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 miners' strike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since I last made a statement to the House, more pits have returned to normal working, more pits have started to produce coal, and so far during the first few weeks of 1985 more than 17,000 miners have returned to work. Movements of coal and coal stocks at the power stations have remained at a very high level. Sixty-one coal faces have, unfortunately, been lost since the start of the dispute, including 38 working faces.

My right hon. Friend says that the document is not acceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers. Is it not more accurate to say that it is not acceptable to Mr. Scargill? Is it not a tragedy for the miners that he has been unwilling or unable to see the immense benefits that the latest offer gives to the members of his union?

The past year, during which hundreds of millions of pounds of capital investment has not taken place, markets have been lost and pit faces destroyed, has been a tragedy for the industry. That is why the offer—probably the best since nationalisation — should be accepted quickly.

How does the Secretary of State define "uneconomic"? Does he hold to the definition that he gave to Members of Parliament in July last year, that it was intended to close 12 per cent. of capacity in the industry to save £275 million? If that is the definition, how does he explain his toytown economics of the past 11 months in which he has spent £5,500 million in trying to save the country £275 million?

If the hon. Gentleman's economics include the belief that when any militant leader decides to use mob methods he should be given whatever he demands, that would be the most lunatic form of economics that any country could pursue. May I say how pleased I am that last week the Coventry pit returned to normal working.

When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets leaders of the TUC to discuss these matters, will she impress upon them the need for the leadership of the NUM to live in the real world, by accepting the code of practice on picketing, the widely accepted provision for balloting, and the necessity for the closure of uneconomic resources?

As my hon. Friend knows, that is the view of many of us, and was demonstrated by what happened in the one third of Britain's coalfields that did have a ballot. If the NUM's normal procedures on having a ballot and on peaceful picketing had operated throughout the dispute, it would have ended a long time ago.

Will the Secretary of State resist some of the more outlandish views put to him by his right hon. and hon. Friends, and recognise that it is time for conciliation and a constructive settlement of the dispute, which we all desire? Is he aware that any desire on his part or on the part of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have Mr. Scargill's head will be decidedly misplaced and will reverberate against a settlement, so we should be constructive and conciliatory, and not vindictive?

I have no desire to have Mr. Scargill's head or any other part of his anatomy. A great deal of patience and effort was put into the talks that took place last week, and anybody who studies the statement that was prepared will recognise that it is a constructive and objective statement, which should have been the basis for a settlement.

Does the Secretary of State accept last week's figures from the Department of Trade and Industry, which show that the cost of importing oil and coal has risen by 42 per cent. to £10 billion in 1984, the highest figure ever recorded? Does he further accept the Central Statistical Office's figure of £3·5 billion for the cost of the strike until January? If he does, what possible justification can there be for his boasting of the miserly £10 million that has been given for new jobs in coal mining areas? This dispute is about jobs.

I have repeated constantly that the £10 million for the new enterprise company is all that is required at the commencement of its activity. The NCB and I have made it clear that the NCB will review that ceiling when it becomes necessary and there are more applications. If the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave were published, obviously they are accurate, but no one regrets more than I do that this form of industrial action without a ballot has resulted in us importing coal instead of producing our own.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his description of the NCB's document would be contradicted by not only the NUM but NACODS? Will he comment on the fact that both Mr. McNestry and Mr. Sampey, the NACODS leaders, stated at the weekend that the Coal Board document involved breaching the NACODS-NCB agreement?

The Coal Board has made it clear to NACODS that it is keeping to the sanctity of that agreement. NACODS was concerned with the item that said that normal colliery review procedures would continue until the new modified procedure had been put into place. I am certain that if it were left to NACODS, the Government and the Coal Board, the new procedure would come into place virtually immediately. However, one could not have a situation in which, if the NUM decided to veto the details of such an organisation, there would be no procedures in place whatsoever.

Now that the strike is in its 50th week, will the Secretary of State urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have an early meeting with TUC leaders to see whether an agreement can be reached with honour, whereby the gallant miners, who have defended their jobs and communities for nearly a year will not be brutally crushed into submission?

Certainly, there is no desire to see miners who have been prevented from having a ballot being in any way humiliated as a result of what has occurred during this period. The Prime Minister has agreed to meet the TUC tomorrow at 11.30 am, and will listen to what it has to say.

Is not the evidence clear that, since we have been talking about cost, the personal cost is not so much to some of those who are on strike but to those who supply them, such as the small shopkeepers and so on and those who supply the industry? Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is very much in the interests of those people that the terms that are now on the table are taken up?

There is no doubt that jobs have been lost in many parts of the country, especially by firms supplying the coal industry and those connected with mining communities. One deeply regrets that, and I am sure that those firms join the Government in wishing that there had been a ballot at the outset, which would almost certainly have resulted in there being no dispute.

Does the Minister accept that there is a contradiction between his statement that NACODS is happy with its agreement and the NACODS statement several times last week that it is not happy about it because it is not happy at what the NUM is being asked to accept? Will the Minister now be honest enough to admit that the NCB is trying to lay down preconditions which will undermine any agreement with NACODS?

The statement prepared following the talks between Mr. Willis and the NCB carries a clause which makes it clear that the procedures agreed with NACODS should be implemented with the greatest possible speed. It is certainly the hope of the Government, the NCB and NACODS that that should happen. I only hope that that is also the object of the NUM.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a negotiated settlement is essential if an orderly return to work is to be achieved and anarchy avoided in the future? Will he clear up a matter that concerns many people about the latest NCB document? Does it represent an agenda for discussion or a final take-it-or-leave-it offer?

Mr. Willis's objective in seeking such a document was to ensure that the crunch issue of the dispute was agreed and settled. There will, of course, be other items and issues that both sides will wish to discuss.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the miners of south Derbyshire, who have worked normally throughout the strike, have just voted by 78·4 per cent. to give their local leaders the power to defy the national executive if necessary? Does that not show that most mineworkers want the right to go to work in peace and a free and democratic union to look after their interests, not one that wishes to play revolutionary political games?

The dispute has undoubtedly done considerable damage to NUM unity both locally and nationally. I am sure that many members of the union regret that.

Instead of the inquiry demanded by Mr. Scargill, will my right hon. Friend prepare a White Paper acknowledging that because the nationalised monopoly has failed the economy, the consumer and the miners, it is now time for the Government to put privatisation of the coal industry at the top of their priorities?

No. It has been perfectly clear throughout the dispute that the Government's intention has been to ensure that the industry in its present form has a stable and prosperous future. I am sure that that is the first priority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really implying that he understands the NACODS agreement better than the NACODS leaders understand it? Why does he not use his influence to get the NACODS agreement properly understood by the NCB?

There is no misunderstanding about the agreement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to ensure that the NUM agrees speedily to the details of the NACODS agreement.

If the learned judge was correct in his comment the other day that six pickets was the maximum permitted, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his colleagues to ensure that that is implemented wherever possible in the coalfields so that the dispute can be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity?

The judgment related to certain pits and certain local conditions. It will be necessary to examine the national implications of that judgment.

Why has the Prime Minister now agreed to meet the TUC to discuss a dispute that has been running for 11 months? Have circumstances changed to alter her view and that of other Ministers that the Government should not be involved in negotiations relating to the dispute? If the Prime Minister has anything to contribute towards a settlement, why did she not become involved at a much earlier stage?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, rightly, always agreed to see the TUC or any major trade union leader if they request her to do so, and she has done so on this occasion.

Can my right hon. Friend make any specific statement about future proposals for the Kent coalfield, which is in a somewhat different position from the monolithic coalfields in the rest of the country?

No, Sir. The future of any individual pit or coalfield is a matter for negotiation at regional level.

Has the Secretary of State carried out the promise that he made to me on 28 January that he would convey to the chairman of the NCB the request that the future of those miners arrested on the picket line and since then completely acquitted—there are now 1,190 of them —should not be imperilled when the strike is over, or, in other words, that there should be an amnesty for those men? What was the NCB's reply?

Yes, I have conveyed that point. I have not yet received a detailed reply from the NCB. When I do, I shall certainly let the right hon. Gentleman have it.

In view of the substantial number of miners who have gone back to work of their own free will, will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the NCB the possibility of the board making a statement to the effect that those miners who choose to stay on strike after a predetermined date — say, in three weeks' time —should be told that their services are no longer required in the industry?

No, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the statement made by Mr. Willis on breakfast television this morning that the gap between the two parties is now very small? Will he request his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she meets the TUC, to consider the miners and the miners' wishes? If the Prime Minister is to bridge that gap—which she certainly has the authority to do—she should base her judgment not on revenge on personalities but on the needs and wishes of the miners, who want a fair and honourable settlement.

Yes, Sir. There has been no stage in the dispute when the offer available has not been to the advantage of the miners and their families and communities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the words of Mr. Jack Jones, the leader of the Leicestershire NUM, today? He said that the economy of pits has always been a subject that he has discussed both locally and at regional level. If that is good enough for Leicestershire, is it not good enough at national level.

Yes, Sir. Not only that, but Mr. Lawrence Daly has put in writing that when he occupied a vital post in the NUM he accepted the essential nature of the need to close uneconomic pits. With the Coal Industry Act 1977, the last Labour Government also made provision for the eradication of uneconomic pits.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's decision to abandon the requirement that the NUM should sign a document before talks could begin is welcome, as is the Prime Minister's final realisation that she must meet the TUC in order to bring the dispute to an end? However, is he also aware that despite his regular statements in the House over the past six or eight months to the effect that the strike was crumbling, the Government have not succeeded in getting a majority of NUM members to return to work? Those who have returned have done so because they have been starved into submission. Like the majority of the British people, as revealed in the polls, NACODS and BACM—many senior managers—do not regard the Government's handling of the dispute as in any way creditable.

The Government's handling of the dispute cannot be compared with that of the right hon. Gentleman's which, from the beginning, has been full of wholly wrong predictions. Last November, there were 94 pits where no one was present. Today, there are nine. I can make clear the impact of that change upon those whose views are close to those of the right hon. Gentleman by saying that last week Coventry and Bolsover collieries returned to normal working.

Yes, Sir. The longer the dispute continues, the more damage is done to productive coal faces and to prospective markets. As I said in my statement, the Government hope that the dispute will quickly be ended.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, on a day such as today, it would be regarded as more than a little insecure for a Minister to mislead the House? I have been trying since 14 January to ascertain the size of coal stocks, distributed and undistributed, for the end of the year 1984, and have been unable to get any further than 31 October. Perhaps the Secretary of State should now have the guts to tell the nation just what the coal stocks are so that he cannot be accused of misleading anyone.

Too long.

Order.

Rather than waiting for the Chairman of the Select Committee to tell the nation the real truth about the loss of £2,000 million to the Central Electricity Generating Board, ought not the Secretary of State to admit that the strike has cost more than £100 apiece for every man, woman and child in the country?

I can confirm that the strike has been costly and a great tragedy, but it has been most costly to the coal industry, to coal miners and to miners' families. As to stocks, I know that when the January figures are published, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted at how very little they have fallen. I originally gave an assurance that there would be no power cuts in 1985, and I am glad to say that I can now give an assurance that there will be none until well into 1986.

We have had some.

It is time that the hon. Gentleman listened to the 90 per cent. of NUM members who are at work in the Bolsover pit.

It does not matter to me if they all go back—I am not giving in.

Will the Secretary of State care to comment on an article in The Times this morning which suggests that he has taken over the role of negotiator for the NCB? On a local matter, will he consider the claim by local people in Fife for assistance from the EEC to restore work in the Seafield and Frances collieries?

Yes, several forms of help from the EEC are being examined actively by the Coal Board.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Willis stated during the weekend that the document was not a joint document but was prepared basically by the NCB? Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to facilitate direct negotiations between the NUM and the Coal Board so that a negotiated, honourable settlement that is acceptable to the NUM and NCB can be arrived at?

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows —I made it clear in my statement—that this was not a document prepared by the TUC. I never claimed that. I have claimed, and I am sure that Mr. Willis agrees, that the document was prepared after considerable detailed negotiations and talks with Mr. Willis in an attempt to create conditions in which a settlement could take place. That was the basis of the document, which I think was good. I very much regret that it was not accepted.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of national electric power was supplied by coal-burning, oil-burning and nuclear power stations over the past 12 months; and how this compares with the previous 12 months.

The last 12 months for which figures are available cover the period December 1983 to November 1984. During that period, on a fuel used basis, the electricity boards in the United Kingdom produced 53 per cent. of electricity from coal, 29 per cent. from oil and 16 per cent. from nuclear. The respective percentages in the previous 12-month period were 75 per cent., 8 per cent. and 15 per cent.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Will he now care to estimate the cost to the electricity supply industry of those changed percentages?

We shall have to wait until the strike ends before the total costs can be assessed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures that he has given demonstrate the flexibility of the electricity supply industry in meeting our worst winter since 1947? With regard to cost, does he agree that coal now released from pit heads becomes a positive cash flow to the NCB and that therefore the costs are not as high as some have led us to believe?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm that the promotion of the idea of uneconomic pits is linked with a pro-nuclear bias which, if it succeeds, will mean longer dole queues and a commitment to a nuclear future because, if pits are closed, the Government will be able to argue that there is no alternative?

No. The Government, like their predecessors who enjoyed the support of the hon. Lady, expect the electricity supply industry to pay due regard in its planning to the need for diversity in and security of supply, including an appropriate nuclear component. I hope that its commitment to the future of coal is beyond doubt.

Do not the figures show that ther is a good argument for more electricity from nuclear power? Is not French electricity among the cheapest in Europe precisely because more than half of it comes from nuclear power? Furthermore, would not more electricity from nuclear power help us to solve the problem of sulphur dioxide emissions and the resulting acid rain?

Yes.

Further to the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on the question of cost, is he not falling into the bad habit of denying matters that have been widely publicised in the press—namely, that there have been additional costs of £2 billion? Is that denial similar to the earlier denial of his right hon. Friend, who tried to suggest that the document produced by the National Coal Board was a negotiating document, which it is not? The national executive of the NUM was told that the words of the document were set in concrete and could not be amended. How in the name of God can that be a negotiating document?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am keen to avoid all bad habits. I repeat, we shall wait until the end of the dispute to assess the costs of the oil burn.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the amount of coal imported into the United Kingdom during January.

The information is not yet available.

Does the Minister agree that it is patently clear from the answers given this afternoon that the Government are prepared to absorb the high cost of imported coal and all other elements that contribute towards the cost of the dispute because, as the Institute of Directors said at the weekend—it has been far more forthcoming than the Government — before the Government can carry out their economic and other policies, it is necessary to crush the trade union movement?

When the Government came to office the United Kingdom was a net importer of 2 million tonnes of coal a year. By 1983 the position had been reversed, and the nation had become a net exporter of 2 million tonnes. Sadly, that position has now been reversed because of the dispute, and again the country is a net importer. That is yet another example of the enormous damage that the dispute has done.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Central Electicity Generating Board has not imported any coal during the dispute? Is that not a further tribute to the flexibility that is built into our electricity generating system?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CEGB has not imported any foreign coal since the strike began, because it has not needed to do so. The best way for our great coal industry to proceed and to preserve markets is to return to full production at competitive prices.

Is the Minister aware that much of the imported coal that is being sold for heating domestic appliances will not burn in them and that that therefore adds considerably to the problems of old-age pensioners, especially those in my area? Will he undertake to look at the calorific value of that coal to ensure that it does the job that it is supposed to do?

Yes, deliberate disruption of supply has caused and inevitably leads to hardship for many customers. I pay tribute to the coal distributive trades for having done their best to care for those who need looking after in our society. That is yet another example of the damage caused by the dispute.

Will the Minister confirm the statement that he gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? Is he aware of the grave concern that is being expressed by many domestic consumers about the quality of the coal that is now being delivered to them by distributors? Is he further aware that that coal is nothing but muck, that it spits, causes a great deal of hardship and anxiety, and is not worth the money that is being paid for it, which is almost twice as much as the price for domestically produced coal?

For many consumers it is better to have this dirty coal than to have no coal. This country produces very good quality coal, and it is about time that we returned to full production.

Is any restriction imposed on either the private or public sectors with regard to the importation of coal?

I shall look into that question as soon as possible.

Has the Minister read reports of the evidence that the CEGB has most recently produced for the Sizewell inquiry about forecasts for future international coal prices, which show that they might virtually double within the next five years? If so, does it not cast doubt on the so-called criteria for uneconomic pits and revalue our coal reserves? Does it not also suggest that we should treat premature pit closures with caution?

I reiterate the words of the chairman of the NCB to the annual conference of BACM, when even at that stage he stressed that there is tremendous potential for increasing the future markets available to the coal industry. Those great markets for exports exist, but we can hardly take advantage of them when we are not producing coal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress of his Energy Efficiency Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many firms are known to be participating in energy efficiency schemes following contact with the Energy Efficiency Office.

The office continues to provide valuable support in my campaign. It has stimulated an upsurge of interest in energy efficiency measures. From the early morning briefings alone, contacts have been made with 13,000 senior executives, of whom the great majority have gone on to take action to improve their energy efficiency.

Does my right hon. Friend have any more precise estimates of the total energy waste in different classifications of energy building? Can he confirm that inefficient energy use in buildings can add up to no less than £1 per sq ft in such buildings?

I can confirm that, and I am pleased to say that the various parts of the building industry and the architects are co-operating with us to a great extent to try to see that much more is done in this sphere.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the number of contacts made, but in future does he expect to produce a realistic number of positive responses from people engaged in energy efficiency operations? Has he any idea of the amount of savings to be made in respect of CEGB sites?

We think that many savings can be made in almost every sphere. In total, we believe that savings of £7 billion can be achieved in this country. The returns that we are receiving following our major demonstration schemes and the briefing of senior executives are very encouraging.

Is the Secretary of State aware that just before Christmas 300 men in my constituency, who produced insulation to reduce the cost of energy, lost their jobs? Is not this office just a big con and a cover for the Government to pretend that they are doing something, when they are really throwing men on the dole? Would not that money be better spent on buying insulation for old folks' homes, thereby keeping men in jobs to produce the stuff?

The leaders of the insulation industry have expressed their considerable gratitude and enthusiasm for all that we are doing.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Budget changes last year, which imposed VAT on double glazing and other insulation, have proved to be a disincentive to industry and to the private sector to put insulation measures into effect, and that this is completely contrary to the policies of his Department?

It is true that VAT measures have an adverse effect on a whole range of spending, but that spending is spread widely throughout the economy. I can only say that total activity which is now taking place within these industries has substantially increased compared with a year ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many miners have returned to work since January 1985.

I understand from the National Coal Board that, since 1 January, nearly 18,000 ex-strikers have returned to work.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those 18,000 courageous miners who have gone back to work? Is this not an example of miners voting with their feet, showing without doubt that they wish to work because they want to keep the industry secure?

Since the last negotiations broke down, more than 34,000 miners have returned to work, thereby showing that they want the NUM president to move. When will he begin to listen?

Has the move in sterling made all pits more economic?

The economics of a particular pit are a matter for consideration by the NCB on a whole range of issues. One of the important ingredients in the offer now before the NUM is the introduction of a modified colliery review procedure which will enable all those considerations to be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to control the production of North sea oil.

I have no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition gave the clearest indication recently that the Labour party was intent on pursuing a policy to control depletion of oil in the North sea? As the oil companies assume at present that they will be investing between £50 billion and £60 billion in production facilities over the next 15 or 16 years, does my right hon. Friend agree that a policy of controlling depletion could scupper those plans and damage investment, especially in the north-east of Scotland?

I was surprised to read the recent remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, because they showed ignorance of the characteristics of our industry, and of the best interests of the economy. I agree with my hon. Friend, not least because he is my constituency neighbour.

Given that the Government have decided against the Sleipner contract and that there will be a need for condensate gas in the near future, will there not have to be some kind of balance between oil and gas production in the North sea?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not notice what was said last week about Sleipner. The tremendous increase in our reserves is almost as great as that of the Sleipner deal itself. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my confidence that the industry has a very bright future indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the funding allocated for 1985–86 towards the homes insulation programme.

Yes, Sir.

As the funding for the homes insulation programme is being cut from £31·5 million this year to £21 million next year, with an additional £7 million held back in reserve, what does my hon. Friend propose to do to ensure that those people who apply for home grants are not disappointed?

The 1985–86 allocation of £31 million for England is in line with the estimated spend in the current financial year. The 25 per cent. reserve referred to by my hon. Friend is designed to ensure that funds allocated to the scheme can be sent where they are needed and therefore are fully spent.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) consideration of the plans for phase 1 of the new parliamentary building will be completed.

The New Building Sub-Committee is now considering the preliminary sketch plans report. I expect the Services Committee to have approved the final sketch plans before the summer recess.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members who, like myself, are sufficiently recently arrived in this place to remember what it was like to enjoy normal working conditions in other occupations, believe that the improvement in facilities would greatly contribute to improving the efficiency of hon. Members?

My advice to my hon. Friend is to make the most of his memories. Even so, the plans for phase 1 are up to schedule.

Will the Leader of the House disabuse those of his hon. Friends who believe that when the GLC is abolished they will get office space across the river? Will he tell them that that office space, and more, will be needed for the quangos and joint bodies that will be set up to replace the GLC?

I must confess that if the House is to acquire outbuildings around Westminster, it would have all the disadvantages of a split-site comprehensive. Therefore, I am happy for once to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the GLC buildings across the river do not come into our thinking.

Is there not a danger that the proliferation of parliamentary buildings will denude the Chamber and detract from the corporate life of the House of Commons?

On an afternoon when the Chamber is likely to be pretty lively, I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his policy to provide time for debate on the Floor of the House on all prayers against statutory instruments for which such a debate is actively sought by hon. Members.

I seek to meet the wishes of hon. Members whenever possible, but it would not be practicable to find time to debate every prayer on the Floor of the House without major repercussions on other business.

Why is that so, given that if a prayer is taken in Committee upstairs, the House has no right to vote on it, even when the Government suffered an adverse vote in the Committee?

I can remember that occurring once since I have been Leader of the House. However, the hon. Member makes a fair point that could be considered.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to ensure that hon. Members receive their Votes within the walk area on time and not by post the following day.

A small number of hon. Members have had their Votes delivered by post since Christmas due to an unprecedented degree of sickness among the delivery staff in the Vote Office.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful response. Does he agree that, in the outside world to which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) referred, temporary staff would have been engaged on a day-to-day basis to do this work, as I understand they used to be? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether that can be done rather than increase the permanent establishment?

I shall have my hon. Friend's point examined.

Will the Leader of the House ask his Committee to look into the problem of communications with hon. Members in the House? Is it not nonsense that, when nearly every other establishment of this size has radio paging or a similar system, hon. Members still sometimes receive notices of meetings hours after the meetings have finished and green cards from constituents hours after the constituents have gone home?

Radio paging has been considered recently by the relevant Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. But I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question, which goes very much wider than the original question, and I shall refer it to the Services Committee.

Why in this modern day and age does there need to be such a service in any event? If hon. Members who live within walking distance of the House, as I do, cannot be here on time, what precious benefit is there in keeping this archaic system going?

My hon. Friend is politically long enough in the tooth to know that the withdrawal of any service, however meritorious, and can be sustained, gives rise to such an outcry that no one will lightly undertake it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better if hon. Members came into the House to collect their Votes rather than have them delivered to their banks and private law offices? When will Conservative Members recognise that being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job?

The hon. Gentleman is making the same point, only less elegantly, as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). This service is widely appreciated in the House, and I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who wants matters improved.

I do not wish to strike a discordant note, but surely the best way is to deliver the Votes direct to hon. Members' offices in the House or, if they work outside the House, to their addresses outside.

My hon. Friend's second point goes very much wider than the original question, but I shall consider his first one.

If the delivering of the Votes had to abide by the same kind of philosophy as that espoused by the Prime Minister and her colleagues, especially the Secretary of State for Energy, about whether a service was making a profit, would not this one come under the category of an uneconomic unit of production and have to close down? If that philosophy can apply to coal mines, why should it not apply to this service as well?

Delivering the Votes is a non-economic activity. Therefore, it is a call upon the resources which have to be created by the productive sector of the economy, which ought to include the coal industry.

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

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

I last met the Civil Service unions on 4 December 1984 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.

Is it not surprising that the Minister did not take the opportunity to discuss the problem of low pay and low morale in the Civil Service? Will he take this opportunity to deny the reports in last week's newspapers that if a civil servant engages in industrial action it will affect his promotion prospects?

I did not discuss low pay and the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised because it was not on the agenda for the meeting, nor was it raised by the representatives of the Civil Service unions.

Have there been any recent discussions or consultations with the Civil Service unions concerning the use of computers in passport offices? If so, what has been the reaction of the unions?

That question ought to be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is now responsible for the Passport Office.

Did my hon. Friend raise with the Civil Service unions the increased effectiveness of Customs and Excise staff in preventing the illegal importation of drugs into this country and express to them the appreciation of the House? Do not these increased seizures justify and vindicate the Government's decision to use Customs and Excise staff more flexibly?

That matter was not discussed, but I am willing to follow my hon. Friend's invitation to pay tribute, which I hope I can do on behalf of all hon. Members, to the splendid work done by Customs and Excise staff over drugs seizures.

Did my hon. Friend discuss with the Civil Service unions those civil servants who were dismissed for breaking the rules of confidence of the Civil Service, such as my constituent, Mr. Robin Page, who was dismissed by a previous Labour Government for exposing the way in which Labour Ministers were misleading the House?

That matter was not discussed, but it puts into better perspective some of the hypocritical comments that we have heard from Opposition Members.

Will the Minister ensure that discussions with the Civil Service unions continue in order to draw up a new code of ethics to ensure civil liberties for civil servants? Will he also consider adopting as his model the American code of ethics, which asks civil servants to expose corruption wherever it occurs and to put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to the country above loyalty to persons, party or Government Departments?

The rules and guidance for civil servants remain as they have been for many years under successive Governments. Those rules certainly forbid breaches of trust, such as we have seen recently. If there is any need to reinforce those rules to make them clear to existing civil servants and future recruits, that will be done.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the level and quality of new recruits into the non-industrial sectors of the Civil Service.

Generally, recruitment to the non-industrial grades of the Civil Service is going well, but we are experiencing continuing difficulty in recruiting the numbers and quality that we need in some specialist areas, particularly where there is a national shortage of people with the relevant qualifications.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that new recruits are adequately informed about the need to respect the confidential nature of much of their work and about the correct procedures to take if, rightly or wrongly, they feel that they are being asked to mislead the public?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that proper guidance on all those matters is available.

Is it surprising that there is difficulty in attracting the right calibre of person when the demoralisation of the Civil Service is so obvious, when opportunities for advancement are few, and when it is clear that the Government do not think highly of civil servants? Will the hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity to make it clear that he respects and admires the qualities of civil servants who have contributed so much to our past and to our future?

Again, I am happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and pay tribute, as I have done many times before, to the overwhelming majority of civil servants who behave with loyalty and the highest integrity. As a country, we should be proud of them. That is perhaps why one lapse from those high standards excites a great deal of criticism and comment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain has one of the best Civil Services in the world, but that those who have the great responsibility for choosing new members must surely ensure that loyalty and trust are the first things to look for and that character counts as much as brains?

All those matters must be taken into account; and we must follow the time-honoured arrangements, which are that ability, qualifications and the rightness for the job must be the qualities looked for by the Civil Service Commission in appointing new members to the Civil Service.

Is the Minister aware that his tribute to the work of the Civil Service will be much appreciated, but will he ask his colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister as head of the Civil Service and other senior colleagues, to make similar remarks about the Civil Service? Is he further aware that there is grave anxiety about the calibre of recruits to the Civil Service and the future of the Civil Service if morale stays at rock bottom as a result of constant attacks upon it by senior Ministers and the present policies on pay and cutbacks?

Constant attacks are not being made. Rather, constant tributes are being paid to the civil servants who carry out their work with great dedication.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet the Civil Service trade unions; and if staffing matters will be discussed.

I have at present no plans to meet the Civil Service trade unions, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed to meet representatives of the Society of Civil and Public Servants on Monday 25 February to hear their views on the extension of unified grading in the Civil Service.

When the Minister does meet them, will he take the opportunity to clarify his answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and explain what he means when he says that industrial action will be taken into account in promotion? Does that not mean that the Government are trying to act yet again as judge, jury and prosecution? Surely it means that if a person has been involved in industrial action, that will be taken into account and used against him when considering promotion prospects.

I should be happy to discuss such matters with the representatives of the Civil Service unions, if they so wish. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's clarification or interpretation of my earlier remarks stands up.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will now institute measures for sex monitoring in the Civil Service in accordance with the recommendations made in the revised draft code of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Arrangements which accord with the monitoring recommendations of the code are already in hand.

I thank the Minister for that reply. May I seek his assurance that now that the EOC's code has been laid before Parliament, the Civil Service will lead the effort to achieve equal opportunities for women in employment?

We shall certainly be following the code's conditions and seeking to implement the code to the best of our ability.