area—Sherwood, Mansfield and Clipstone—which are contributing so greatly to the coal stocks which he applauds today, will be closed as soon as the strike has ended if the financial formula adopted by Mr. MacGregor is put into action? Will he confirm that the pits of the working scabs will be closed as soon as the strike is over?

That is not true.

I certainly do not confirm that. It is remarkable that someone who abides by the normal NUM tradition of balloting before a strike should be described as a scab.

May I return to the question of resolving this dispute so that we need not concern ourselves about coal stocks? Will the Secretary of State answer my question as to whether the NACODS agreement was qualified and whether, if that union returned to ACAS with the NUM, an agreement could be negotiated?

The NACODS agreement rightly and clearly stated that any pit that must be closed in future, including the five, must go through the normal processes. I confirm the view of the Government and of the National Coal Board that what has been agreed with NACODS should be, and is, the basis of a good agreement. When this strike is ended on a sensible and sane agreement, I hope that it will be recognised that Mr. Scargill's activities throughout the dispute have done enormous damage to the coal industry, impoverished the NUM, put miners' families into debt, divided miners' communities and damaged the Labour party and the TUC. That is the reality of this strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total production of onshore oil in 1983; and what is the estimated figure for 1984.

Onshore oil production in 1983 was 324,280 tonnes. I expect 1984 to be around 340,000 to 380,000 tonnes.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that onshore oil is an important and cheap source of fuel for the United Kingdom? Although there are understandable fears on environmental grounds, does he accept that my knowledge of Wytch Farm and onshore oil in Lincolnshire shows that the oil companies take very great trouble to meet local fears? Will his Department make certain that those efforts are known and that the success which attends them is also widely understood and accepted?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Many of these developments take place with proper regard to the environment, and no development approval is given without the application having gone through the full planning procedures and received planning approval. There is no doubt that in those areas where development has taken place it has added to the economy.

Is the Minister aware that there has been considerable concern about the lack of consultation, particularly in relation to licences in the Southampton Water and Solent area? Will he look again at the way in which consultation between local planning authorities and the Department of Energy should be conducted?

I have already introduced new onshore licensing procedures which, because they allow for consultation, have been broadly welcomed by all the interests concerned, including environmental interests. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I never proceed on any of these issues without considerable consultations. I have done that in relation to all those exploration and development approvals with which I have been associated.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss investment in the coal industry.

I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss many issues, including the very substantial investment the Government are making in the coal industry.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's disastrous unemployment record has failed to provide alternative employment in mining areas and has led miners and their families stoutly and vigorously to defend their communities? As the Government's policies will not reduce unemployment in the foreseeable future, will the right hon. Gentleman now take steps to redress the balance between the older mining areas and the newer coalfields? In doing so will he recognise that the recent policy statement about NCB enterprise areas is feeble and will not even begin to meet the problems facing the miners?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The enterprise company, at its first meeting, will be announcing its board and range of activities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be a lively and active organisation which will do a great deal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest position of the coal conversion scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Since the scheme's inception, 636 applications have been received. However, 242 applications have subsequently been withdrawn, including 117 since the state of industrial action by the NUM. Had the current strike not taken place, I believe that more than 1,000 firms would have converted to coal this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his appointment to the Front Bench. Does his reply not show the disastrous effect of this strike on coal demand and make it clear to everyone, including the Opposition Front Bench, that the original "Plan for Coal" targets for coal demand have been destroyed by the action of Mr. Scargill and his strike?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks and share his concern. Those of us on both sides of the House who care about the long-term future of our great coal industry are angry about the damage that is being done by this sad and unnecessary dispute, and the damage that it is causing to future markets for coal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department is involved in any initiative to encourage the recycling of waste to create energy.

My Department has already spent over £500,000 on research and development in this area and has committed a further £4·5 million to demonstration projects on refuse-derived fuels and waste combustion. We are also collaborating with the United States on research and development into the use of wastes as fuel under the bilateral memorandum of understanding signed by my right hon. Friend and the United States Secretary of Energy, Donald Hodel, on 18 October.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give an assurance that where local authorities have schemes for using this method of heating his Department will consider grant-aiding the technology required?

Yes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many offices exist in the Palace of Westminster for (a) Members of Parliament, (b) Officers of the House of Commons and (c) secretaries of Members of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

In the Palace of Westminster there are 252 offices for Members of Parliament, and 38 for Officers of the House.

If it is felt necessary that there should be more accommodation, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has given any consideration—if it is not sold off as a hotel—to the use of County hall as an ancillary parliamentary building?

I am sure that there will be many speculative ideas on the future of County hall. I have not turned my mind to them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many hours the House has sat after midnight since his answer of 23 July, Official Report, column 467.

The House has sat for a further 19 hours after midnight since my answer of 23 July.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that by the end of this Session the House will have sat for a total of 174 hours after midnight? Will he comment on that record? What initiatives does he propose to take through the Procedure Committee to see that we do better and have our business taken at a more sensible, efficient and pragmatic time of the day next Session?

I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's calculations. I invite him to offer his discontent and remedies to the Procedure Committee. However, there is a formidable record of the House trying to devise one method or another to avoid the situation that he has outlined. So far, such efforts have been unsuccessful; but at least we are a long way from a sitting lasting 41½ hours, which took place in Gladstone's Parliament of 1887.

Would the Lord Privy Seal be as interested as I am in knowing during how many of those hours hon. Members of the alliance parties assisted us in getting through the business of the House on the Floor of the House and in Committees?

I shall say no, and play safe.

If we sat after midnight tonight or tomorrow night, would that allow the Government time to tell the House what they are doing to relieve the Ethiopia disaster?

I assure my hon. Friend that even if such comments are not made today or tomorrow, there will be an early opportunity to discuss this important topic.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give fresh consideration to the timing of parliamentary recesses.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate an inquiry on the question of the organisation of the calendar for the parliamentary year, with the main objective of changing and reducing the length of the summer recess.

This is already within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure, and I would not propose to initiate any separate inquiry. As regards the detailed arrangements for recesses, I shall continue to do what I can to meet the general wishes of the House.

Would it not be conformable with our traditions, of which my right hon. Friend is the custodian, if one of our recesses were based on Whitsun, as formerly, as two other recesses are based on Christmas and Easter?

The choice is between a recess based on the spring bank holiday or the ecclesiastical Whitsun. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure to what extent has the general support of the House.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is increasingly absurd and indefensible for the House to go away for 12 weeks between July and October when we are suffering from what is a virtual dictatorship which becomes even more detestable and indefensible when we are way for 12 weeks?

I rather like the 12 weeks away.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more hon. Members could spend longer in their constituencies than the 12 weeks that are presently allocated, since the summer recess is a particularly good time to work harder in the constituencies than we sometimes do here?

If that is my hon. Friend's interpretation of his activities, who am I to disagree?

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), will the Lord Privy Seal acknowledge that those of us who represent Scottish constituencies have to sit for a full month of the Scottish school holidays? For the last recess, Parliament rose only a week before the Scottish schools returned. Is it not reasonable that the House should take account of that?

I agree with that point. Consistent with the findings of the 1977–78 Procedure Committee, any Leader of the House would always wish that we should rise as early in July as possible.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ask the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) to enlarge the Gallery space available to strangers.

No, Sir.

Has the Lord Privy Seal observed how much of the Gallery space remains habitually empty at Question Time, while the queues to come in remain vast, and that Members' guests cannot obtain admission without a completely ridiculous queueing system which is wrong and irritating? Is his reticence about opening up other spaces which are not required due to understandable and new security arrangements? If not, why is that the case?

I was rather impressed by the letter sent by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that topic. I do not believe that there is a great general demand for altering our present arrangements for the Strangers Gallery. In the light of the security considerations, I should have thought that there would be even more concern to move cautiously.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in order to reach a wider audience, rather than enlarge the Gallery, we should televise the proceedings of the House?

I could not hear myself answer that question because of the noise.

Is the Lord Privy Seal prepared to encourage further facilities for the disabled, particularly those with guide dogs, for whom the facilities are extremely meagre?

The hon. Gentleman is a fair parliamentarian, and I am sure he will realise that accommodation has recently been set up for those visiting the House with guide dogs. We should see what demand there is for that facility before considering any further developments.

Is not part of the truth of the matter that, with ever more Select Committees visiting ever more places, many of our colleagues simply pocket tickets and forget about them during activities away from the House? Would it not be more sensible at least to try for a month a scheme where people who genuinely want tickets could submit a request for them to the Serjeant at Arms and see how that works? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is right to say that time and again the Gallery is half empty, yet there are huge queues.

The matter has only recently been considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, and I feel that I am entitled to rest with its findings for a while.

Is not the reform of the House of Commons in its entirety long overdue? At present, does it not fully deserve the title of the most ineffective legislature in Western Europe? [Interruption.]

Order. I cannot relate that to the question. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal can.

The answer to the first part of the question is no. As someone who has flown here from the Strasbourg Assembly, the hon. Lady can judge ineffectiveness.

asked the Minister for Civil Service whether he has made a decision concerning future ethnic monitoring surveys.

As I said in the House on 23 July, a decision on future surveys would be taken as soon as possible, but clarification of the union position is still awaited.

Does the Minister accept that the pilot schemes on ethnic monitoring reveal unacceptable discrimination in the Civil Service in both appointments and promotions? I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares the Opposition view that such discrimination is unworthy and that the Government must set a good example, so when does he expect to report progress in other areas of the Civil Service?

I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's contentions, which are based on a superficial and sensational judgment of the surveys. They provide no direct evidence of discrimination. Of course I want to see full and fair opportunities for all. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman and others wait until we get the results of surveys covering applications for Civil Service appointments. We shall then be in a better position to judge the realities of the situation.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that recruitment and preferment in the Civil Service will continue to be made on the basis of merit alone, because that will best serve the public?

I give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. I agree that that is the right and historic way of making Civil Service appointments and promotions.

I accept that the monitoring surveys can be beneficial to ethnic minorities, but does the Minister accept that there are dangers in being able to trace records back to individual applicants or employees? Therefore, will he make sure that it is not possible to trace records back to individuals?

I understand the sensitivities to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The records of the ethnic surveys will be maintained in such a way that they cannot be used to the disadvantage of any of the individuals concerned.

Do the Government accept that, in the matter of attitudes to ethnic minorities, the standards that are applied to the police should apply to the public services in general?

I do not wish to pre-empt a debate which I understand is to take place later today.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service unions to discuss industrial relations.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what was discussed.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what he discussed during his most recent talks with representatives of the Civil Service unions.

I met the Civil Service unions on 15 August to discuss the question of arbitration in relation to their 1984 pay claim, and I was also present on 5 September when the unions raised the same matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Is it not clear that the association set up to replace the trade unions at GCHQ Cheltenham has failed miserably? Why does the Minister not accept that the overwhelming majority of employees at Cheltenham want the right to belong to a trade union and to have it recognised by management?

The matters raised by the hon. Gentleman were certainly not discussed when I last met the Civil Service unions, and I do not accept his comments.

Why does the Minister not accept the comments?

Because they are not true.

When the Minister met Civil Service trade unionists, did he raise with them the article in September's Assessment—the tax journal —which dealt with the problems of collection in the Revenue? Has he seen the repeated comments by tax collectors about the inability of their departments to raise taxes efficiently? Will he now conduct a full inquiry into comments by inspectors with a view to ensuring that sufficient staff are available in the Inland Revenue to carry out their public duties in the way that they believe they should be carried out?

I can think only that the hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply. I said that when I last met the Civil Service unions, at their request, I discussed arbitration as it applied to the 1984 pay negotiations. The issues which the hon. Gentleman mentions were not raised by the Civil Service unions on that occasion.

When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he tell them that he has decided to abandon plans to privatise the security services in the Civil Service'? Is he aware that after Brighton the public will be alarmed when they realise that civil servant security guards are thoroughly vetted before they start their duties, but that the employees of private security firms will not be so vetted? Is the Minister aware that privatisation has already occurred at the Inland Revenue sorting office at Kew, that the door is left unattended and that anyone can walk into the building at any time? What plans does he have to deal with the matter? Will he abandon these dangerous plans?

I can think only that the hon. Lady has misplaced her notes, because question 49 deals with privatisation and security services. I shall deal with those matters when we reach that question.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received on Cmnd. 9297, "Progress in Financial Management in Government Departments."

None; but it has attracted favourable and welcome expressions of support.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Departments vary in the policies that they adopt in relation to the publication of financial management initiative documents? Can he confirm that the Government's policy is for the maximum publicity and information to be given on FMIs and other Government policies?

I can confirm that the Government believe that all such documents should be published, except when questions such as security or commercial confidentiality are involved. I accept that as much publication of the FMI documents as Departments can manage should take place, but I stress that decisions on such matters are not for central Government, but for Departments.

Is the Minister aware that even this Government's approach to financial management should not mean that public services are reduced or that any member of the public should be subjected to discourtesy? Does he regard staff training as an important part of management?

Yes, I certainly do. I endorse what the hon Gentleman says about members of the public not being subjected to discourtesy by civil servants. In the years that I have been responsible for parts of the Civil Service, I have found that the overwhelming majority of civil servants provide the public with an exemplary service which meets the needs of the population generally.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will review the policy of privatising security arrangements at Government Departments.

No. It remains the Government's policy to contract out services such as security guarding at Government Departments, subject, of course, to adequate safeguards, when this is cost effective and makes good management sense.

Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) right in saying that that will not be satisfactorily maintained and that all the evidence confirms that? Is it not true that after the Brighton bombing the last thing the Government should be condidering is privatising security services for Government Departments? It is an act of madness, and they should stop it now.

There is absolutely no question of allowing security to be jeoardised by any of the arrangements. The commercial guard firms will be awarded contracts to guard Government Departments only if the Departments concerned are satisfied that they can do so to an acceptably high standard.

How far does my hon. Friend intend to go in this matter? Which Departments will be put out to contract to private companies? What co-operation will there be from the police? Will there be privatisation of security at Downing street, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the Home Office? We need a definition of how far this will go.

This is a matter for individual Departments. They must be satisfied that any such privatisation is both cost effective and makes good management sense. They must further be satisfied that the security standards are of, and are maintained at, a high level.