asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the relative changes in productivity in the energy industries since 1980.

Labour productivity generally in the public sector energy industries has improved since 1980. I hope this progress will continue.

I am glad to hear that productivity has increased, but is my right hon. Friend happy that, in July this year, his Department could not say by how much productivity in the gas, coal and electricity industries had increased since the end of 1980, nor could it compare their productivity with the economy as a whole? Are not those figures vital to all British industry?

It is important to ensure that any figures provided are meaningful. It is difficult to provide such figures for different industries with different capital intensities and different balances between output and labour and capital use. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and would be happy to discuss the matter further with him.

May I ask the Minister a question about the important offshore oil and gas industries? In recent times, what changes in productivity have there been in the offshore construction yards, and is it likely that those yards will receive contracts for offshore structures within the next eight to nine months?

I do not have the exact figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but I am delighted to say that our oil fabrication yards have had a good record in recent months and have won a major share of orders from oil industry in the face of fierce international competition. In that respect, their productivity is high.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed North sea oil production with representatives of OPEC? Does he agree that, although there are obvious attractions in a falling oil price, excessive production at a time of falling prices worldwide could lead to a disorderly market?

Any large cut in production would cause a reduction in productivity. Our main concern, as I have said many times in the House, has always been to ensure stability in the oil market. In an area such as the North sea, where risks are great and capital investment is high, it is important to have as stable a market as possible so that such investment continues.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Gas Corporation makes no comparisons between the productivity of its men in small-scale distribution work and that of private contractors in reaching a decision to take work from the private sector and do it in-house? Does he agree that that is disgraceful?

Attention has been drawn to that matter from time to time. If there is any sign of unfairness in that area, I hope that my hon. Friend will urge those who think that is the case to draw it to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of coal supplies held at power stations.

The latest published figures are for the end of July. They show stocks held at power stations in Great Britain at 18·6 million tonnes.

Although my right hon. Friend does not run our coal industry, will he follow the example set by his predecessor and encourage the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board to build up stocks of coal at both pitheads and power stations so that the resolve of people, particularly miners, who want to continue to work, if there is an industrial dispute, is not undermined by the threat of power shortages?

Electricity boards recognise the importance of having good stocks at power stations. The figure is for the end of July, and as August, September and October are the months in which stocks build up fastest, I expect that the next published figure will show quite a big improvemet.

Is there anything about the level of coal stocks which shows the need for an increase in electricity prices beyond the rate of inflation?

Not that I know of.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd. in providing alternative jobs in mining areas affected by pit closures.

My right hon. Friend announced at the end of July that the funds available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. the job creation subsidiary of the National Coal Board, had been doubled to £20 million. In its first year of operation the company has created more than 2,500 job opportunities throughout the coalfields. One hundred and eighty-six projects have been given direct financial assistance, and many more projects are being examined. The company is working closely with new and existing enterprise agencies.

Is the Minister aware that at the Houghton careers office 328 people are registered unemployed, 210 youngsters are on short-term schemes, and there are two job vacancies, yet Eppleton pit is being merged with Murton mines, losing 700 jobs, Lampton coke works was informed at the weekend that it is to close, losing a further 226 jobs, and Ellington pit, according to the latest NCB report, is under a three-monthly review? Why is my area being sacrificed on the altar of monetarism? The £20 million is not enough for my constituency, never mind the rest of the coalfields.

The hon. Gentleman should put the other side of the picture in the north-east. I have had the opportunity of going underground at the coalface in Ellington and Wearmouth during the last few weeks. The spirit there is welcome, productivity records have been broken, and the coal industry in the north-east has terrific opportunities ahead. Both the chairman, Mr. Spanton, and the chief executive, Mr. Hewitt, of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. take a deep personal interest in the problems of mining communities in the north-east. Already 248 job opportunities have been created there.

Further to my hon. Friend's first answer, does he agree that more publicity needs to be given to those achievements to dispel the impression that nothing is being done for communities where pits are closing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me a further opportunity of stressing the achievements of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. to which the Government attach significant support. Jobs created through projects that are financially supported by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. have risen this month to a rate of 500 a month.

Is the Minister aware that since the strike ended the NCB has announced a further 3,000 job losses in Barnsley district because of further pit closures and mergers? Is he aware that that will increase unemployment in my district to 22 per cent.? What will NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. do to assist Barnsley and district in its plight? What additional assistance can his Department give to assist the Coal Field Communities' Campaign to help the distressed mining areas?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by the level of commitment that the Government are giving to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. and that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is showing to communities, which, everyone accepts, are facing extremely serious problems.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no refusal by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. of good and worthwhile projects which are put to it on the ground of limitation of funds, and that any good job creation scheme in an area of pit closures will be considered favourably?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. If hon. Members on either side of the House have any projects in mind, they should discuss them urgently with NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.

The Minister has assured the House repeatedly that there will be alternative jobs in other pits for men whose pits are closing. Does he agree that that is not strictly true? In effect, he is de-skilling certain jobs, which means that men are not being offered comparable jobs in the industry. There is a target of 350 jobs under the scheme for the whole of Wales, and in my constituency 28 per cent. of the male work force is unemployed. The position has been made worse by a recent pit closure. Will the Minister concede that the scheme is unrealistic?

The hon. Lady should recognise that the National Coal Board has, contrary to the expectations of many, been able to keep faith with its pledge of no compulsory redundancies. It is to be applauded for that. Like the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), the hon. Lady has failed to put the other side of the picture. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to go underground at Lady Windsor, Abercynon, which is in the hon. Lady's constituency. I found the spirit of the work force to be excellent. The men are reducing the cost of producing coal and they have a great future provided that coal can regain its place competitively in the market.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency was badly affected by numerous pit closures some years ago when there was no enterprise company and no thumping redundancy payments? We simply had to get on with it. As a result, our unemployment rate has consistently been half that of the national average. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best advertisement for any area is a skilled and willing population that wishes to work, not strike?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those important points. Let us not forget that over 11 years previous Labour Government's closed 330 pits, with compulsory redundancy and no enterprise company.

Does the Minister recognise that the £20 million which is available under the scheme only scratches the surface, especially in areas such as the one that I represent where 42 per cent. of all youths aged under 24 years are unemployed? Is the Minister aware that of the coal mines that are operating not one has on its books a boy under the age of 18? No boy has been signed on from school since 1983. There is no evidence in my area that the enterprise scheme is doing any good or attracting any companies into it.

The hon. Gentleman must realise that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. started with a capital of £5 million, which the Government doubled to £10 million and then doubled again to £20 million. More money will be made available as and when necessary. I urge Labour Members to contact NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. and to discuss with it vital projects in their areas.

We are saying that the money is necessary now. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of 2,000 jobs having been created, but 2,000 jobs have been lost in the mining industry in the Welsh coalfield since March. The efforts that have been made do not compare with the demands and the needs of our community. Will the Minister tell us that he will accelerate his programme to match the acceleration in pit closures?

The Government have made it clear to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. that more money will be made available as and when necessary. I urge Labour Members to discuss with NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. the strategic problems in the areas that they represent instead of criticing it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce a new "Plan for Coal".

Discussions are taking place to agree the strategy for coal. We are endeavouring to agree a strategy that will provide coal at economic cost to the consumer and a good future for the industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the original 1974 "Plan for Coal" failed on several important counts—productivity, demand estimates and estimates of pit closures? Does not the National Coal Board's new strategy represent a much more realistic set of targets based on achieving a profitable and expanding industry founded on competitively priced coal?

Yes. I think that one of the great ptities of the original strategy was the total lack of performance in terms of productivity targets. I hope that productivity will improve substantially. Productivity improvements will give the best prospects for the coal industry.

What progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations between the right hon. Gentleman's Department, the NCB and the NUM about establishing a new, independent appeals procedure to hear appeals on colliery reviews concerning proposed pit closures? I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said to me on 19 June and 4 October that the bodies are nearing agreement. What is the present position?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows from my discussions with him that I share his anxiety that a modified procedure should be established quickly. On the latest information available to me, I can see no reason why that modified procedure should not be agreed this week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if his new strategy is based purely on the assumption of the markets likely to be gained, it will inevitably fail because the lead time between investing in the industry and getting coal out of the ground can be anywhere between five and 10 years? What we need is a strategy based not on so-called markets but on coal for the future. Energy policy can be based on that. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we should be talking about tonnages in the year 2,000 and nothing else?

In the last strategy we had 10 years of investment, but, alas, not 10 years of improving productivity.

Are not the key determinants in any future strategy, first, that there should be flexibility and, secondly that there should be nothing written in tablets of stone which would prevent the NCB from doing what is in the interests of that great industry?

Yes, Sir.

I have here a copy of the new coal strategy. It is a very poor description, and certainly not a policy. It is a strategy for contraction of the coal industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if one examines the document further, one sees that the board doubts whether total coal production will be 90 million tonnes? Coal production could be below that level and, if it is, there will be more massive pit closures.

No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the only way for the coal industry to expand is to improve productivity. It would be nice to hear some original proposals from the NUM on how productivity can be increased.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further information he has received from the National Coal Board regarding further pit closures.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement in the reduction of manpower in the coal industry since the end of the miners' strike; and how many further redundancies are planned for the next 12 months.

Individual pit closures and the future manpower requirements of the industry are matters for the NCB. I understand that, since the end of the strike, 16 pits have closed. The net reduction in numbers of men on colliery books from 9 March to 28 September was some 17,100. The level of future redundancies will depend upon the board's operational requirements and the numbers of men volunteering to go on the terms available.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that present and proposed pit closures are not in our long-term interests? Should not the Government's mandate to the NCB be to pay more attention to our long-term rather than short-term energy requirements and to stop pit closures in areas where there is workable coal?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the pit closures that have taken place are sensible. Our long-term requirement is energy at an economic cost for the benefit of our economy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures in the Scottish context? With respect to the answer to question No. 3, how many of those 2,500 jobs have been created in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman should rest assured that for a long time a large number of Labour Members have regarded Mr. Scargill as the greatest disaster to befall the NUM since its inception.,

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I would have difficulty in disagreeing with the final part of his question. I do not have the breakdown of the Scottish figures, but I shall send them to him this evening. I recognise that there are some considerable problems for Scotland.

Successive Secretaries of State for Energy have closed pits, reduced manpower, and told us that productivity is being increased, so that in the end we would not have to put more thousands of millions of pounds into the coal mines. Could my right hon. Friend at least tell us when he thinks, as another Secretary of State, we should stop having to put thousands of millions of pounds down the coal mines and will get a real return for the taxpayer?

Investment in new machinery in better pits has been on a considerable scale, but, alas, there has been a lack of improvement in productivity. The current productivity figures for this year have been substantial, and I can only hope that that trend will increase. However, I cannot say what industrial or other action might take place to disrupt that progress.

As the Union of Democratic Mineworkers has clearly demonstrated that it is representative of a large group of people in the mining industry, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, if he discusses the future of the coal industry with various bodies, he will include the UDM if it wishes?

The coal board has recognised the UDM, so, in its discussions on matters such as the future of the coal strategy, presumably it will be included. I have always agreed to see the leaders of any trade union that is recognised.

Is it not the case that many pits were overmanned in the first place and that the output now, after some miners have left voluntarily, is not affected too much? Is it not interesting to note that many miners who have been prepared to take voluntary redundancy have been given a good deal by the National Coal Board, which should be supported?

It is certainly true that the problem of closures of uneconomic pits is being treated in a more civilised and generous way than it was ever treated by any Labour Government in our history.

The Secretary of State has not got his figures correct for Wales, in regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said, when he referred to Scargill and his predictions. In fact, the numbers of redundancies were underestimated by him if one considers the way that they have escalated in Wales. Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite an Adjournment debate and a series of questions, St. John's colliery in my constituency is now due for closure—not under the new review procedure that was promised to me by right hon. Gentleman's side-kick on the Front Bench —and that 800 miners are to be made redundant in an area where male unemployment is now 24 per cent. and will escalate to 50 per cent.? What action will the right hon. Gentleman take to deal with the unemployment problems in my constituency?

I can only suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, as many Opposition Members know, the coal hoard has made several offers under the modified procedure, which nobody could argue was other than in keeping with the proposals that have been made. If the unions disagree with the offer that is on the table, that will be extraordinary. I gather that if they agree, there is no reason why the closures, including that of St. John's, should not go ahead under that modified procedure.

The Secretary of State keeps referring to the modified review procedure. Is he aware that it is a year since the principles were agreed with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers? Is it not obvious that the NCB has been deliberately delaying its implementation so that it can get on with closing pits? If the new scheme is agreed next week—we hope it is—will there be a review of all the pits that have been or are proposed to be closed, such as Horden in my constituency and Bates in Northumberland? Will they be subject to the review after the scheme is implemented next week?

With regard to the suggestions that have been made, some months ago there was agreement on the terms of reference on all the detail. The disagreement was on the composition. There was an offer of independent planning inspectors and independent lawyers, which was rejected, not by the coal board but by the other side. The agreement that is now available is an independent machinery, which is obvious to anybody. I hope that, not next week but this week, the unions will accept that offer. If they do, several closures that have been going through can be put through the modified procedures.

The right hon. Gentleman must remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has previously raised the question of the new modified colliery procedure and drawn it to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "sacrosanct". Is he aware that a new situation has arisen? We find, without exception, that the National Union of Mineworkers, the British Association of Colliery Management and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers take exception to the National Coal Board deciding unilaterally what kind of independent review proceedure there should be. Will the right hon. Gentleman intervene and tell the NCB that it is time it got back to the negotiating table and to the days when negotiations meant negotiations and not dictation?

I totally disagree with that interpretation. There have been a number of occasions on which any fair and reasonable person would agree that a totally independent procedure was on offer. I do not believe that there has been any delay on the part of the NCB.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to promote the further development and use of fluidised bed combustion, in particular in regard to the development of combined heat and power systems.

My Department, the CEGB and the NCB are jointly funding a design study of an advanced 600 MW power plant employing pressurised fluidised bed combustion. The concept of linking a fluidised bed boiler to CHP plant is also being demonstrated under my right hon. Friend's Energy Efficiency Office's energy efficiency demonstration scheme.

Will the Minister make it clear that the Government agree that this sort of development would usefully and wisely demonstrate clean and efficient coal use, would provide very necessary industrial orders, and could, under the CHP system, provide considerable help to urban areas, which are currently in dire need? Even, if the NCB's present chairman is not enthusiastic about selling the coal that his industry produces, will the Minister accept that this venture could be extremely useful?

The technology for industrial boilers and furnaces is now fully commercial, with over 50 plants already built or on order. All variations of the technology, which the hon. Gentleman and I have seen, whether shallow, deep or circulating beds, are offered by British manufacturers with full commercial guarantees. It is very much the technology of the future.

Will the Minister stress that, in addition to fluidised bed combustion, there are many other ways of making coal efficient, other than by straightforward burning? Will he include such methods as gasification, which have an equal potential for industrial orders and for the future prosperity of the coal industry?

Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend made his point very well in his excellent speech last Friday.

As the coal-fired power stations will be coming towards the end of their life in the next 80 years, is the Minister proposing to order new coal-fired power stations, using the fluidised bed system?

No. The ordering of the particular systems is a matter for the CEGB.

As the fluidised bed combustion system is one of the methods by which sulphur emissions from power stations can be reduced, will my hon. Friend welcome such a development within CEGB power stations? In the light of the recent Select Committee report on acid rain, recommending that the United Kingdom should play its part in reducing trans-boundary pollution, will he set the CEGB targets for reducing sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from its power stations as part of a concerted Government policy?

I have already said and made it clear that this is a matter for the CEGB. I confirm, as I said to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that this is exciting new technology, and considerable advances are already being made in a very positive way.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the gas and electricity industries regarding energy prices in the next 12 months.

I have frequent meetings with the chairmen. Prices are a matter for the industries.

Are we going to find that the Secretary of State has yet again lost his battle with the Treasury over substantial fuel increases? Is he aware that increasing gas prices cause great hardship to many people, particularly those on low incomes who receive no assistance in paying their fuel bills? When will the Secretary of State recognise that these substantial increases are totally without justification?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that electricity prices have risen by only 6 per cent. over the past three years, whereas under the Labour Government whom he supported they went up by 6 per cent. every four months. If he fights the next election on gas and electricity prices, for the second time he will be defeated by the electorate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficiency improvements in the gas and electricity industries should be passed on to the customer and to industry to maintain competitiveness with cheap energy countries? Will he, therefore, impress on his Cabinet colleagues that if they wish to increase taxation it should be done openly and not by artificially increasing prices?

That is why I am pleased that in real terms not only are gas prices at the same level as in 1970, but that in the last three years both gas and electricity prices have gone down in real terms. I rejoice in that fact.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he and the Government have shown a bad example over the past few years to any potential private owners of British Gas as to how to exploit a monopoly? Will he acknowledge that with the privatisation of British Gas there is real tension, with the Government trying to maximise the price at the expense of consumer protection? Will he, as Secretary of State for Energy, assure the House that he is on the side of the consumer?

Of course. The record of the past three years shows that consumers of gas and electricity have done better than at any time since the war.

While I accept what my right hon. Friend said about the right of industries to agree prices, does he agree that any increase projected by either the gas or the electricity industry as a direct result of the miners' strike would be totally unacceptable to consumers?

There are many extra costs arising from the strike. The fact that certain price increases have not taken place during the period of that strike and since indicate that the Government share my hon. Friend's view.

May I jog the Secretary of State's memory? His predecessor introduced a formula of 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation for three years on the run for gas prices, leading to over 100 per cent. increase I understand that Sir Denis Rooke has said that there will be no need for increases in gas prices above the rate of inflation. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the Government are not proposing, or assuming that there will be, any bigger increases than this in future?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to ask, in the form of a written question, for publication of a list of price rises under a Labour Government as compared with this Government. The answer will show that their record vis à vis inflation or anything else is an appalling and disgusting one, of which the Labour party should be ashamed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to restructure the electricity supply industry and the area boards.

There are no present plans to reform the structure of the electricity supply industry.

I am very much obliged for that succinct answer. Will my hon. Friend consider over the long term, as the coal board supplies some 80 per cent. of its coal to the CEGB, the merger of these two industries under the electricity supply industry so that we can remove a certain number of anomalies? Will he also authorise, in the intermediate term, the CEGB to supply big projects with energy direct in order to reduce their costs?

My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters and raises some extremely interesting points, which I shall certainly consider.

Although he is not completely restructuring the system, will the Minister look at the total dissatisfaction among hon. Members arising from complaints from their constituents about the way in which their bills are handled? Is he aware that the consultative committee has become a bit of a farce? If he cannot totally restructure, will he do something, especially for the elderly, about the way in which area boards handle complaints about bills?

In my experience, the area boards and consultative committees handle complaints extremely effectively, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind I hope that he will draw them to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the working of the Energy Act 1983.

It is too early to evaluate the full effects of the Act, but it is encouraging that the number of private generators selling electricity to boards in Great Britain rose from 59 in 1983–84 to 70 in 1984–85.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the fact that there is increasing evidence from private producers who claim that they are still not obtaining a fair price for their electricity and that the CEGB is not applying the spirit of section 19, which obliges the industry to adopt and support CHP and try to market its waste heat? Is he aware that the Sheffield consortium has been rejected by the CEGB even though the rate of return on its CHP scheme is in excess of the 5 per cent. discount rate required by nationalised industries and would be a higher rate of return than many other investments that the electricity industry is undertaking?

The Act provides a proper framework for fair trading. The figures that I have just announced show that there is considerable interest in the matter and that there is a reverse of the progressive decline that there was in private generation until the passing of the Act.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what has been the increase over the last 10 years in queries put by hon. Members to the Library.

Over the period 1975–84 the percentage increase in the number of Members' inquiries answered in writing by the research division and by the international affairs section of the House of Commons Library was 77 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that many Members of the House are grateful to the Library staff for the high quality of work and help that they give us, but that that is still no substitute for providing us with decent back-up? The two types of help are complementary. May I press the Leader of the House to think again about the need to provide each Member of the House who requires it with sufficient resources to employ one secretary and one research assistant?

The hon. Gentleman was shrewd to make the point about our gratitude to the Library staff, because that will unite the whole Chamber. I am not sure that the same is true of his second point. With the growth in the number of research assistants, one might have thought that there would be less demand upon the Library's research facilities, but in fact the reverse is true.

Following the comments of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), when my right lion. Friend the Leader of the House reviews the opportunity for Members to have at least one research assistant, will he also consider limiting the number of research assistants that Members should have?

My hon. Friend raises two separate issues The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was hoping that the review of the secretarial research allowance would proceed on the basis that the sum should include an amount equivalent to the financing of one full-time research assistant. The second point was made in the recent debate that we had on this matter. Whatever number of research assistants a Member might have, no more than two employees of a Member can have access to the House.

Notwithstanding the excellent help that the Library gives Members, how long will it be before the Leader of the House reviews the number of research assistants that hon. Members can have? Will he give an undertaking that that matter will receive priority over and above investigations into Members' salaries for this financial year?

Members' salaries for this financial year operate under an automatic formula. The subject of hon. Members' research assistants and the degree of access that they have has been remitted to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), and he will be reporting to the House in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest contacts that I have had with the Library have told me about the emergence of an interesting new species—the research assistant's secretary? Is he aware of the conundrum of big fleas, little fleas and lesser fleas? Does he not think that the amount of Ministers' and Library staff time taken up by these research assistants, their secretaries and their secretaries' research assistants, and the amount of paper used, and the photocopying, has got out of control?

I do not want to stray too far into that controversy, because the matter is now before the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. It is undoubtedly true that the term research assistant is used fairly liberally in our discussions. Many of those people could in no sense undertake serious research.

asked the Lord Seal if there are any plans to extend to Members' offices facilities for live sound coverage of the proceedings of the House.

I understand that the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting is undertaking a study of the feasibility and cost of such facilities with a view to making recommendations to the Services Committee in due course, but the introduction of any such scheme would, of course, require the authority of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting has already conducted a survey and that only 398 Members favoured such live sound coverage? In the interests of keeping the House active, will my right hon. Friend disregard that survey in view of the temptation for hon. Members not to turn up in the Chamber at all if everything is broadcast to their offices? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chamber is empty enough already?

My hon. Friend makes the very fair point that in this, as in so many other matters, we must have regard to the impact on attendance in the Chamber. I must point out to him, however, that as the matter is now before the Services Committee it would be inappropriate for me to make any observations or draw any conclusions until I have had the benefit of the Services Committee report.

Such a suggestion, Sir, God forfend.

I am sure that the Services Committee will take note of that.

I regret any disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), but is my right hon. Friend aware that, although some of our parliamentary colleagues may be less than irresistible in their contributions, many of us who spend a fair part of the day at our desks might appreciate the opportunity to tune in from time to time to see how the proceedings are going?

That is an interesting view of the nature of the parliamentary process, but I must put it firmly on record that whatever we do we must do our utmost to maintain the vitality of this Chamber as the very heart of Parliament.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he plans to review the funds granted to Opposition parties in Parliament.

The amounts payable to Opposition parties under the Short money scheme have so far been revised on four occasions since the scheme's inception in 1975. The latest rise was effective from 1 January 1985. 45too Following this pattern, a further review would be likely to take place in 1987 or 1988.

When the Leader of the House considers the matter again, will he bear in mind that the Short formula does not tell the whole story, because of the enormous range of exclusive fringe benefits granted to the Labour party as the official Opposition? Will he take into account the £80,000 in salaries for leaders of that party in both Houses, the £66,000 for civil servants seconded to them and the £30,000 for a car and chauffeur for the Leader of the official Opposition?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, under which a salary was first paid to the Leader of the Opposition, also provided for a number of supporting expenses to come from the public purse. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, quite right. The evolution of the Short money system since then has meant that two systems have been operating in parallel. I agree that it is perfectly valid to consider that at some future date.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the anomaly that whereas the Labour party apparently sees fit to accept public money to keep its democratic institutions working, a large proportion of the trade union movement apparently resists acceptance of such money to keep its democratic institutions working?

I would rather confine myself to what goes on in this Chamber. I believe that the provision in the 1937 Act allowing public funds to be made available to the Opposition party has proved itself. Perhaps in the fullness of time wiser counsels will also prevail in the trade union movement.

I hope that this will not be treated as a party matter— [Interruption.] It will not be too long before the Conservatives find themselves in opposition. We are talking about the workings of a healthy democracy. At present, the Short money is entirely inadequate for an Opposition to function properly. I was most disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the matter will not be reconsided until about 1987. Does he agree that it should be done much sooner?

There are some who would argue that it is not the absence of money which makes for an ineffective Opposition. We should beware of being too liberal in the application of so-called Short money. An agreement has been concluded and it would be appropriate for it to run to 1987 or 1988, as I have suggested. Of course, these are all matters that are considered from time to time, so the hon. Gentleman should not get too excited about it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will study the proposals made by Sir Douglas Wass for the establishment of a Royal Commission to look at questions of civil servants' loyalty, ministerial involvement in appointments and public accountability of Whitehall officials and for the establishment of an independent inspector general to whom civil servants can appeal if they consider that Ministers are attempting to mislead Parliament, a copy of which has been sent to him.

I understand that the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers was written as a contribution to public discussion. I shall be interested to see comments upon it, but the Government have no plans for establishing a Royal Commission on these matters.

Did Ministers notice that, with the full argeement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), speaking on behalf of the national executive committee of the Labour party at the Bournemouth conference, committed the party to the propositions encapsulated in the question? How can anybody resist my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover when he is shoulder to shoulder with a former permanent secretary to the Treasury?

The hon. Gentleman will be astonished to discover that I find it quite easy to resist his proposal, and that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Procedures for the Civil Service are perfectly straightforward and well provided for. If civil servants have complaints, or if matters of conscience arise, there is a system of appeal that goes straight up to their permanent secretary if they wish. Such matters can ultimately be referred to the head of the Civil Service. The existing procedures are perfectly adequate.

As the Government have been commendably sefl-restrained in not establishing new Royal Commissions. and as it seems clear that, when he was in a senior position in the Civil Service, Sir Douglas Wass did not favour this proposal, will my hon. Friend follow his wise policy. study it, and reject it?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention of forming a Royal Commission on this subject.

What is wrong with civil servants having a chance to appeal? Is the Minister aware that, in the past few months, there have been at least two instances of top civil servants taking non-executive directorships in private companies? They include civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry. If it is right for civil servants, through the Government, to take on jobs in the private sector while holding down a top job in the Civil Service, surely to God it must be right for one on the other side of the fence to have a chance to appeal when he is being hammered by people such as Sir Robert Armstrong.

What is so extraordinary about all this is the assumption that there is no proper procedure for appeal if civil servants think that something has gone wrong. There is a perfectly legitimate procedure which was laid down clearly in a note by the head of the Home Civil Service, which he published at the end of February. It sets out quite plainly the procedure that any civil servant can follow if he has a problem that he wants to pursue.

Does not my hon. Friend think this question rather strange, coming from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was the very hon. Member who used his voice for Clive Ponting? Was it not he who tabled questions planted by Clive Ponting and which were to be answered by Clive Ponting, who then denied that he was the author? Is it possible that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is a hypocrite, disloyal, or has taken leave of his senses? [Interruption.]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the word hypocrite.

indicated dissent.

I say to the hon. Member, who knows this perfectly well as he has been here long enough to know it, that that is not a parliamentary expression. I ask him please to withdraw that word.

indicated dissent.

I give the hon. Member one more chance. I would be very reluctant to take the matter any further. He knows very well that that was not a parliamentary expression and I ask him now to withdraw it.

Out of respect to the Chair, I withdraw the remark.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his policy towards the further disperal of Civil Service posts to the regions; and if he will make a statement.

There are at present no plans to extend the Government's dispersal programme beyond that announced on 26 July 1979.

The Government frequently shed crocodile tears about the high unemployment in the north. Why does the Minister not transfer some Civil Service posts to that region? Is the Minister aware that not a single Civil Service post has been transferred to the north since this Government came to power? As the decision is entirely that of the Government, would it not be a demonstration of concern for the north if they were to transfer some jobs there?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views about this and has put down repeated questions on this important issue over the past few years. Our dispersal programme, which was announced in 1979, stands and has not yet been completed. The House will be aware that 4,500 civil servants have been dispersed since 1979 and another 1,400 have still to be dispersed. The northern region still has a higher proportion of civil servants than the national average.

Atkins: Is not of the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to extend some of the activities of his Department an example that we ought to follow?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have considerable sympathy with what he said, because it comes within the existing policies of relocation of the Civil Service. Any Secretary of State considering the modernisation of his Department or offices can consider relocation in other areas. It is obviously up to the Secretary of State.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision when they came into office not to disperse the Property Services Agency to Middlesbrough was a devastating blow to Middlesbrough and to the whole of the Teesside area? In view of that devastating blow and the enormous vacant site in the centre of Middlesbrough which was cleared for that Government Department, and in view of the successful operation of defence establishments such as the Royal Navy spare parts depot in my own constituency at Eaglescliffe, will the Minister make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, so as to get any Departments being dispersed into areas like mine?

I cannot contemplate a change in our dispersal policy. I remind the House that the previous question referred to the relocation policy which allows Departments, when they are modernising, to consider moving to other regions. That is an area that can be further explored.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to encourage recruitment to the Civil Service.

Extensive efforts are made by the Civil Service Commission and Departments to encourage recruitment, through visits and other means of publicising employment opportunities in the Civil Service.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the occasional publicity given to certain civil servants could mask the fact that on the whole this House and successive Governments are extremely well served? In their dealings with the Civil Service, have not this Government achieved something that successive Governments have been exhorting industry to do, which is to replace quality with quantity—sorry, quantity with quality?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his correction. I must agree with him that over the past six years the Civil Service has been through some necessary and dramatic changes, including a reduction of 133,000 civil servants, and great improvements in efficiency. We can now say with considerable pride that we have a service that is streamlined, modern, efficient and professional.

Does the Minister agree that a satisfactory outcome to the long-term pay negotiations that have just commenced between the Government and the Civil Service unions would greatly aid proper recruitment to the Civil Service? Will he make a statement on behalf of the Government and agree that the Civil Service unions should have access to arbitration and to pay research data, and that, in those negotiations, special account should be taken of the problems of the low-paid within the Civil Service as a whole?

I should stress that pay is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, facilities such as special allowances and special additions are available within the service to deal with recruitment and retention in areas where there are problems, such as shortages of specialist skills. On the broad question of longer-term pay, the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 October provide the prospect of a stable system of future pay negotiations which will be fair to employees, Government and taxpayers alike. Discussions are now proceeding on that matter.