asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss the proposed privatisation of the corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to be in a position to announce a target date for the privatisation of British Gas.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the future of British Gas.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress with the proposed privatisation of British Gas.

I have regular meetings with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation Government policy on the privatisation of BGC was set out in my statement to the House on 7 May.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us fear that if, and when, the British Gas Corporation is privatised it will seek to maximise sales and push up demand to increase profits? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the chairman of the corporation possible statutory duties on any privatised board to take full account of conservation efforts and, in particular, to consider demand management as much an option as other sources of supply?

The British Gas Corporation would have a vested interest in ensuring that there were sensible policies to ensure that the supply of gas was always available. That would be very much in the corporation's mind.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the fact that my request for a target date illustrates the impatience that many of us feel and our hope of seeing his industry in the private sector? Will he therefore do all that he can to bring the date forward, in the hope that there will then be widespread ownership among those who work in the industry?

I very much admire my hon. Friend's volunteering to serve on the Committee stage of this legislation. I know that he will help us to expedite the passage of the measure. The proposal has been widely welcomed by employers, customers and others. I hope that it will reach the statute book and be implemented as quickly as possible.

Is this not just the latest action in all the all-too-long line of handouts and bribes to the millionaire backers of the Tory party and which has absolutely nothing to do with increased efficiency, increased democracy or a better deal for gas consumers? Is it not a fact that £5 billion has been raised through special gas price increases and that it is due for transfer from the public purse to the bank balances of the sharks and speculators represented by the Secretary of State for Energy? Those people will lose that money on renationalisation of the British Gas Corporation.

In my reply to the previous question I expressed the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubeneezee) would remain a firm supporter of the proposal. I also hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will remain a firm opponent of it. The hon. Gentleman's opposition is, as always, primitive and totally incorrect. He should talk to some of the employees of industries which have been privatised and see how many of them have any desire to go back to nationalisation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his privatisation proposals. However, will he bear in mind, as the monopoly moves into the private sector, the need to safeguard the raw materials of the chemical industry— ethane and other materials—so that they have a ready flow and are competitive on world markets?

I do not think that there will be any difficulties about that. The British Gas Corporation is anxious to do that in connection with its customers. The 1982 legislation and the proposed legislation will enable such organisations to make those supplies.

Has the Secretary of State any plans to meet the chairmen of other nationalised industries, especially the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority? Will he discuss with the authority's chairman the Exclusive Office Cleaning strike? Women cleaners' wages are being reduced by 21p an hour and their holidays are being reduced from four weeks to one week. Will the right hon. Gentleman take up this question with the authority?

That question is clearly a wide abuse of Question Time.

While I delight with my right hon. Friend in the fact that privatisation is to go ahead as quickly as possible, may I ask whether he intends that Scottish gas should be a separate entity within that privatisation?

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the regulatory arrangements for the prices charged by a denationalised corporation are of great importance not only to consumers but to the whole of the energy industry? Will he give a clear statement of how the regulatory framework and criteria for prices will work? Will they, for instance, be similar to those applying to British Telecom?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that at this stage it is not possible to give detailed proposals, but there will be an effective regulatory system that will both protect the consumer and encourage the industry to improve its efficiency.

As no gas has been supplied direct from producer to customer making use of the common carrier provisions in the 1982 Act, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that no further measures are required to make those provisions more effective before the corporation is privatised?

I have said that we will keep this matter under review. Certainly the 1982 provisions are important and can be used to advantage, and I believe that that will happen in a number of cases. However, there is no doubt that the bulk of gas distribution will be through the present system operated by the corporation.

As this is a highly controversial matter, is the Secretary of State contemplating producing a White Paper before he produces a Bill?

The answer to the first point is no.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the anticipated commissioning dates of the Heysham 2 and Torness power stations; and if he will make a statement.

The anticipated commissioning dates for the two reactors at Heysham 2 power station are mid-1987 and mid-1988, respectively. Matters relating to electricity supply in Scotland are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning the disposal of Her Majesty's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to Bootle against its wishes, which coincides with the receiving of the station safety reports from the CEGB to the inspectorate? Will he ensure that the safety aspects are considered in depth and that there will be no delay in the commissioning of power stations, because any delay will cost the nation about £250,000 per day per station?

I am advised by the Health and Safety Commission that dispersal of the inspectorate will not have any implications for the anticipated commissioning dates of Heysham 2. The Government are conscious of the need to maintain the high standards of the inspectorate. The detailed arrangements for dispersal are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that it does not believe that dispersal need have serious consequences for the effectiveness of the inspectorate.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that before the Government reach a decision on the type of nuclear generation for the future they will wait to see the successful results of those two power stations in operation?

The relative merits of the AGR and PWR were exhaustively rehearsed at the Sizewell inquiry. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial position, it would be wrong for me to comment further.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the National Coal Board took into consideration the commissioning of those two nuclear power stations when it set its target for the production of coal last year?

I believe that that was the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department has taken to promote the use of wind power for energy purposes.

My Department has spent over £13 million, since 1979, on research and development into the use of wind energy for electricity generation.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the expenditure has revealed any useful applications for wind energy and, if so, whether such applications have any export potential?

Yes, it is one of our most promising areas in using a renewable energy source. The work done so far in the Orkney Islands has proved effective. In relation to the second medium-sized aero-generator that we have there, the firm concerned is already exploring the possibilities of selling its equipment overseas, so there are good opportunities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are firms in my constituency which are now well into wind power technology, both ashore and afloat, through wind-assist schemes for ships? Will he take the opportunity to pay credit to Gifford Technology, which is already exporting epoxy timber composite windmill blades to the United States of America, where it is said that one of the main incentives to people buying the new technology is the tax credit system which the Americans use, which might be a better form of encouragement to British firms to invest in wind power than the present encouragement given by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

A considerable number of firms are involved in the Orkney Islands development and in Carmarthen Bay, and the developments are of benefit to them. My hon. Friend's point relates to the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I take note of what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the future potential for coal extraction under the sea off the north-east coast of England.

I am aware of the prospects for further development of coal mines under the sea in north-east England, and expect to discuss these with the chairman of the National Coal Board from time to time as the board's plans develop.

Does the Minister agree that the closure of old pits with expensive production costs will prove to have been a disaster if it is not accompanied by new investment in areas with high potential, such as the North sea? Will he note that the sinking of a new pit in the Amble area could give access to enormous reserves and be of tremendous value in creating employment in that area?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I was very pleased when, on 26 April, the north-east area of the NCB announced approval for a £3 million drilling rig for Westoe, Wearmouth and Ellington collieries. I was very pleased to hear about that when I went underground at Ellington just over two weeks ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is good potential for the extraction of coal in the north-east only if there are markets for that coal? In that respect, the coal conversion scheme is very important. Can he say how that scheme has been progressing since the strike, in the hope of expanding markets?

Sadly, the shadow of the NACODS position still hangs over the coal industry. Nevertheless, there is still a very good argument for industry to convert to coal, and there is still a useful amount of money in the coal conversion scheme. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in what he said.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will he draw his attention to the severe breakdown in industrial relations in the coalfields, caused particularly by the stupid and outdated attitude of the chairman and his deputy, Cowan? Will the Minister also mention the reports that local trade union officials are working five days a week underground and are put on a three-shift system, which makes it difficult to have good trade union relations at the pithead?

I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman is able to consider carefully what he has just said he will recognise that it was extremely wrong and in bad taste for him to use that inflammatory language at such a crucial stage—[Interruption.]—in the present situation. I ask him to take time to go underground, as I have done at Point of Ayr, at Ellington and at Selby—[Interruption.]—and he will hear from the men underground that all that they want to do is to put the tragic strike behind them and to work together for the future of the industry.

Order. It would have been more appropriate if the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) had asked his supplementary question after the next question. However, he has his answer now.

Is the Minister aware that the multi-million pound drilling project in the north-east has been generally welcomed? Will he urge the National Coal Board, when it talks about pit closures, to give full consideration to the fact that the reserves in the Durham coalfield have been established for some time? Some of that coal will easily be obtained. When the chairman of the National Coal Board talks about the economic aspects of pits, surely that is a matter that should receive the utmost consideration before further pit closures are thought about?

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about extensive coal reserves, because last year the National Coal Board located at least 200 million tonnes of new reserves off Westoe and Wearmouth collieries and has spent about £15·5 million in the past 12 years drilling for coal in the North sea. A further £3 million will be spent this summer. He is also right to stress that the coal industry's future lies in the development of low-cost productive pits, such as the massive Ellington complex. Of course, that has to be taken into account when allocating resources in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to change the membership of the National Coal Board.

No new appointments to the board are imminent.

Does the Secretary of State not recognise that, despite the answer given a few moments ago, most people in the industry and in the country are convinced that the National Coal Board was largely responsible for causing last year's dispute and is likely to cause a further dispute because of its apparent failure to comply with agreements that it has reached? Is it not time that changes were made so that the industry can start to go forward again?

No. I believe that most people agree that last year's strike was politically motivated and that it was one for which no ballot of miners took place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is essential for the present membership of the NCB to be maintained and supported by him and the country in order to put the industry right? Will he take this opportunity to explain the difficulties which have arisen between the National Coal Board and NACODS?

After NACODS had a meeting last week, I was asked whether a meeting could take place with the National Coal Board. I conveyed its message to the NCB and a meeting took place at the invitation of the NCB. In accordance with its wishes, the matters that NACODS had asked to have clarified at its meeting with me were clarified completely at the meeting with the NCB. I hope, therefore, that NACODS members will quickly return to work.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) represents the widespread feeling throughout all the coalfields that Mr. MacGregor, the chairman of the NCB, is utterly distrusted and that he is making a major contribution to the present dispute? We are all aware of the fact that the Secretary of State has had his disputes with Mr. MacGregor. Mr. MacGregor was insulting at the end of the dispute when he said that the Secretary of State had had nothing to do with the conduct of the dispute. That was misleading the country. We know that the Secretary of State never wanted him. Therefore, can he not now intervene and get rid of him?

No. At the majority of coalfields production has returned to normal levels and at many of them it is high. It is giving a completely distorted picture to say that there is great discontent throughout the coalfields. I am pleased to say that coal production and deliveries are reaching good levels at present. I am only sorry that damage is being done to the full recovery of the industry, which is necessary if we are to persuade industrialists and others to convert to coal in the future.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the excellent work that the chairman of the NCB has put into securing export orders upon which a long-term future for the coal industry can be founded?

The marketing of coal is immensely important both at home and abroad and is something to which I hope the board will give ever-increasing attention.

Is not the truth that during the dispute the Secretary of State allowed pledges to be given on almost any terms to NACODS to get the dispute ended? Now that the current dispute is more than three months old, NACODS feels entirely betrayed by the chairman of the board and by the Government. The result of victimisation of miners and some of the savage sentences is that more and more people think that the NUM was correct in the defence that it mounted last year.

No, Sir. The opposite is the truth. The reality is that the agreement on modified procedures was virtually reached before the NACODS overtime ban took place and was entirely in accordance with procedures. It is also true that I met the NACODS leaders for two hours, when they asked for two matters to be fulfilled, both of which have been fulfilled.

What sort of vindictiveness is it that causes the Secretary of State to refuse to allow the 700 sacked miners—11 of them in the area of Warwickshire which I represent—to return to their jobs? Is it not a fact—

Order. There is a related question on this issue.

Let me finish my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman must read the questions that appear on the Order Paper. Question No. 9 is about membership of the National Coal Board.

Is it not a fact that the sackings—

Order. That is just the point. If the hon. Gentleman will read the question and relate it to the board, he will be all right. I shall give the hon. Gentlman one more chance.

Is it not a fact that the board's membership means that the sackings were targeted at union organisers and that many of those who were sacked have been found not guilty in courts of law? Does that mean that the present membership of the board and the Secretary of State are setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner?

There is a right of appeal in all cases. It would be pleasing if occasionally the hon. Gentleman showed some concern about the vindictiveness of some of those who have been sacked.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the NCB is responsible for the present NACODS' dispute? The board has violated the agreement and is demanning pits, such as Horden in the north-east and St. John's in south Wales. It is therefore getting round the agreement and allowing pits to be run down so that they can be closed. Is that not another example of the board's dubiety?

I wish that the right hon. Gentleman, with his keen enthusiasm for the future of the industry, would recognise that when a pit has been virtually destroyed, because of the coal strike, and the majority of the men at the pit want to be transferred or to take voluntary retirement, it would be right for him to criticise the board if it ignored the views of the majority at that pit.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many miners have taken voluntary redundancy since 1 March.

I am encouraged by the levels of production attained since the end of the strike, although damage to coal faces has had a lasting effect. Between the beginning of March and 4 May over 2,000 miners took voluntary redundancy, reducing the number of men on colliery books to approximately 169,000.

May I take that answer as meaning that working miners are now satisfied that their applications for voluntary redundancy or transfer are being processed speedily? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if earlier reports that miners were not satisfied that such applications were being processed speedily were justified, that would have reflected a substantial betrayal of a brave body of men?

It is up to the management to take decisions on the applications of individual miners. All the individual cases forwarded to me have been taken up by the board and have been dealt with satisfactorily by the management.

Is the Minister aware that at the St. John's colliery 350 miners have volunteered for redundancy payments as a result of two years of threatening closure by the National Coal Board and the Minister? The Minister, in response to an Adjournment debtate that I initiated, said that investigations would take place. Is he aware that the chairman of the board condones actions by the board and by its officers to put pressure on miners to volunteer to become redundant?

I do not agree. Any closure will be dealt with under the proper, agreed procedure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as about 14,000 miners have now accepted voluntary retirement, there was no need for the dispute in the first place, Arthur Scargill was completely wrong, and the Government were right in supporting the National Coal Board in getting good value for money and ensuring that the miners did a decent day's work. Does he further agree that the industry is in a better position now than it was 12 months ago?

It is not true that the industry is in a better position. Considerable damage was done by the dispute to markets, coal faces, mining machinery and by delaying substantial investment programme. It is certainly true that a good investment programme, much higher than that of the rest of Europe together, is the best way to guarantee a good future for the industry.

Why does the Secretary of State allow the chairman of the NCB to walk all over him? Regarding redundancy payments, is it not a fact that the NCB is instituting by stealth the closure of collieries without negotiation, and that miners are losing their jobs as a consequence? is the Secretary of State aware that the NACODS' dispute is costing the nation about £24 million a week? He should be worried about that, instead of answering, as he has been doing today, by saying that everything in the garden is lovely. We know that the garden is not lovely.

The main cost of the present dispute is the potential loss of markets for the industry to which the hon. Gentleman has devoted his life. The loss of coal production has been minute, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and there have been only small delays in starting production. The damage to the reputation of the industry has been considerable. With the guarantees given by the NCB, there is no need for the overtime ban to continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the nuclear power establishments which Ministers in his Department have visited in the last three years.

During the past three years departmental ministers have on various occasions visited all the principal Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels sites and a number of nuclear power stations. I shall give details in the Official Report.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. During the visits, has he been made aware of a concerted campaign which is being waged and seeks to imply that the presence of these establisments in a locality is itself a primary cause of cancer for those who live nearby? Is there any medical evidence to support that? If not, will my hon. Friend please take this opportunity to destroy those scaremongering techniques, which are causing a great deal of unnecessary anxiety to many people?

As my hon. Friend knows, this is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. However, the radioactive discharges from Winfrith, about which my hon. Friend and others have written to me, are strictly controlled by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Monitoring carried out by both MAFF and the operators confirms that the radiological impact of discharges is well within internationality recommended limits and is insignificant in relation to naturally occurring radioactivity. It is most unlikely that Winfrith discharges could have given rise to increased levels of leukaemia. Variations in the local incidence of leukaemia are found throughout the country. Studies are being carried out by the local health authorities to identify the incidence of leukaemia throughout east Dorset, and are still at a preliminary stage. There is certainly no evidence that connects any increase in leukaemia with Winfrith.

Is the Minister aware that the announcement in a written answer on a Friday of the new nuclear development at Dounreay is regarded as an affront to Scottish opinion? Since, in the words of Sir Christopher Hinton, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority at the time, that installation went there originally because there was an element of danger, is the Minister aware that the new development is regarded in the same light in Scotland?

My understanding is that the announcement has been widely welcomed in Scotland.

Is there not a need for the Government to mount a major campaign to put across to the largely uninformed public the basic point that that nuclear power is by far the safest form of energy conversion? Will he at least get across the simple point that one gets more radiation from having a colour television set in one's house than from living beside a nuclear power station?

I agree with my hon. Friend that reiteration of the facts can do a great deal to dispel misconceptions.

If, in the near future, a Minister visits Dounreay, will he also take the opportunity to take the short trip across the water to my constituency in Orkney, where many people are worried that the new reprocessing plant may well cause difficulties and dangers to farming and marine interests? Will he reassure the House and my constituents that there will be a public inquiry so that these genuine anxieties can be fully expressed?

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today announced his intention of calling in the planning application for his own decision and that a public inquiry will be held. As the hon. Gentleman will know, no one in the House is more alive to the interests of his constituents than I am.

Is the Minister aware that there is genuine concern about aspects of nuclear discharges? For example, in Winfrith there is genuine local concern about unusually high levels of leukaemia, which are as yet unexplained? In order to allay these fears and worries, will he pull some of the information together and produce a comprehensive statement about the issues and problems arising from Winfrith so that those concerns and worries can be met?

When the result of the investigations to which I referred is available, I shall make sure that it is properly disseminated.

Nuclear power establishments visited by Department of Energy Ministers during the past three years are:

• United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
• Harwell Atomic Energy Research Establishment
• Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment
• Risley Nuclear Power Development Establishment
• Springfields Nuclear Power Development Laboratories
• Winfrith Atomic Energy Establishment
• Culham Laboratory
• British Nuclear Fuels plc
• Sellafield Plant
• Capenhurst Plant
• Springfields Plant
• Headquarters, Risley
• Central Electricity Generating Board
• Berkley Nuclear Laboratories
• Heysham I and II Power Stations
• Hinkley B Power Station
• National Nuclear Corporation
• Headquarters, Knutsford

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the report on two-tier pricing of electricity.

The Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board have put to my Department ideas for reducing further the price of electricity to the largest users. These ideas will be discussed with the industries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong for landlords to be able to surcharge tenants for electricity above the rate that they would pay themselves? Will he bring that practice to an end?

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this matter, which has been the subject of a number of inquiries by my right hon. Friend the Secretay of State for Trade and Industry. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently studying a report produced some months ago by the Office of Fair Trading, and I understand that no decisions have yet been taken. I shall ask my right hon. Friend to write to my hon. Friend in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the steps taken by the National Coal Board to protect miners who worked during the recent dispute from intimidation and harassment.

I am confident that the National Coal Board has made strenuous efforts to deal with the problem of intimidation in the coal industry. Firm action, including dismissal, has been, and will continue to be, taken against those indentified as offenders.

In view of the complaints from the NUM about the need to avoid victimisation, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has had any indication of support and co-operation from the NUM in order to avoid the intimidation and harassment that have been applied to a number of working miners?

Not exactly, but in the great majority of pits working conditions have very quickly returned to normal and no intimidation is taking place. However, instances have taken place in a minority of pits, and they have been dealt with firmly by the management.

If there is a genuine desire to protect the rights of miners, may I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that many miners have been dismissed even though they have been tried in courts or have appeared before industrial tribunals which have found in their favour? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State made representations to Mr. MaGregor to reduce the number of such cases?

A considerable review has taken place and management decisions were taken. There are procedures to be followed if anyone considers that such decisions were incorrect. Those procedures are taking place.

Will my right hon. Friend have words with the chairman of the NCB to ensure that, in the context of continuing and increasing NCB productivity, those who worked throughout the whole of the strike are given absolute preference to allow them to play a major role in the future success of the coal industry?

They did play, and are playing, a very major role. I am sure my hon. Friend will also agree that a large number of miners were kept out of work by various methods although they have the same desire for their industry to succeed. We need to support them as well.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those who suffered the greatest intimidation and harassment are the 720 miners who did not get their jobs back after the strike ended? Is it not strange that in some NCB areas intimidation and harassment are occurring involving those who have not got their jobs back, whereas in other areas, where seemingly the strike was almost solid, almost every sacked miner has been given back his job? Perhaps someone at NCB level is involved in serious intimidation and harassment on an area basis. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman put that right?

I believe that that is inaccurate.

Does the Secretary of State agree that industrial relations are at an extremely low level following the dispute, and that the NCB has deliberately stirred this matter up and done nothing to ensure that normal relations are resumed? What is the Secretary of State doing about that?

The facts are that at the majority of pits normal relations have been resumed and production is at a high level, as are deliveries of coal. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not being more positive in encouraging all working to return to normal.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to introduce a system of energy audits.

My Department's energy efficiency office continues to make grants of up to 50 per cent. towards the cost of energy surveys of non-domestic premises under the energy efficiency survey scheme. The energy efficiency office has supported the development of home energy audits, some of which are currently available to the public.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successes in the industrial and commercial sector. Will he accept that we need a similar system to that operated in the United States, whereby anybody in the domestic sector can get a home energy audit done for only $15 through local electricity and gas companies? Would it not be desirable to introduce this system here? Pending the time when it is introduced, will my hon. Friend look at the position of local authorities and exert maximum pressure on them to ensure that their stock of housing is brought up to a reasonable standard?

My hon. Friend is right to stress the need to learn lessons from others, and I have been able so see at first hand in Sweden and Denmark the progress made there in energy efficiency in the domestic sector. A number of lessons still need to be learnt, and my hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of encouraging home energy efficiency labelling and to show our acceptance of the fact that it is in the local authorities that considerable savings can be made.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make representations to the Port of London Authority about the level of noise from vessels passing close to the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

The authorities of the House keep in touch with the directorate of marine services of the Port of London Authority with regard to river traffic. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind, perhaps he would let me know.

Is it not unnecessary for certain pleasure steamers to come so close to the Terrace, with the result that noisy bands and sometimes raucous singing drown the proceedings of Committees, sometimes for minutes on end? Cannot something be done about this?

I must confess that this has been going on for some years and a bit of good-natured commentary from the river does not necessarily do any harm. However, I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Has the Port of London Authority sent the right hon. Gentleman any complaints based on the noise emanating from this place and disturbing the people travelling up the river?

Again, in terms of entertainment, it is a good two-way traffic.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Palace of Westminster were built in Trafalgar square or Hyde Park comer we might have something to worry about? However, as it is situated alongside Old Father Thames, with just a few vessels, tugs and motor boats going by, which is rather lovely, I agree for the first time with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that there is much more noise from this Chamber than from the River Thames.

Whatever supernatural force has joined those two together, let me put not asunder.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has received any representations about improvements in parliamentary procedures.

Yes, Sir. The latest report of the Procedure Committee — the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1984–85 — includes major recommendations for changes in the Standing Committee procedures of the House.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the private Member's motion to be moved on Friday to ensure the debate of a Bill that has the support of the House is within the rules of order, and it is proper that it should be debated. However, does he agree that there is a procedural loophole here, at which both he and the Select Committee on Procedure should look, to see whether action can be taken to stop it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

My hon. Friend identifies that the procedures that are for debate in Friday are both in order and of general interest. I shall not now anticipate the remarks that I intend to make then.

Does the Leader of the House recall that, on a number of occasions, on a Friday, objections have been made and there have been requests from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the hon. Members concerned should be identified in Hansard and not remain anonymous? Has he looked at that, and will he try, with the Procedure Committee, to right that patent wrong?

The Procedure Committee has reported on public Bills. But the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are aspects of private Members' legislation which have given rise to anxiety in the past. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's point will have been heard by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Would it not be for the convenience of the House if my right hon. Friend made available in the Vote Office the report of the Procedure Committee which led to both the starting and the terminal hours on Fridays being brought forward one and a half hours, which was not done with the object of undoing it by sitting later?

I shall look into that.

In respect of this Friday's innovation, to put at its lowest, and major misuse of parliamentary procedure, to put it another way — [Interruption]—does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be wrong to allow this proposal to go ahead without first referring it to the Select Committee on Procedure, so that we might have a proper report on what would be a most dangerous precedent?

The very remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and the way that they have been received in the House today suggests that it is a topic far better dealt with within the parameters of the debate rather than at Question Time.

I refer to my right hon. Friend's original answer about the last report of the Procedure Committee. As it has considerable importance for the House, may we have his assurance that we shall debate it before the House rises for the summer recess?

I have said already that the Committee's proposals will be debated. I do not want to be specific about the precise time. But since I am always under pressure for the House to rise before getting too far into August, my hon. Friend will understand that any debates which might occur with advantage in the autumn are considered prime candidates for that treatment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received advocating an increase in the Members' secretarial allowance.

The Members' secretarial allowance has been the subject of parliamentary questions and, more recently, of an early-day motion.

Is the Leader of the House aware that nearly 200 hon. Members of all parties have signed that early-day motion? Is that not a remarkable sign of the strength of feeling in the House, given that the signals from the Government are that they are not sympathetic to the idea? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whose job it is to protect the interest of ordinary hon. Members and not those of the Cabinet, to show sympathy to a reasonable request to enable us to do a better job for our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to periodic reviews of these allowances. That remains the position. If we are to play the numbers game, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he could get only a little more than a score of his supporters to vote when he tried to persuade the House to move to a secretarial allowance of £17,000.

If more hon. Members made good use of the superb facilities of the House of Commons Library, would there not be less need for research assistants and the money to pay them?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am anxious not to be drawn into the controversy about the adequacy of the secretarial allowance, other than to say that it is only 12 months since the figure was voted by the House of Commons and that the Government made it clear that it was subject to periodic review. I do not think that it would be wise to depart from the present arrangements so shortly after they have been concluded.

When considering this matter, was the Leader of the House influenced by the Prime Minister's remarks just before the recess, which implied that there had been a disproportionate increase in the costs of the House of Commons? If so, or if he believes what the Prime Minister said, does he believe that he has in some way neglected his duties to contain that expenditure or that he has properly stood up for the needs of the House to challenge the Government and what they are doing?

Before getting into that type of debating exchange, the hon. Gentleman should remember that a great deal of the House's expenditures are not cash limited and that there have been substantial increases in the costs of running the House, which might well be merited but which still have to be justified.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many research assistants were employed by hon. Members as at 1 May; and how this compares with those employed on the same date in each of the past 10 years.

The number of Palace of Westminster photo-identity passes on issue to Members' research assistants on 1 May 1985 was 469. This figure compares with a total of 452 on 1 May 1984.I regret that the records which are held by the athorities of the House do not enable me to give comparative figures for the other years requested.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous to have so many research assistants working in the House? Is he aware that 102 hon. Members have two or more research assistants, one hon. Member has eight research assistants, two have nine, nine have four, three have five and four have six? Should we not try to tie the number down so that. Members have no more than one research assistant and that research assistants on the books are paid?

The hon. Gentleman was a half of one himself.

In that case my hon. Friend speaks from experience. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but perhaps it would be better elaborated in the debate that has been promised on the second report of the Services Committee, dealing with research assistants.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service on how many occasions he has met representatives of the Civil Service unions over the past 12 months.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent meetings he has had with trade unions representing Civil Service staff.

Other than informally, I have met the unions on six occasions in the last 12 months. The last occasion was at a meeting on 30 April held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to discuss the question of arbitration with the general secretaries of four Civil Service unions in relation to their 1985 pay claims.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pressure of work in some local Departments, especially the Department of Health and Social Security and Customs and Excise, is probably greater now than ever before? In view of the rather low morale of the Civil Service, will my hon. Friend make it abundantly clear at his next meeting that the Government fully appreciate that Britain has an extremely loyal and efficient Civil Service, which is one of the best in the world, and the least corrupt?

I willingly and wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friends comments.

Is it really intended that disciplinary action be taken against those at GCHQ who refuse to give up their union membership? Is the Minister aware that the Opposition would deplore any such action?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that questions on this matter should be directed in the first instance to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

A civil servant wrote to me this morning stating that, during the past 60 years, access to arbitration had been turned down by the Government 10 times, three times by the present Government. Civil servants feel very sore about the Government's denial of arbitration, but I do not know whether my information is right. Can my hon. Friend say whether it is?

Post-war Governments of all persuasions have maintained that access to arbitration can be refused by the Government on grounds of national policy. I can confirm that the Government have refused access to arbitration.

As it is the Government's view, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor, that pay awards in the Civil Service should not fall consistently below awards in the private sector, what steps does the Minister propose to take in the forthcoming year to rectify what has happened in this year's pay award and other recent ones in which civil servants have fallen a long way behind the private sector?

I confiim that both the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor made such clear statements to representatives of the Civil Service unions. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the context of this year's pay negotiations the Government have made it clear once again that they are very anxious and willing to proceed to negotiations, with the aim of establishing an agreed pay system which will have long-term implications for the determination of future pay settlements.

Does my hon. Friend not think that many of the Civil Service problems over pay and conditions would be resolved if the Ombudsman dealt with these matters?

That is highly unlikely, but I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's novel suggestion.

Has the Minister considered the answers given by each Department of State to my question about the ethnic origin and sex of its equal opportunities officer? In each case the reply was that the equal opportunities officer is white and male, except for the Secretary of State for Transport, who replied that his equal opportunities officer is a British citizen and that he does not understand the relevance of sex.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's question goes very wide indeed of the question on the Order Paper. However, if he cares to pursue it with me in other ways I shall try to give him a definitive answer.

Does the Minister think that the letter from the chairman of the Inland Revenue to his staff, threatening that those who engaged in industrial action were likely to have their career prospects blighted, is a sensible way to conduct industrial relations within the Civil Service?

As ever—no, not as ever, but as so frequently happens—the hon. Lady has got it wrong. I have here the text of the letter that was sent by the head of the Inland Revenue to his staff. It begins:

"The first point I must make is that there is not, nor has there been, a ban on the promotion of those who have taken industrial action."

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the financial resources available for use in the Scottish coalfield in the light of pit closures and the consequent employment problems.

NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., the National Coal Board's job creation subsidiary, is active throughout the British coalfields. The funds available to the company are not allocated between areas but may be used in support of schemes wherever there is the opportunity to create real jobs. The House has been informed that the funding of the company will be kept under close review as operations progress.

Is the Minister aware that there is acute and growing concern in Scotland about the future of the coal mining industry? Is he further aware that in the area of the Seafield colliery in Fife male unemployment already stands at over 30 per cent. and that unemployment there would be considerably worsened if Seafield colliery were to close? Why does the Minister not do the same trick as was done by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he obtained £150 million from somewhere to get himself out of a hole over rates? If he can do it, why cannot the Secretary of State for Energy do it to create new jobs for miners who are to be thrown out of work because of pit closures?

As I have already pointed out to the House, the funding of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. will be kept under review. However, the hon. Gentleman must realise, referring in particular to Seafield, that in Scotland we are seeing the result of damage caused by an unnecessary and tragic strike. Scotland suffered great damage during that dispute and, as a result, lost 11 coal-producing faces.

Does the Minister not understand, first, that many people in Scotland believe that damage was caused by the manager of the National Coal Board in Scotland and, secondly, that if the Government, instead of creating NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., had, together with the NCB, put additional investment into new coal faces in Scotland, the unemployment problem would have been taken care of? What proposals does he have to authorise investment in the Musselburgh extension?

First, may I put the record straight. There is no question but that Polkemmet was flooded as a direct consequence of the NUM strike, and I much regret the disgraceful suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. As to investment, four major projects in Scotland are under way with an estimated capital cost of £91·8 million. In real terms, investment in the Scottish coalfield is 43 per cent. higher under the Conservative Government than it was under the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy, following representations to him for reinstatement of sacked miners arising from the miners' strike, how many have been reinstated as a consequence of inquiries to the National Coal Board.

I understand from the National Coal Board that of the 1,013 employees dismissed for offences related to the dispute, 373 have subsequently been re-employed.

Will the Minister tell us about the cases that have been referred to him? He made great promises to the House that he would take up the cases of victimised miners. How many cases did he take up, and in how many cases was there reinstatement? In Scotland he has failed abysmally, because no miner has been reinstated following a request by the Minister.

I have taken up every case that has been referred to me. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that all of us have been impressed by the responsibility of the vast majority of miners, who are now working together to repair the damage caused by the strike.