asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss electricity supply.

I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board at which we discuss issues of common interest.

Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman the medium and long-term method of producing energy, bearing in mind that when gas runs out an additional 100 million tonnes of coal per year will be needed to meet our current gas needs? As the Secretary of State says that only 100 million tonnes will be produced, what will happen to the electricity industry? Where will it obtain its fuel and what type of supply is intended?

In any discussions about the long-term demands of the CEGB the chairman and I agree that coal has an important role to play and that coal produced efficiently at low cost will be an important factor.

Did the chairman assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no power cuts throughout the winter if the strike maintains its present momentum? What did he reveal to the Secretary of State about the increase of coal imports, new contracts which have been made and countries which are now supplying the CEGB?

The CEGB is receiving virtually no supplies from imports. Yes. I have had an assurance from the chairman that there will be no fuel cuts this winter if present coal supplies continue.

Has the Secretary of State seen the two recent independent reports on coal stocks? If those reports are correct, when will coal have to be removed from the pitheads to certain power stations, and how will the Government seek to do that?

Coal is being moved from pitheads to power stations at present because many pitheads are working. I shall deal with present stocks later but, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman a preview, he will be pleased to know that present coal stocks are about exactly the same as they were on 26 August.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has received from the National Coal Board as to the value of the equipment in the mines damaged beyond repair due to the coal dispute; and if he will make a statement.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to discuss the pit closure programme with the chairman of the National Coal Board.

With permission, I shall answer questions Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 15.

Wrong question.

There are substantial stocks of coal at power stations. I am pleased to inform the House that stocks of coal at power stations are similar to what they were on 26 August.

Answer question No. 2.

The Government regret that considerable damage continues to be done—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the Secretary of State is just coming to the question on the mines damaged beyond repair.

The Government regret that considerable damage continues to be done to the industry by the continuation of the strike. The compromise proposal put forward by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the detailed agreement reached with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers provide proposals which should be acceptable to all those employed in the industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the linkage of questions proposed by the Secretary of State still stand?

It is not for the Chair to link questions. That is done by the Secretary of State. With this question which deals with mines damaged beyond repair, are linked other questions dealing with the coal strike generally.

As it is vital to increase the number of jobs in our manufacturing industry, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the NCB will make every effort to place orders with British firms to replace damaged equipment when the dispute ends?

Yes. Most of the mining machinery firms which have supplied the NCB in the past are British and I am sorry that they are suffering now. There is no doubt that when the dispute is over there will be a continuation of the major investment programme, and it will be the objective of the NCB and certainly of the Government that British firms benefit primarily from that programme.

Are not the figures which my right hon. Friend—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important to state at this point that the questions now being asked have nothing to do with the original question.

I have already said that it is not for me to link questions. That has already been done. However, I will take into account the fact that there are other questions on the Order Paper on this subject.

Are not the figures given by my right hon. Friend about the abandonment of the strike enormously encouraging? He has made immense and successful efforts to publicise the terms that lie on the table, but will he also use this psychological moment to emphasise that the terms available for those returning to work are better than any that would be available in a comparable industry?

There is a series of guarantees on pay, lack of compulsory redundancies and the future investment programme which make the offer unique, not only compared with other industries, but since nationalisation. That is why I deeply regret that the NUM continues to refuse to allow its members to be balloted. I have no doubt what the result would be if they were balloted.

First, I must object to the linking of questions proposed by the Secretary of State. Some of them are on specific matters and should not have been linked with question No. 2.

Even after the length of this dispute, we still have the most massive coal mountain. About 37 million tonnes of stocks still remain. Therefore, the importance of future production is that it should be at a cost that enables it to compete with new markets and to expand the markets for coal instead of having them contract.

Is not the fact that one miner has been beaten up and badly hurt, that the house of another has been burnt down and that nine have been charged with serious criminal assault a direct effect of the inflammatory and provocative rabble-rousing of Mr. Scargill?

The TUC said some months ago how much it deplored the methods of picketing that were bringing violence to mining communities. The horrific cases that we have seen over the past few days illustrate that it is time that the NUM complied with either the TUC guidelines on picketing or with its own union guidelines on picketing and prevented this type of mob activity and violence from taking place.

The Secretary of State failed to answer my question No. 15, which he said that he was linking with question No. 2. Has he any plans to meet the chairman of the NCB to discuss the pit closure programme? If so, will he inform the chairman that the situation in some mining communities, and certainly in my community, is like living on a powder keg? Does he realise that matters have got so serious that we have miner fighting miner, with problems spilling over into school playgrounds? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's policy and the pit closure programme are leading to the development of a Northern Ireland situation in our communities? Bearing that in mind, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is his duty, as Secretary of State, to instruct the chairman of the NCB to reopen negotiations for an honourable settlement?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about what is happening in his community, but he knows better than anyone that if at the beginning of the dispute the NUM had complied with normal procedures and held a ballot and members had voted to strike not one miner would have crossed a picket line. No picketing would have been required. The NUM executive can hold a ballot at any time that it wishes. Its decision to use the mob picket rather than the ballot box caused the trouble.

Does the Secretary of State recall that in June the Prime Minister said that 50,000 miners were at work, in July 60,000 and on 25 October 70,000? Is he aware that the Coal Board claims that only 62,000 are back at work? Have not the Government been feeding fraudulent figures to wage psychological warfare against the NUM, and are they not wholly unsuccessful?

That illustrates the right hon. Gentleman's failure even to understand what the figures are about. The figures that he mentions were used in relation to NUM membership. The figure that I gave this afternoon concerns those employed in the industry as a whole, including NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Managers. A total of 99,000 are at work.

In relation to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), is not the damage to equipment and the potential damage to coal faces a greater threat to future job opportunities in the mining industry than any of the NCB's proposals?

Yes, Sir. Coal faces have been damaged and destroyed in economic pits which had a good future for those working in them. Machinery has been damaged and markets lost. Without a dispute this year 1,000 firms would have converted to coal. Now, alas, many firms which have converted are considering converting back to other fuels.

In view of the damage caused, the bitterness bred and the hardship generated, will the Secretary of State reconsider his policy of non-intervention, which has gone on for far too long? If he will not take an initiative, will he at least ensure that the chairman of the NCB complies thoroughly with the NACODS agreement about which he boasts? Will he bear in mind that I have received a letter from the chairman of the NCB which suggests that the pledge of no redundancies will last only to the end of March 1985?

The answer about talks is best illustrated by the actions of the hon. Gentleman's own union, which talked in detail and came to an agreement. That agreement will be complied with by both sides. Mr. MacGregor has rightly said that if the strike continues in its present form and the coal faces of economic pits with a good future are destroyed, a considerable threat to the industry as a whole will be created.

Since the dispute is continuing and the damage now amounts to millions of pounds, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the investment earmarked for Nottinghamshire will not be diverted elsewhere?

Important developments and investments are to be made in Nottinghamshire and they will certainly be made. The Nottinghamshire miners have done a great deal to safeguard the future of the industry in markets, production and reputation.

Will the Minister answer the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)? Last week there was some doubt about whether the Coal Board would make people compulsorily redundant. Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to any objective opinion, the only way that the NCB has moved in the last nine months has been on the question of compulsory redundancy? Is that pledge guaranteed to last only until the end of the current financial year, or does it run into the year 1985–86 and beyond?

The National Coal Board's plans for improving productivity and getting rid of the most uneconomic pits mean that we can guarantee miners that none of them will face compulsory redundancy. The only threat of compulsory redundancies for miners is posed by the destruction of good economic pits by the strike.

Will my right hon. Friend answer a question which was put to me today? As valuable machinery is being destroyed, as men are being brutally intimidated, as the courts are being flouted and as money is being taken around the country in bags, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of prosecutions being brought against those who have masterminded the strike and the NUM executive?

Powers of prosecution are matters for police authorities. The decisions are not for politicians to take. Immense damage has been done by the criminal acts that have taken place and the unbelievable violence that has been used to try to prevent miners returning to work.

Given the great importance of the subject, does the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no difference between what he says about compulsory redundancies and that which Mr. MacGregor has to say on the subject? Are we still to believe what Mr. MacGregor said on 6 March?

The position is clear. On all the plans for the future of the industry, there will be no compulsory redundancies. The only factor that could interfere with the plans is irresponsible strike action which destroys good, economic pits.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that after the rally in Derby, which was organised by Mr. Arthur Scargill and supported by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), a record number of Derbyshire miners have today voted with their feet and returned to work?

I am pleased to inform the House that on 1 November there were slightly more than 1,180 miners working in north Derby and now there are 4,500 working in that area. When the Leader of the Opposition addresses the miners in Stoke on Friday, I hope that he will realise that he is speaking for the 20 per cent. of miners who are on strike and not the 80 per cent. of miners in that area who are at work.

As the new regional aid policy to be announced this week will certainly worsen unemployment in coal mining areas, will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the provision of far more finance and alternative jobs in coal industry areas than the Government have provided so far?

Yes, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the new company has been created. I am pleased to say that it has already received 150 inquiries about new businesses. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that original financing has been provided to get the company at work. I assure him also that the position will be reviewed and that more money will be provided as is necessary to help this important work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more miners would return to work if they did not feel threatened by the violence that is organised and inspired by their union? Given the appalling acts of premeditated violence to which he has referred which took place last week, will he assure the House that adequate protection will be given to those wishing to return to work?

Yes. Every protection possible will be given, but it is not possible to provide the type of protection that will stop a mob breaking into someone's house in the early hours of the morning and beating him up. That is the type of intimidation that has been introduced and we cannot give protection to every house. The Labour party recognises that there would have been no intimidation and no crossing of picket lines if there had been a ballot. Intimidation has been the only method of keeping miners out of work.

Will the Minister set the record straight? Is he aware that I am fed up with hearing about ballots? The strike started—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strike started because the Coal Board and the Government failed to honour the procedures laid down on pit closures? Will he now get shot of the amateurs on the Coal Board and the Government side and bring in professionals who will seriously negotiate with the NUM to achieve a settlement of the strike?

Serious negotiations have taken place about various aspects, including a compromise solution suggested by ACAS and a detailed agreement accepted by NACODS. The one person who has always refused serious negotiation is Mr. Scargill.

In any correspondence that my right hon. Friend has with the bishops, will he suggest to them that there is a role for the Church in this matter, and that is to urge reconciliation between those who have been on strike and those who are at work? That is the bishops' task. It is not their task to intervene in the detailed conduct of the negotiations.

I very much share my hon. Friend's view that the churches have a considerable role to play in endeavouring to return a sense of unity as quickly as possible to the mining communities.

Despite all the special offers and inducements, it is obvious that the mining strike is no nearer a solution. Therefore, will the Secretary of State take the initiative in getting talks resumed? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that proposals are still on the table at ACAS and that the NUM is prepared to negotiate on them. Will the Secretary of State now play his part by bringing the NCB back to the negotiating table?

The position of the talks is best described by the president of the NUM, who categorically says that he has not moved an inch since 6 March. The whole nation knows that that is the position, in spite of all the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). There could be no better pressure to reach a sensible agreement than for the Labour party and the TUC to tell the NUM that until it abides by proper principles of picketing, instead of violence, they will have nothing to do with it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take it after questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy by how much he expects demand for gas in the domestic sector to increase by the year 2000.

The British Gas Corporation estimates that domestic gas demand will rise from 9·1 billion therms in 1983–84 to about 10·8 billion therms in the year 2000. However, such estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty.

How does that increase in demand of 12 or 13 per cent. compare with the stated belief of the Secretary of State that he wishes energy conservation to contribute to a reduction of 20 per cent.? Will that be done by substituting solid fuels or electricity for gas—there is no sign of the other nationalised bodies taking that lying down—or is it the case that the British Gas Corporation and the Energy Efficiency Office have not got their act together?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes this interest in conservation. I hope he is reassured by the fact that in those estimates the British Gas Corporation has taken account of conservation measures which it believes can be achieved. The Government and the British Gas Corporation are wholly at one in their drive for further conservation, which is already proving extremely successful.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the strong minority demand for gas in rural areas and villages will still be unsatisfied by the year 2000? Is he aware that the gas corporation's charges for connection are wholly unrealistic and well beyond the means of most people who would like to be connected to the system?

My hon. Friend knows that that matter is raised with me from time to time. The British Gas Corporation is bound by the statutory position decided by the House. I think that knowledge of the position in the year 2000 will be surrounded by even more uncertainty than the figures I cited earlier.

Do the Government accept the recent forecasts for supply and demand made by the British Gas Corporation, which clearly showed that the corporation needs Sleipner gas? Where do the Government stand with regard to Sleipner?

Negotiations on Sleipner gas are still proceeding, and we shall have to wait to see how they get on.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the financial situation of the British National Oil Corporation.

I refer the hon. Member to the minute which my Department laid before the House on 23 October.

Is it not sad that the Government have managed to turn what was once, in 1981–82, an extremely profitable and vibrant British National Oil Corporation into a £45 million lame duck? Does the £45 million, which has been cited recently as the cost of covering BNOC's losses, cover the losses in the past few days, or will we have a further Supplementary Estimate? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least confirm what he said on 22 October, that he still sees BNOC as having a vital role in the supply of oil?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman shows so little understanding of the position. The losses would have been the same whether or not Britoil had been split from BNOC. Had they remained together, the loss would have been masked by an upstream profit. Where BNOC has the responsibility for purchasing participation oil supplies, it is better that the nation should know the cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of the costs appertaining to the Sizewell B public inquiry will be or are being met by public funds.

Costs up to 31 October 1984 falling to my Department were some £396,000. Other costs incurred to the same date in running the inquiry and recoverable from the Central Electricity Generating Board, by agreement with the board, total approximately £1,567,000.

In view of the Secretary of State's anxiety, expressed last week, about the plight of the unemployed, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider passing on so much of that charge to the consumer who, in areas of high unemployment, can ill afford fuel at the present prices? For example, Merseyside has seen fuel disconnections increased by 10 per cent. during the past 12 months.

My right hon. Friend has the statutory power to determine who shall meet the costs of inquiries for consents under the Electricity Acts. It is a long accepted practice that the electricity board making the application meets such costs.

Given the length and cost of the Sizewell B inquiry, may I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that any future inquiry relating to another nuclear power station will concentrate on the specific merits of the site and the need for the additional power station? The Sizewell B inquiry has been concerned also with the general merits of nuclear power as an alternative form of energy, and that should not be repeated.

I note what my hon. Friend says. Decisions on applications for future planning consents will be taken in the light of the circumstances from time to time prevailing.

Has the Minister any new information as to when the inquiry is likely to end?

I regret that I have no firm information on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the gas and electricity boards over increases in fuel prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss gas prices.

Prices are a matter for the industries within the framework of their agreed external financing limits and financial targets.

Is it not clear that the increases which are to take place this year are a form of fuel tax and hidden taxation? If it is a matter for the fuel and power industries, why has the Cabinet decided on the increases? Is this not another case where the Secretary of State disagrees strongly with Government policy, but lost out in the Cabinet to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

In fact, the Government have not agreed any specific price increases. They will be a matter for the industries. All that the Government know is that, unlike during the period of the previous Labour Government, the increases will be below the rate of inflation.

Will the Secretary of State be honest with the House and admit that the primary object of the exercise is to increase prices yet again to consumers and industrialists?

The enormous increases that took place about every six weeks under the previous Labour Government now, on average, take place every two years under a Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman should rejoice at the fact that there has been such an improvement during this Government's lifetime.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government keep changing the external financing limits, as they have for gas, electricity and water, although it may not be called a tax, if the Government keep making the industries raise money which they say they do not need it will amount to the same thing—a tax upon the consumer?

Yes, Sir. That is why I am pleased that on this occasion I reached agreement with the gas and electricity boards as to what should be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of miners that have returned to work since the current dispute in the mining industry began.

In the eight months from the beginning of the strike to 1 November around 6,000 former strikers returned to work. In the 17 working days since then, over 14,000 more have gone back.

If my hon. Friend will give the House a categorical assurance that the 20,000-plus men exist, and that they are being paid, that would be some evidence. How does the answer square with Mr. Scargill's assertion at the weekend that there were 144,000 men on strike—4,000 more than a month ago, according to his figures?

Yes, the figures that I have given are correct, and they are the figures for those being paid. The NCB's external auditors, Thomson McLintock and Company, have been to north Derbyshire and tested and confirmed the reliability of the board's systems for reporting the number of men returning to work. I, too, heard Mr. Arthur Scargill yesterday mention the figure of 144,275. The actual figure is 123,000. That shows the level of distortion that Mr. Scargill uses.

It would appear that the auditors agree only the north Derbyshire figures. According to The Observer yesterday, the auditors could not agree any other figures which the NCB put forward. Does the Minister agree with the report in The Observer?

No. The board's external auditors were asked to go into the north Derbyshire area only. They visited all collieries and other units there and verified the reporting systems. Similar reporting systems operate in all the 12 NCB areas.

Does my hon. Friend think that it is because the return to work figures are so good and encouraging that Mr. Scargill keeps going on secret trips to Paris, or is it that Mr. Scargill is beginning to get nervous about his own hit-men, as he has now grudgingly and slowly begun to half-condemn violence?

I cannot be held answerable to this House for the travel activities of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. Today over 66,000 members of the NUM are no longer on strike. Today 99,000 people are at work in the coal industry.

Do the Minister's figures include the Merthyr Vale pit at Aberfan, where two miners went to work last week and this morning? [Interruption.] They went in at 7 o'clock and left at quarter to 11. Is that what constitutes two working miners? Instead of quoting figures, will the Secretary of State come down and see for himself what the argument is about? He has never been anywhere near the coalfields.

The House must understand that to be among the first to return to work at a pit demands great courage. [Interruption.] It demands the sort of courage that was shown by the first six miners to enter the Bilston Glen colliery on 5 June. I am happy to report that nearly 900 men are at work there today.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much of the initial finance of the Coal Board's enterprise company has so far been allocated.

The board of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. held its first meeting on 30 October. The company has received over 150 inquiries so far, and these will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give the House a categorical assurance that when the first £5 million made available to the enterprise company has been used, more money will be made available if there are worthwhile projects?

The Government attach great importance to the work of this very important enterprise company. I assure my hon. Friend that the resources available to the new company will be kept under very careful review.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concede that there must be a relationship between giving finance where pit closures have taken place and are likely to take place and general regional policy? What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry about keeping mining areas, such as Fife, at assisted area status?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. All I can say is that it is vital that that company succeeds. I hope that in doing so it will have the support of the whole House.

The Minister's comments are welcome to the House, but will he explain why the Government and the NCB took so long to establish that organisation, in view of the undoubted success of British Steel Corporation (Industry) Ltd., particularly when they were asked to do so shortly after the beginning of the dispute by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?

Inevitably it takes time for a new company of that nature to be brought up to strength and for the right executive director to be found. However, every possible effort is being made to bring the company into activity as quickly as possible to meet the challenge that is necessary in these crucial areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is — that many businesses depend upon a prosperous coal industry, which is in trouble at the moment in the strike areas? When the company comes into operation, will he try to arrange for the NCB to give support to industries or businesses which employ people and which, if they are not helped, will contribute towards a rise in the unemployment figures, as they will go bankrupt?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are watching carefully and with great concern the condition and strength of certain companies in mining areas. Inevitably, one is forced to the conclusion that the sooner this unnecessary and damaging dispute is over, the better the health of those companies will be.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the facilities for permitting hon. Members' parties to tour Parliament when they have to enter through St. Stephens entrance.

St. Stephen's entrance is used for the entry of Members' parties when the line of Route through the House of Lords is closed; I am aware that under such circumstances space for visitors at the point of entry is restricted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the beginning of this Session of Parliament over 2,000 people a day have been touring the House, going through inadequate security arrangements at both St. Stephen's entrance and the Norman Porch entrance, outside which there is no protection against the weather? At the very least, will my right hon. Friend ensure that manual security arrangements are made available to supplement the existing arrangements, to try to reduce the backlog of people and the delay which they experience in trying to tour the House?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in drawing attention to the growing numbers of people now visiting the House. The figures show that the total is about 50 per cent. above that for last year. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's points about security.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is quite a good market in Prayer Cards among parties which come round this House and that as a result a member of the House of Commons staff has to be permanently on duty at the door to see that they are not pinched? Would it not be in the interests of all of us, in order to reduce the costs of running this place, if those cards could be left at the Vote Office, when it is open, from where hon. Members could go and take a card? It could have a double benefit.

Ambitious as I am to extend my responsibilities, I would rather not answer that question, but I shall direct it to those who are possibly more competent.

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that a week ago the Norman Porch was closed, and one of the scanner channels at St. Stephen's entrance was closed? The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who asked the original question, will bear witness to that as we were both there. It was an absolute shambles outside St. Stephen's entrance a week ago. Security became impossible, which was no fault of either the police or the attendants, who were coping with a difficult situation. Could not the repair work have been carried out over the weekend?

I think that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman has security implications. I shall look into it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been made to him regarding the use of official paid House of Commons envelopes for the purposes of a survey, regarding members of health authorities, conducted by an hon. Member of this House; and what inquiries he has made.

I understand that this matter is at present being considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while any kind of witch hunt against the health authorities is bad enough, it is outrageous that such an operation, mounted from the Labour Front Bench, should be financed by the taxpayer through the unauthorised use of official paid House of Commons envelopes? When is the Sub-Committee likely to reach a conclusion on the matter?

My hon. Friend makes a formidable case, but the matter is now before the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee and I have no wish to anticipate the findings of the Committee. I shall see what I can do to expedite the submission of the report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is outrageous for the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) to make those remarks, knowing perfectly well that the matter has been referred to a Committee of the House which is considering all its aspects and will duly report? Will the right hon. Gentleman call upon his hon. Friend to contain himself?

That message might well be applied to us all. I do not seek to anticipate the findings of the Sub-Committee, but I am sure that the whole House will be concerned that it should report as soon as possible.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to improve facilities in the Palace of Westminster for the spouses of hon. Members.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the husbands and wives of hon. Members work very much as the partners of their spouses and that access to the House for them is very poor? Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, investigate ways of improving access to the Galleries and the building for husbands and wives of hon. Members? In particular, will he consider whether part of the Strangers Gallery should be set aside for them? If my right hon. Friend is in any doubt about the matter, will he please consult his wife?

My wife has certainly never complained about that. Being aware of the important role played by spouses, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee undertook an investigation of what facilities could reasonably he provided, and those facilities are detailed in "Facilities for Members' Spouses", which was printed as recently as 1982. The authorities have received no complaints about problems of access to the Galleries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see."] My shoulders are hunched and braced. If my hon. Friend is concerned about this matter, it is open to him to complain to me.

If there is a problem, could it not be overcome if the House kept more sensible hours? Hon. Members, like other working people, could then go home to their spouses.

I hope that the Social Democratic party has something more to offer than a programme of nine to five.

In view of the unfortunately high divorce rate among hon. Members on both sides of the House, perhaps my right hon. Friend should consider carefully what other facilities should be made available to the wives of hon. Members. Does he agree that wives should have access to the side Galleries so that they can hear debates and see their husbands?

Such matters were carefully considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee before it published its list of facilities available for Members' spouses. However, the Committee is open to receive further advice on the matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate an experiment in closed televising of the proceedings of the House using Westminster Hall as a viewing venue.

I have no such proposals. Any such experiment would be a matter for decision by the House as a whole.

I accept that, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, sooner or later, the introduction of television cameras into the House is inevitable? If so, will he use his good offices to ensure that the underused facilities provided by Westminster Hall are used for this type of experiment?

It would be an affront to the House if I endorsed the doctrine of inevitability in the matter of television broadcasting. In sheer terms of practicality, I think that the House would be well advised to see what is determined in another place tomorrow.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would deplore the entry of the television camera into this Chamber? It would alter the character of this place and give it more of a showbiz atmosphere than it has now.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, which he advances in a most engaging fashion. This is a topic on which the House has made periodic judgments, and I have no doubt that it will wish to do so again in future.

If cameras are admitted to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they can record hon. Members coming out of the Division Lobbies? For example, cameras might have witnessed the events of last Thursday when the right hon. Gentleman was with the Tellers, presumably to see who was coming out of the No Lobby? Was his presence the result of pure curiosity, or was it a means of intimidation?

I have never before had the compliment of intimidation levelled against me. The hon. Gentlman"s question ranges wide of the original one. However, my loitering arose out of pure curiosity, so that I could anticipate by five minutes information that could be secured from the Clerks' Department.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the latest annual rate of recruitment into the Civil Service.

30,844 people were recruited into the non-industrial grades of the Home Civil Service during the year ended 30 June 1984. This figure is provisional and may be subject to minor correction. Figures for industrial recruitment are not held centrally.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Is he satisfied with the number of scientists and engineers who are being recruited into the Civil Service? Is he also satisfied that there is every encouragement for civil servants to be seconded to industry for short periods of time and for industrialists to be seconded to the Civil Service? Does he agree that such an arrangement benefits everyone?

I agree that such mutual interchange is beneficial to industrial and commercial firms and to the Civil Service and that it should be encouraged. The numbers now taking part in such exchanges are higher than a few years ago. I should like more applications from scientists and engineers, especially for the administrative Civil Service, as it ought to show a better balance between generalists and scientists, engineers and technologists. Similar proportions of applicants from each discipline are successful.

Should it not be part of a democratic society that anyone who enters the Civil Service has the right to belong to a trade union? What pressures are now being applied at GCHQ to ensure that people who, on a point of principle, refuse to give up their trade union membership are forced out? Is the Minister aware that, in view of what is now going on at Cheltenham, we shall require a statement from him as soon as possible?

The matter is primarily one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I imagine that the House realises that the recent judgment of the House of Lords—the highest court in the land—confirmed that given by the Court of Appeal to the effect that the revised terms and conditions of service introduced at GCHQ on 25 January are valid. With regard to employees at GCHQ who have decided not to opt for those conditions, every effort will now be made to find alternative posts for those who do not wish to remain at GCHQ under the revised conditions and terms of service.

Does my hon. Friend agree that too many people are being taken on and that it is important to reduce the numbers being admitted to the Civil Service? That is our priority.

My hon. Friend is less than fair to the great progress which has been made. Since 1979 the Civil Service has been reduced from 732,000 to under 620,000 at present. This is the smallest Civil Service that we have had since the war. The numbers now being recruited are well under half those which were recruited in 1978.

Will the Minister bear in mind that a proper level of recruitment to the Civil Service depends on how the Government treat their own employees? Will he now give an assurance, or seek one from his right hon. and learned Friend, that those working at GCHQ who wish neither to be transferred nor to give up their trade union rights will not be dismissed until such time as the case is further heard at the European Court of Human Rights?

As I said earlier, these are really matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, the House of Lords judgment completed the domestic legal process. GCHQ will endeavour to find alternative posts within the Civil Service for those who do not wish to remain at GCHQ under the new conditions. There may be some for whom suitable positions cannot be found, and they will be offered premature retirement on redundancy terms. All this will take some time. Therefore, the question of dismissals does not arise at this stage.

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

No; but, as I said on 29 October, a decision on future surveys will be taken as soon as possible.

Does the Minister accept that "as soon as possible" may mean a very long time indeed? The code of the Commission for Racial Equality has been in force since 1 April, and the Government should be giving a lead rather than hanging behind. This matter should not be allowed to hang fire any longer.

On this, as on earlier questions, the hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong. The code has been circulated to all Departments and their attention has been drawn to the fact that it is now in operation. The Government have made themselves an equal opportunities employer, and they make that clear in all staff advertisements. I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have wanted to wait for the survey of applicants in the north-west and Avon to be published—at the end of the year—before arriving at premature judgments about the present state of affairs within the Civil Service. We are still waiting for clarification of the union position, which I regard as of some importance. On reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman may think that it is right that we should do so.

Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that the overriding principle in recruitment and promotion is merit? If so, is he not now beginning to wonder about the efficacy of these surveys and what they are all about?

I give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that I gave him at our last Civil Service Question Time. I hope that his memory is not defective, but I repeat that the long-standing traditions and practice of the Civil Service—that recruitment and promotion should be on the merits of the individual — should and will be maintained.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many individuals are currently working in the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office.

The efficiency unit works under the direction of Sir Robin Ibbs, the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency. It has eight staff, including two secretaries and a clerical officer.

Is it not surprising that there are so few staff in this unit? Does it mean that the Government are now relying more on Departments internally to improve their own efficiency?

The efficiency unit is deliberately small. Indeed, Lord Rayner recently said that Goliath should be matched with David, not with a smaller version of Goliath. I hope that my hon. Friend will say "Hear, hear" to that. Improvements on the scale we seek can come only when public servants at every level and in every Department are concerned to see that we get better value for money. The efficiency unit is a useful spur and incentive to achieve just that.

What guarantee can the Minister give to those people that the principle of national security will not be invoked to prevent them or any other group of cavil servants from joining trade unions?

I readily repeat the guarantees that were given time and again from this Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when the affairs of GCHQ were rather more prominent in the public mind.

Will the Minister reconsider that answer? Is he aware that, in view of the House of Lords decision on GCHQ, many civil servants employed in offices such as the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence worry that the pretext of national security may be used to ban trade union membership?

No representations of such anxiety have arrived on my desk. It is difficult to see how that question can be linked to the work of the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office, but one is always amazed by the ingenuity of Opposition Members.

What are the two most notable achievements of the unit?

The unit has contributed to the saving of about £330 million a year on current expenditure in the Civil Service and to the saving of as many as 24,000 Civil Service jobs, which are considerable achievements for such a small unit.