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

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on recent events relating to the coal industry dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

Of the 174 pits, there are now 148 with men present and 66 of these are producing coal. Coal production is at its highest level since the dispute started. Since 5 November more than 16,500 miners who were on strike have reported for work. Coal stocks at the power stations remain at a similar level to what they were in August.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the encouraging news about the number of men who are working and the number of pits that are remaining open. In view of his slightly alarming remarks last weekend about being available for further discussions, will he assure the House and the working miners that further talks between the NUM and the National Coal Board will not take place until there is genuine evidence of a fundamental shift in the attitude of the NUM to uneconomic pits?

I have told the TUC and the mining unions that I am willing to have talks with union leaders or the TUC at any time. That is the correct position for me to take. In my talks with the TUC I made it clear that it would be impossible to end the dispute so long as there was a totally unreasonable demand that every pit, no matter how uneconomic, should be kept open until the last ton of coal was extracted. That is the reality of the scene.

Notwithstanding those figures, does the Secretary of State accept that in parts of the mining industry the strike is solid and there is no prospect of breaking it? In view of that fact and the increasing doubt being cast over the Government's accountancy figures, most recently by the London Business School, does the Secretary of State appreciate that there must be negotiations? Would it not be helpful if he instructed Mr. MacGregor to withdraw his weekend statement about preconditions and took the necessary steps to get the parties involved back round the negotiating table?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been seven rounds of negotiations. In the one at ACAS, ACAS came forward with a compromise proposal. At the end of seven rounds of negotiations Mr. Scargill is constantly on record as saying that he has not moved his position since 6 March. If the hon. Gentleman wants a settlement to the dispute, he should put pressure on Mr. Scargill.

Since it is clear day by day that there can be no winners and no losers in the contest—we are all losers, including the miners—will the Secretary of State take an initiative and agree to call together all those involved in the dispute so long as they undertake, before they start discussions, that there will be flexibility on all sides?

My difficulty in replying to that question is that in July one side suggested a range of new proposals which showed considerable flexibility, and, at the behest of another miners' union, went to ACAS and agreed a compromise proposal. On Friday the TUC told me that negotiations must take place between the two parties concerned. Until the one party which has refused to move since 6 March moves, there will not be the negotiated settlement which we all want.

Regretting the intransigence of Mr. Scargill, but recognising that some striking miners understandably fear that there will be no other employment in the mining communities, may I ask my right hon. Friend to report progress on NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., which was set up to encourage alternative industries in uneconomic mining areas?

As I reported to the House, the company was set up with an initial capital of £5 million. Immediately there were a substantial number of inquiries and applications, and I agreed to double the capital of the company. I have informed the National Coal Board that the Government would be happy to finance an extension of its activities so that that important work can be carried out.

Why does the Secretary of State not facilitate negotiations without preconditions between the NCB and the NUM? Is it not clear that the Government are more concerned to inflict a defeat on the NUM, as part of their assault on the trade union movement, than to secure a negotiated settlement in the interests of the mining industry? How much damage will be done to the economic and social fabric of the country before the Government recognise that the vast majority of miners will return to work only after a negotiated settlement?

The tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is very different from the tone of the remarks that I heard in my talks with the TUC on Friday. There have been seven rounds of negotiations without preconditions, one under the auspices of ACAS, which came forward with a compromise proposal. I have heard no criticism of that compromise proposal by the TUC or the Labour party, and it is time that they tried to persuade Mr. Scargill to accept it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real long-term damage to the coal mining industry has been caused during this dispute by the closure of coal faces in economic pits and the loss of contracts to the industry? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

It is true that 23 producing faces have been lost during the dispute, which is a tragic loss to the industry. As my hon. Friend knows, we were conducting an active and successful campaign to persuade industries to convert to coal. I had hoped that 1,000 firms would convert to coal this year, but the entire campaign has been destroyed by the dispute.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dispute is rapidly becoming more concerned with the future of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers than of the coal miners? Will he commiserate with the TUC, which must negotiate on behalf of a union which refuses to budge an inch towards a settlement?

I understand the diverse problems of the TUC. From my talks last week and my communications with the TUC, I am sure that it is anxious that the dispute should end with a negotiated settlement as speedily as possible. I told the trade union leaders who attended the talks on Friday that almost no other British trade union has an offer available to it as generous as the offer available to the miners.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the only people who will change the views of the leadership of the NUM are the members of the union and its executive? What plans does he have for discussions with the TUC and others, and what public action will he take to persuade those members of the union and of the executive to try to bring about that change?

I am sure that the 16,500 union members who have returned to work since 5 November are having an impact on thinking.

Apart from our foreign competitors, can my right hon. Friend think of anyone who has benefited from the strike?

No, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, for the first time during the dispute, he has gone a little way towards meeting trade unionists, which in a sense is welcome? If we accept that his view concurs with that of the TUC—that the only people who can settle the strike are the NCB and the NUM — what deters him from using his good offices to bring together those two parties in the foreseeable future? It is a mad strike, which must be resolved by sitting round the table, not by attrition.

I repeat that on several occasions the two sides have met, and on one occasion, under the auspices not of a Tory politician but ACAS, a compromise plan put forward by ACAS was rejected by the leadership of the NUM. Likewise, the leadership of the NUM has always refused to put the terms on offer to the miners in a ballot. That is the manner in which it is operating.

Will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the position in the Kent coalfield where, before the strike began, three pits were losing £25 million a year, which amounts to a subsidy of £10,000 a year from the taxpayer to each of the 2,500 miners? As the position has deteriorated still further, because of geological and other changes, and as every sensible person in the Kent community knows that we cannot go on for ever in the same lunatic uneconomic way as before, will my right hon. Friend give special priority to the idea of an imaginative scheme by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. after this strike totters to its close?

I assure my hon. Friend that wherever there is a potential closure due to a pit becoming uneconomic and unable to contribute successfully to the future of the industry, the new enterprise company which has been created will deal with the problem. It will have the finance, the managerial advice and, frequently, accommodation and a whole range of services to enable fresh and new enterprises to come into such communities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for over a year, since the overtime ban began, he has come to the House week after week and said that the strike is crumbling? Has that not been wholly false, and has not the information that he has given misled the House and the country and deceived himself? Is not his policy in a shambles, and is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from his refusal to encourage talks that he and the Cabinet wish the strike to continue, which is the conclusion that most miners have already drawn?

Fortunately, the conclusion that most miners have drawn about the right hon. Gentleman is that his rhetoric during the dispute is different from his record as Secretary of State.

Answer the question.

I shall.

As the taxpayer has to pay the bills for this senseless strike, has he not the right to demand that the board should do what every other private and public enterprise would have had to do by now to contain its losses, which is to announce a deadline for a return to work, after which the generous guarantee of a job will no longer be valid? When will the board start to manage?

Coal is one of this country's most important resources. Coal has a good, sound and expanding future. I hope that the pressures of all those who are concerned with the future of the industry will ensure that we move back to the potentiality of high investment and good production. I should not want to do anything to damage that prospect.

The Secretary of State mentioned my association, NACODS. Does he accept that the agreement appears to have considerable fragility about it as a result of actions by the NCB? Does he further accept that that suggests that the chairman of the NCB should no longer be allowed to occupy his office, not least because of the pessimistic statement that he made at the very time when the Secretary of State was meeting the trade unions last week? Is it not time for the right hon. Gentleman to take a further initiative to achieve a negotiated settlement, and should he not suggest to Mr. MacGregor that the time has come when there should be an end to the visits to Hobart house of furtive emissaries from the Conservative party?

The chairman of the NCB has been through seven rounds of negotiations. He has been to ACAS and accepted its compromise proposal, and he has negotiated with NACODS in great detail and reached a settlement. Therefore, nobody can accuse him of inflexibility. As to being pessimistic, on all seven occasions the chairman has been opposed by somebody whose one boast is that he has not moved since 6 March.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the precondition to the negotiations having been laid down by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, contrary to the impression that the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress sought to give on Radio 4 this morning, the union has not moved from the start of the strike from its entrenched position? Will my right hon. Friend undertake that there will be no further negotiations until and unless the NUM moves from that entrenched position?

The basic demand that every pit, no matter how uneconomic, must be kept going until all coal is exhausted unless there are safety or geological reasons for doing otherwise has never been made by any NUM leader in the past and, as far as I know, has never been made in any other coal industry. It is not just an absurd demand. It would do permanent damage to the coal industry if it were met.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's meeting with the TUC, but I wonder whether the background of the talks was helped by the Government taking £1 off supplementary benefit. Is it wise, for the atmosphere of future talks, for the Government to proceed with their announced intention to strip miners of housing benefit if they are paying rent?

Certain advice has been given in NUM magazines about how to obtain additional money from social security. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, he should study that advice. It was given positively on the basis not of what were basic needs but of how to organise these matters.

If the tone of the meeting with the TUC was as good as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, why did he not respond to the TUC? The congress put forward positive proposals. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, according to the accountancy report and that of the London Business School, the basis of uneconomic pits has been challenged. Therefore, there is a basis on which to resume talks. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not play a role in seeing that those talks are held, instead of waiting another three or four weeks before anything happens?

The right hon. Gentleman asks why I did not respond. The TUC did not come to the meeting on that basis. It started the talks, quite correctly, by saying that it was not in a position to negotiate. We exchanged views on its suggestions. The TUC's problem, as Mr. Willis said afterwards, was that it did not consider that anyone could back down before the negotiations and therefore that it was wrong to suggest that the NUM should move from its position before negotiations began. I had to point out to the TUC representatives that there had been seven rounds of negotiations and that Mr. Scargill had not backed down on any.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy on gas pricing.

Gas prices are determined by the British Gas Corporation, taking into account the need to achieve an adequate return on capital, and to obtain an adequate and continuing supply of gas.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that it is Government policy to ensure that gas is provided to the consumer at the most competitive prices? In addition, will he undertake that in the event of gas prices perhaps falling, as a result of increased efficiency on the part of the British Gas Corporation, prices will reach the consumer unaltered and that there will be no interference to put them up?

Pricing is the responsibility of the British Gas Corporation. We expect the corporation to be competitive. I hope my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that, under its financial targets and performance aims up to 1986–87, it is expected to achieve a reduction in unit net trading costs in real terms of 12 per cent. compared with 1982–83. There is strong pressure on the British Gas Corporation to be efficient, and I am sure that it will be.

As future gas prices and supplies may be determined by the decisions to go ahead with the Sleipner contract, will the Minister say what is the Government's position on it? As I understand it, negotiations are virtually complete between the British Gas Corporation and its opposite number. Where do the Government stand on the Sleipner contract?

The Sleipner negotiation is not confined to the British Gas Corporation and the Norwegian company Statoil. There are a number of other big financial considerations which affect the future of gas supplies to the United Kingdom and our balance of payments. Negotiations continue on those issues. Until they are concluded, I regret that it is not possible to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the incidence of vandalism against National Coal Board property and the resulting financial cost to the board.

I deplore the malicious acts of vandalism which have been carried out against NCB property during the present strike. They can only damage further the prospects for the industry.

In view of the serious acts of vandalism which have taken place in many areas, including Easington colliery, near my constituency, where a few weeks ago windows were broken and cars overturned, will my hon. Friend consider encouraging the chairman of the NCB to institute disciplinary proceedings against those miners found guilty of such offences?

Since the beginning of the dispute about 450 employees have been dimissed by the NCB. These include a significant number for offences associated with vandalism. There can be no possible excuse for causing wilful damage to an industry which, at the start of this pointless strike, had such great potential for the future.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the NCB to discuss vandalism, will he suggest to him that as, after seven meetings, he has found himself incapable of bringing the strike to a successful conclusion it is time that he went?

As my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, in the course of the dispute there has been just one conciliation proposal from ACAS. After careful consideration, that was accepted by the chairman of the NCB but rejected by the president of the NUM.

Is it not a fact that of all the many speeches that Arthur Scargill has made, he has not made one statement urging his members not to vandalise their own plant and tools, because, when they go back to work, any such damage will be to their detriment?

The strike has been characterised by most unhelpful remarks from the president of the NUM. Perhaps the most unhelpful came today. Hon. Members may have noticed that he now calls for all forms of industrial action on a massive scale in support of the miners. I am certain that he will receive the same sort of raspberry to that ridiculous irresponsible notion as he has throughout the dispute.

Is it not strange that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) should refer to my constituency, Easington, as being near to his, when it is not, and is it not even more strange that he should refer to an incident which took place five months ago? Will he join me in my constituency to see the whole context of what has happened?

The real damage in the dispute and the real financial cost has been, fòr instance, in the tragic investment situation. It now looks as if the industrial action, if it continues till the end of March, will mean a reduction in investment spending of nearly £500 million.

Just for once, would it not be wonderful to hear one Labour Member stand up and unequivocally deplore vandalism?

I believe and hope that I am speaking for the House in condemning without reservation the sort of vandalism that we have seen.

If and when the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the NCB, will he ask him why he seems to come to life only when there is a move to try to resolve the miners' dispute? He must be about the most expensive chairman of any nationalised industry. Is it not vandalism for the chairman of the NCB to make statements on the eve of the Secretary of State's meeting with the TUC suggesting that there is no prospect of the strike ending? It must surely be unparalleled for a Cabinet Minister to have his authority undermined in that way. Is it not time that Mr. MacGregor was asked to go? He has done too much damage already.

The chairman of the NCB has made what is undoubtedly the most generous offer that the miners have had since nationalisation. It is interesting to note that not one hon. Member so far has said that it is not unreasonable for the president of the NUM to stick to the irresponsible demand that no pit, however uneconomic, should close while there is still an ounce of coal left in it.

the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for the privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels.

We have no plans at present to sell shares in British Nuclear Fuels plc.

I welcome that statement, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell the management of British Nuclear Fuels to stop talking publicly about privatisation, as that will only get the public's back up and do great damage?

I gather that in an interview with one particular journalist the chairman gave his views as to the potentiality of privatisation and implied that, with regard to the staff of British Nuclear Fuels, privatisation would be welcome. But he explained afterwards that he had expressed his own personal view.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office for the current year; what is its role in relation to the coordination of energy conservation policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Energy Efficiency Office's budget for 1984–85 is £18·6 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up the office to spearhead the drive for greater energy efficiency in industry, commerce and the home. Considerable progress has already been made.

In view of that reply, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government's financial policies, including those on rate capping and so on, will not harm energy conservation programmes throughout the country? In view of the urgency of the matter, why is there still a division of responsibility as between the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment? Why cannot everything come under one Department —preferably the Department of Energy?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that every possible incentive is being given to local authorities—I have recently met a number of them—to spearhead the energy efficiency drive. It is a sign of confidence that the Government have increased the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office within the Department by 34 per cent. over the past year.

How can the Minister talk about confidence in the Government when Cape Insulation in my constituency gave notice on 4 December to 360 or 370 men that the company would close on 21 December? Is it not a futile use of Government money to spend it on glossy brochures and leaflets when the Government are not allowing local authorities the finance to use those products and thus to keep people in work?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman about the very serious redundancies caused by the closure of Cape Industries in Washington, but for some time there has been over-capacity in that area of the market. With the increased advance in advertising and the "lift a finger" campaign already showing signs of tremendous success, I very much hope that we shall see an upsurge of activity in that sphere.

How many local authorities have written to the Secretary of State in the past 12 months saying that they are having difficulty in planning and implementing energy conservation measures because of capital restrictions that are imposed on them by the Department of the Environment?

There has been a tremendous amount of interest in the energy efficiency campaign on the part of local authorities. More than 250 local authorities have sought advice from the Energy Efficiency Office and are participating in the crescendo that we are now reaching in this important campaign.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom.

The Government attach considerable importance to the continuing safe and economic development of nuclear power.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, after Sizewell, there does not appear to be a programme? Will he bear in mind the needs of the nuclear industry? Furthermore, will he take into account the fact that while 17 per cent. of total electricity is produced by nuclear means in the United Kingdom, the French, who are much more competitive, produce more than 50 per cent. of their total electricity from that source?

My hon. Friend is correct in what he says about France. The Government consider that a prudent energy policy requires the country to have available a range of supply options, including an appropriate nuclear component. As my hon. Friend says, in 1983 nuclear power contributed 17 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity supply. When the three AGRs currently being commissioned are fully operational, nuclear power could be contributing as much as a quarter of our electricity requirements. Our nuclear generating capacity will then have risen from 6·5 to 9·5 GW.

Is not the future of the nuclear power industry very much dependent on its competitive position as against coal? Do the Government take note of the way in which the accounts of companies and organisations involved in the nuclear industry are drawn up? If they do, how do they take note of those accounts? Do they take similar note of the National Coal Board accounts, with which the nuclear industry has to compete? Will the Minister ensure that the accounting procedures of both organisations are published openly so that we can all study them?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We have every confidence in the accountants concerned.

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

The National Coal Board has completed the basic design work for its liquefaction project at Point of Ayr. I am delighted to be able now to announce that the Commission of the European Community has offered aid of £4·8 million. The board expects to begin work on the construction phase early in the new year.

Does the Minister agree that liquefaction is most important for the future of the coal industry? Does he agree that the Government first used the excuse of lack of private capital for the slow development of coal liquefaction? Is the Minister now using the miners' strike as an excuse for even slower development? The Minister has said nothing about Government finance. Will he say something about it now?

This Minister is well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject. It is a vital subject. The National Coal Board is discussing terms of participation with a private sector company. Such participation is expected to release the £2·5 million balance of the Department's contribution, which has already been substantial in the design stage.

Does the Minister realise that his Department has been fiddling around with the liquefaction scheme for five and a half years? At the end of that it seems that all we shall have will be a glorified laboratory scheme on a colliery site. Is it any wonder that our scientists are disillusioned with the Government's approach to science and technology?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The project is important. Completion of the NCB contract with the EEC will trigger the start of the construction phase work. That will go ahead with the Government's full support.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the estimated increases in electricity prices to industry during the coming year.

Electricity tariffs for industrial consumers are determined by the electricity supply industry. I understand that area boards will not be increasing tariffs this winter.

I am delighted to hear that news, because industry needs to know well in advance, when it is budgeting, what prices might do in the coming year. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some industries have been worried that one of the effects of the damaging miner's strike will be to make them less competitive because electricty prices will go up?

I am aware of the importance to industry of keeping electricity prices as low as possible. That is the electricity industry's objective. I am pleased to say that electricity prices to industrial consumers have fallen on average by 8 per cent. in real terms in the last two years.

Does the Secretary of State agree that he has wasted £4,400 million in the last 10 months attacking the National Union of Mineworkers and that a large part of that cost will fall on industries such as the electricity industry, resulting in price increases in the coming months or years? Will not old-age pensioners between the ages of 70 and 85, whose heating benefits have been cut, and the families of striking miners whose benefits have also been cut, have to bear the cost of the Government's attack on the miners and their families in the last 10 months? Yet again the people least able to bear the cost will have to bear it.

As I know of the hon. Gentleman's passion for looking after pensioners, I know that he will be doing all that he can to persuade Mr. Scargill to accept the very good terms available.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average electricity price charged to industrial customers in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the comparable figure in France.

Electricity prices to industrial consumers vary greatly within all countries, according to the nature of the load being supplied. In general, however, French prices are the lowest in Europe and are, typically, up to 20 per cent. lower than those in the United Kingdom and other EEC states. This is largely due to the greater proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power in France.

As French electricity prices put British industry at a competitive disadvantage, which is bad for investment and jobs, will my hon. Friend explain some of the reasons for the price differential? Does he agree that the large French nuclear programme enables that country to generate electricity significantly more cheaply than we can manage?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct.

Does the Minister accept that while European electricity suppliers may advertise certain tariffs through long-term agreements, they supply electricity at a much lower figure to many industrialists working in Europe? Is there not a massive subsidy to industry in Europe? Are there not many companies with bases in this country and Europe which obtain electricity at a cheaper rate by using that method to get around the advertised tariffs?

The French tariff is lower because, broadly speaking, it has a larger nuclear element. The electricity supply industry in Britain is currently considering proposals for successors to the present load management schemes, including the contracted consumer load scheme, which formally expires in March 1985. I understand that the Electricity Council intends that the new arrangements should, overall, be no less beneficial than the present schemes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many bedrooms there are in the Palace of Westminster today compared with 30 years ago; how they are allocated; and if he will make a statement.

There are 42 bedrooms in the Palace of Westminster, which compares with 38 bedrooms 30 years ago. These rooms are used by those occupying official residences and by staff of the House whose duties may require the provision of overnight accommodation.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problems of some elderly and unfit Members of Parliament—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Name them."]. It would be unfair at Christmas to name them. Such hon. Members have problems getting to the Division Lobbies from their distant offices in the eight minutes allowed. Will my right hon. Friend consider giving priority to finding offices for hon. Members within the precincts of the House? Will he switch the bedrooms from the House to the distant offices vacated by hon. Members?

My hon. Friend's question became more uncharitable as it proceeded. In the execution of the Bridge street project, it is hoped that it will be possible to shift some staff from the Palace of Westminster and that accommodation can then be made available to hon. Members. Of course, such allocation and the criteria for it are matters for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Is not one of the bedrooms occupied by the Lord Chancellor? Does he not sleep more easily in his bed than he should because he does not have the scrutiny of a Select Committee of this House over his Department, as do all other Ministers? Should not his slumber be made uneasy like that of other Ministers?

I suspect that the premise of the question is wrong, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the conclusion.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the provision of access for blind people with guide dogs to the House of Commons Public Gallery.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 2 July.

I have not seen that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the facilities for blind people with their guide dogs are equivalent to those in the other place, where I understand Black Rod has a considerable element of discretion? Will he carefully monitor the position in the House of Commons Public Gallery? Will he consider the possibility of giving the Serjeant at Arms like discretion?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that an identical number of blind persons with dogs may attend the Strangers Gallery in the House of Lords as obtains in the House of Commons. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter I said that two places in the Gallery had been provided for blind persons with guide dogs. Since that arrangement was made six months ago, a place has been taken by a blind person with a guide dog on only one occasion. The visitor pronounced himself well satisfied.

Given the difficulty that the blind seem to be having in gaining access to the Public Galleries, does my right hon. Friend not feel it outrageous that convicted terrorists are gaining access to Committee Rooms?

Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

The Lord Privy Seal will recall that recently, following a debate on the blindness allowance, there were at least six blind persons present with their guide dogs. Will he consider ensuring that there is flexibility on certain occasions, which will enable him to give instructions to the Serjeant at Arms to increase the number of those permitted in with guide dogs?

Certainly. I am sure that the appropriate Committee will be happy to consider that. Since the establishment of special places in the Galleries for the blind and their guide dogs, the facility has been used to the extent that admission has always been possible.

Is it not the position that the Department of the Serjeant at Arms operates the provisions and facilities for the blind and other disabled with a great deal of flexibility when requests are made of it? Last week I brought a disabled person into the House and received all the help that I needed from the Department.

I am certain that that is so and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point. It enables me to say that the facilities that can be offered and supervised by the Serjeant at Arms are always that much better if lobbyists inform him in advance of their proposals.

In considering the problems of the handicapped and the disabled, will the Leader of the House inform us whether a sign language interpreter for the deaf is permanently employed in the House? If not, will he be prepared to consider whether one should be so employed?

I shall have that proposal investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the current miners' strike has led to delays and cost overruns in the development of the Selby coalfield.

The total investment programme of the National Coal Board had been planned at £800 million for this year. The current strike has, however, halted work on many of the NCB's projects, including Selby, to the detriment of the industry's future.

Was not the Selby development a signal to the entire coal mining industry that the Government were committed to the future of coal mining? Was it not a severe blow when the National Union of Mineworkers decided to go ahead with picketing to stop development of this extremely important coalfield? Is there nothing that my hon. Friend can do to try to assist in getting more miners back to work so that development can continue at Selby despite the NUM's actions?

I agree with my hon. Friend that everything possible must be done. Since 1979 the Government have invested £3·9 billion in the coal industry. That investment is nearly 50 per cent. higher in real terms than investment in the previous five years by the Labour Government.

As the amount of coal which the Government projected would be mined will not be reached because of the dispute, is it not time that the Government stopped intervening on the side of the Coal Board and took a step in intervening to achieve a settlement of the dispute, as has been asked for by Opposition Members? Given the Secretary of State's statement that there should be no negotiations, is not Mr. Scargill right in saying that the only way forward is industrial action by the rest of the working-class movement?

It was noticeable that when the hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Scargill was right there was not one note of agreement throughout the Chamber.

Yes, there was.

The hon. Gentleman was asleep. It is a fact that before the industrial action started our great coal industry had tremendous potential, but that is being lost every day that the dispute continues.

Is there not a real danger that the longer the strike continues the more Mr. Scargill's gloomier predictions will become self-fulfulling? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that when the strike comes to an end the damage that has been inflicted on the coal industry is laid at the door of those responsible?

I agree with my hon. Friend. All Ministers at the Department of Energy are anxious to start on the rebuilding process. Since the beginning of the dispute, not only have 23 production faces had to be abandoned, but 13 salvage faces as well. In addition, 19 faces are giving cause for serious concern, and a further 65 faces are causing concern. It is a tradegy that the NUM is putting at risk those pits which its leaders claim they are fighting to save.

The Under-Secretary of State continues to plead how tragic it is for the industry that this dispute is continuing, and the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) is alarmed about the implications for Selby. If Tory Members are so worried about damage caused to the industry, why do they not lift a finger and get the people involved around the table to solve the dispute? Is the Secretary of State aware that he is profoundly mistaken if he believes that there is any political profit to be had in humiliating the miners and destroying mining communities?

The solution to this dispute lay with a ballot held at the start of the dispute, in accordance with the long-established, democratic tradition of the NUM. If a ballot had been held, there would have been no need for these mass pickets, intimidation and violence. Not one miner would have gone to work. The sad fact is that the only way to end this dispute is for miners to vote with their feet and return to work.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the number of Civil Service posts transferred to the northern region since May 1979.

As I last told the hon. Gentleman on 20 November, the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 did not include any transfer of posts to the northern region. Details of posts that may have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.

Is the Minister aware that people in the north are sick and tired of seeing the Government shed crocodile tears over unemployment in the region? Here is a matter on which the Government can take direct action, and in nearly six years they have done absolutely nothing. The Government have actually transferred Civil Service jobs from the northern region to other parts of the country. In view of what the Minister said today, can we ever expect a change of policy in this matter?

The dispersal programme, which was announced on 26 July, is being followed through. I can hold out no hope to the hon. Gentleman that a new dispersal policy will be brought before the House.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what initiatives he is taking to encourage scientists and engineers to be recruited, at least for limited periods, into the administrative grades of the Civil Service.

Recruitment into administrative posts in the Civil Service is open to people from all disciplines and we seek through publicity and university visits to bring this fact to the attention of all potential recruits, including scientists and technologists. A total of 17 per cent. of successful candidates for administration trainee in 1984 had a scientific or technological background, compared to 11 per cent. in 1983.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that information. While recognising the importance of attracting scientists and engineers into the administrative grades of the Civil Service, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider sympathetically the possibility of extending the unified grading approach to new entrants from the professions, as I am sure he will agree that that is the best and most effective initiative that we could take to attract such people into the Civil Service?

I certainly support the concept of extending unified grading, and discussions are occurring to extend it down to principal level. I hope that those discussions will be completed soon. I am sure that that extension will have an encouraging effect on the outlook of engineers, technologists and scientists in the Civil Service.

Is it not almost criminal that we are to recruit engineers and scientists into administration when it costs many thousands of pounds to train those specialists? Is the Minister aware that, recently, a Select Committee on which I served was advised of grave shortages of some of those scientists, such as the shortages to which reference was made this afternoon?

As one of the few chartered engineers in the House, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that people with such professional skills should be employed in the highest ranks of the Civil Service. Many of the matters with which the Civil Service deals and about which advice must be given to Ministers involves engineering, technological and scientific aspects. It is highly desirable that some of the people giving that advice should have been trained in those disciplines.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the level of delegation of authority within the Civil Service.

The central Departments have already delegated a wide range of authorities to spending Departments, while maintaining where necessary common standards and rules across the Civil Service, and Departments in turn delegate a good deal to line managers. More delegation is needed and this is one of the aims of the changes in management under way in the Civil Service.

Has not the record of delegation of authority within Deparments, rather than within the centre, been somewhat disappointing despite the fact that the financial management initiative drew attention to the need for delegation? Has my hon. Friend noted that the new report from the efficiency unit draws attention to that? Will he assure the House that he will lead a drive to ensure that Departments follow the recommendations of the efficiency unit?

My hon. Friend, as so often on such matters, is right in what he says. We want to see more delegation. Delegation and accountability go together. We want to see that being extended. The financial management initiative has that as one of its main objectives. I shall do all that I can to facilitate progress on that initiative.

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

I met the Civil Service unions on 4 December to discuss the Government's decisions on the 1984 report of the Top Salaries Review Body. The unions also took the opportunity to discuss with me some recent changes in travel and subsistence provisions.

Did the Minister take that opportunity to raise the subject of the review of VAT offices? Has he anything to say about the proposal to close 30 of them, in view of the Government's plan to increase VAT on some commodities—on newspapers, books and so on? What implication does that have for staffing? Will he make a statement on that subject to the trade unions?

VAT was not discussed at my last meeting, which was with the Council of Civil Service Unions. Nor was it discussed at an earlier meeting that I held with union representatives from Customs and Excise. At that time they were raising matters about the customs part of the general responsibility of Customs and Excise.

Is the Minister aware that in the pay negotiations going on at GCHQ, of the five members of the staff side three still retain their trade union membership? Does that not show the absurdity of the Government's ban on trade union membership there?

No. What it does show is that the hon. Lady is relying upon a recent, inaccurate report in the Financial Times.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the practice of some landlords in pricing electricity to tenants above the rate they are required to pay themselves; and if he will make a statement.

The Office of Fair Trading is currently considering the comments received on the consultative document which it issued earlier this year and expects to report its findings to Ministers in the new year.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me, without prejudging what the report says, that it is wrong for some landlords to charge their tenants double, or even more, for the price of energy than they themselves have to pay? When he sees the report, will he introduce legislation to make that impossible?

I am aware of the close interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this matter. Existing legislation provides that area boards shall set maximum permitted prices for the resale of electricity. Landlords may resell at that higher price to recoup their additional costs. The Office of Fair Trading reviewed the problems associated with the resale of electricity between 1974 and 1977. It was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify recommending changes in legislation. I should not wish to anticipate the findings of the present review or the Government's response to it.

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

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth).

Following the Under-Secretary's remarks about Selby coalfield, does the Secretary of State recognise that that coalfield, producing 10 million tonnes of coal, with 4,000 miners, is designed to replace equivalent production from 21 pits in the north Yorkshire area, which used to employ 16,000 men? Is not one of the central issues that fuels the anger of the miners the development of super pits such as Selby, and in areas of Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and so on, which is a preparation for future privatisation? It shows that the Government are less concerned about the continuation of jobs in communities and more concerned about lining the pockets of their big business mates.

It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should argue about the development of pits such as Selby, when a predecessor of mine in a Labour Government boasted of the enormous contributions made by Labour Governments towards Selby's development. The reason for the dispute is nothing to do with the development of Selby, which is in the interests of the coal industry. The leader of the NUM — I gather from the tapes — is reported to have repeated his demand at the meeting with the TUC this morning and informed it that the NUM is not prepared to allow the closure of any section of the industry, however small. That is in sharp contrast to what happened under all previous Labour Governments.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does the point of order arise directly out of questions?

No.

I shall take the point of order later, then.