asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on visits by Ministers in his Department to pits in the Scottish coalfield.

I was extremely impressed during my recent visit to the Scottish coalfield to hear of the measures being taken to reduce costs and improve productivity.

Does the Minister accept that to a large extent those measures are related to providing good industrial relations? Will he note that while some improvements have been made by reinstating some of the miners sacked during the strike, more that 130 men face this Christmas having been out of work for two years? Is he aware that there is increasing suspicion, indeed evidence, that some of those out of work are unemployed because of their trade union associations? Will the Minister take steps to approach the coal board again in Scotland to ensure that those men who have been unjustifiably treated receive fair treatment?

The reinstatement of sacked Scottish miners is a matter for the Scottish area. Comparisons vary between different cases, and are neither useful nor valid. I understand that most of the dismissed miners in the Scottish area have been reinterviewed for reinstatement, and that more than 70 have been offered employment. Decisions following such reviews must be for area management, and those who have not been reinstated may take their case to an industrial tribunal.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that investment in the Scottish fields has increased from £61 million during the five years before 1979 to £160 million in the five years since then? Does that not confirm that the Government may claim credit for the growth of the coal industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a pleasure to respond to such a positive question. Investment in the Scottish coalfield has increased over the period my hon. Friend mentioned by 43 per cent. in real terms.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public anxiety that so many victimised Scottish miners will face another new year out of work? When the Minister visited Monktonhall—I think he was beneath my constituency briefly—was his attention drawn to the fact that Monktonhall is the gateway to the Musselburgh bay coalfield, which is as big as any new coalfield which may be available in England or elsewhere? When will the Government make it possible to develop that new coalfield?

Individual investment decisions are for local management. I wish that more Labour Members would pay tribute to what has been a remarkable turn round in the Scottish coalfield since the end of the sad political strike led by Mr. Scargill, which resulted in the number of producing faces in Scotland decreasing from 31 to 19. Last week output had returned to its pre-strike level of 95,000 tonnes a week. That is a creditable achievement.

Is the Minister aware that no Labour Member will be reluctant to pay tribute to the activities of miners, whether in the Scottish or any other coalfield? Does he realise that he seems to move the goalposts every time he is asked a question about victimised miners? To start with it was said that none had to be reinstated. Is he aware that it is time for a public inquiry into the management and administration of the NCB? Many victimised miners have not been reinstated because of victimisation or another reason? Is the Minister further aware that when he went beneath Monktonhall, he issued a press release and said how cynical Labour Members were about the future of Monktonhall? I hope that he was properly briefed, because if the peacock seam had never been developed, Monktonhall would have been in jeopardy.

The hon. Member will be aware that the new face on which so much hope is being placed is to be started at the beginning of January and is in the Stairhead seam. Much is hoped of that development. No Conservative Member has said that no dismissed miner should get his job back. That is a matter on which individual management should decide. However, we should pay more attention to the real victimised miners. Fortunately, there are few now left, but there are still outrageous examples of intimidation of those men who, by their courage and determination, so impressed the country at the time.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he has taken as a result of the Under-Secretary of State's visit on Tuesday 26 November to Polkemmet Bing, West Lothian.

Following my visit to Polkemmet Bing, I was assured by the NCB Scottish area officials and the environmental health officers from West Lothian district council, who attended with me, that everything possible was being done to overcome the serious situation.

I thank the Minister publicly, as I have privately, for making the detour there. Will he give this copper piping that I am holding, which I was given yesterday by a constituent, Mr. Alec Gibson, to his analysts, because if the sulphur emissions do that to copper, what do they do to the guts and intestines of my constituents? Will he provide resources for continuous 24-hour work to rectify this desperate problem? I saw the Bing yet again yesterday, and it is a serious health hazard.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the thanks that he has given so publicly. I checked with the local district council officials who attended with me whether the fumes were being carefully monitored so as to avoid any noxious fumes causing a deleterious impact on the local environment and people. I was assured that monitoring is taking place and is being carefully checked. As to 24-hour working, I understand that work cannot go any faster because of the safety considerations for the men who are trying to alleviate the problem. Naturally, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's points with the coal board's chief scientist for Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of United Kingdom electricity generation comes from (a) nuclear, (b) oil, (c) coal and (d) hydro sources; and if he will make a statement.

For 1983 the proportions were 17·6 per cent. for nuclear, 7·3 per cent. for oil, 72·9 per cent. for coal and 2·2 per cent. for hydro. The proportions in 1984, which were distorted by the strike in the coal industry, were 18·6 per cent. for nuclear, 32·4 per cent. for oil, 46·5 per cent. for coal and 2·5 per cent. for hydro.

In view of the need to get a better balance in electricity generation, and of the need to increase its nuclear proportion, and in the light of the disturbing comments in the newspapers this morning, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the nuclear industry has a proven, successful and safe track record?

I cannot comment on the reports in the newspapers, but I am delighted to confirm that the safety record of the nuclear industry is, as my hon. Friend says, excellent.

Is the Minister aware of the disappointment and anger in Scotland at the Government's half-hearted support for alternative sources of energy such as peat and wind, wave and hydro power, most of which have no adverse effects on the environment? Are the Government prepared to do something to investigate such alternative sources?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is an important role for alternative sources of energy, which is why substantial amounts of money have been committed by the Government to research into these matters, which the advisory committee on research and development under the chairmanship of Sir Sam Edwards said were properly directed in the circumstances, and of the right amount.

As many countries are pressing ahead strongly with nuclear energy, and as our neighbours across the Channel are already producing about 60 per cent. of their electricity from nuclear sources, does my hon. Friend agree that our proportion of electricity produced from nuclear energy, at about 17 or 18 per cent., is very disappointing? What measures has my hon. Friend in hand to increase the percentages?

The level of nuclear generation is as my hon. Friend stated it. When the first and second generations of AGRs are fully operational, the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear stations should be about 25 per cent. I welcome that development. After that, the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry is important, and upon that I cannot predict or comment.

The Minister cannot shelter behind his earlier statement that he cannot comment upon newspaper reports. Surely it is in the interests of all that nuclear power should not be developed further until we can be assured that the nuclear industry can dispose safely of its waste. The Select Committee on the Environment, whose leaked report is referred to in The Times today, has made this point. It is completely irresponsible of the Government to go ahead with any such development until they can give that assurance to the public.

I cannot comment in advance upon a Select Committee report which I understand is expected in the new year. The decision to continue reprocessing was taken by Parliament in 1978 when the hon. Lady's party was in government. Having regard to the national interest and the total fuel cycle, no insuperable environmental problems have subsequently arisen which might lead to a reconsideration of this decision.

I recognise the potential benefits of cheaper coal through opencast mining, but will my hon. Friend say something about his Department's environmental policy on opencast mining, particularly in the context of my constituency where three separate operations are being applied for, which potentially could cause very severe damage to the environment?

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a very close interest in this subject as it affects his constituency. Environmental problems are primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment, but I know that the National Coal Board has them very much in mind.

Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little too optimistic about thermo-nuclear power generation? America, for example, will not commission any more nuclear power stations this century. As we always seem to fall in line with America on other matters, it is possible that we shall fall into line there? As for the hon. Gentleman's answer about alternative sources of energy, is he not being too optimistic about the spending on alternative sources of energy? It is about £14 million. We learnt on Friday from Hansard that we are spending, through Rubican and Young, £10·5 million on energy conservation advertising.

The Government attach great importance to energy conservation, as we do to alternative sources of energy. I said earlier that the advisory committee on research and development had said that the division of research funds for investigating alternative energy sources was appropriate. I am not responsible for what happens in the United States of America, but I have every confidence that the nuclear power programme will be as successful under this Government as it was under the hon. Gentleman's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the reaction to the detailed proposals for the privatisation of British Gas and the proposed regulation of the corporation in future.

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

I continue to receive representations from various organisations and individuals regarding our proposals for the privatisation of British Gas.

In a sense, is not the word "privatisation" wrong? Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this corporation is truly publicly owned by members of the public owning shares in it, they will have a greater sense of ownership than they do with a remote state corporation that is run by faceless bureaucrats? They will be able to identify with the corporation, which has provided a better and better service in recent years and does not need to be oppressed by an excessive regulatory system.

I very much look forward to the employees, managers and customers of British Gas having a direct participation in this industry.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that many people are concerned about the future of gas showrooms after privatisation, particularly about the future of showrooms such as Padiham in my constituency? They provide an essential service by selling goods and providing a point at which to pay bills and report faults. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these showrooms are kept open after privatisation?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the existing management of British Gas has pursued a positive policy towards gas showrooms. The present management of British Gas will carry out the management of this industry after privatisation.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that since the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading debate a number of people who are very much concerned with the electricity industry are worried about the very considerable freedom that the gas industry will obtain after the Bill becomes law? They feel that it will work adversely against some of the controls which will still apply to the electricity industry. Has my right hon. Friend received such representations, and if so will he bear the matter in mind?

We shall certainly bear the matter in mind, but my hon. Friend has illustrated the fact that in certain markets where there has been fierce competition between gas, electricity and oil, that competition will continue, as it should in the interests of commerce and industry.

In view of the rumours that are rife in the coalfields about the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has no plans whatever of privatising any parts of that industry—

Order. The question is about gas.

In view of the widespread observations and criticism of the draft British Gas licence that the Secretary of State issued last week, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is a tentative first draft, that he has not entered into any firm understanding or agreements with British. Gas, and consequently that the licence can be the subject of substantial change?

The joy of a parliamentary democracy and of entering a Committee stage is that everything is debatable. All I can say is that it is a very good draft, given that I drafted it myself.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is genuine concern about the Government's proposals for dealing with a monopoly, promoting competition and ensuring protection for the consumer? Will he make it clear that the Standing Committee, which meets tomorrow, will discuss these issues with a genuinely open mind and will be prepared to accept serious, constructive and even major suggestions to amend the Bill in order to achieve the kind of safeguard which at present it appears to lack?

I very much hope that the Standing Committee will be very open minded to all the arguments that are put. I am sure the Opposition are hoping that the same will happen to their arguments. As for competition, I doubt whether anyone can say that this Bill is not far better than anything that has existed previously.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to change the pattern of working hours or to make any changes in legislation concerning health, safety and working conditions in the coal industry.

No, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State check with the NCB on the current state of play of the board's preparations to press for changes in the working structure of the industry, such as a 10-hour production shift? Does he accept that in the coalfield areas, such as my own, where unemployment is now rising to 30 per cent., the idea of a 10-hour shift will not receive an ecstatic welcome?

As I clearly said in my reply, I have received no proposals for change, and if I do I shall consider them carefully. If there were to be such proposals, I would expect the unions concerned fully to put their representations and viewpoints, which I would consider carefully.

The right hon. Gentleman has already changed the pattern of working hours for my constituents, particularly at the Kinsley drift mine, which is threatened with closure even though it was opened only in 1979. If that pit is closed, that will change working hours. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?

We have agreed to modified procedures to consider any closures, which will be considered in the normal way.

Although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on proposed safety legislation or regulations, does he accept that some hon. Members have associations with the unions and that they have heard disturbing rumours? We take the view that safety in the mining industry is something about which we cannot be complacent and that constant vigilance is required. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep his eye firmly fixed on any proposal to amend regulations or legislation that could result in hazards for miners working underground.

I fully share the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the fact that in an industry such as mining the safety requirement provisions are vital, and I shall look at this in that light.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many industrial and commercial schemes under the Government's energy efficiency programme are now approved or under way.

The Energy Efficiency Office runs the energy efficiency demonstration scheme, the monitoring and targeting programme and the energy efficency survey scheme, and there are many other initiatives aimed at helping industry and commerce. I am delighted to say that all these schemes have reached record levels during the past year and the Government aim to build on this success during Energy Efficiency Year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that clearly encouraging reply, but does he agree that there is a continuing need for private investment and practical involvement in Energy Efficiency Year if the aims of the campaign are to be achieved?

Yes, I very much share that view. I know of no other area of the British economy where it is possible for us to improve our economic performance by £7 billion a year. We are way behind in the international league, and I hope that as a result of next year's activities, the preparations for which have been encouraging, we shall substantially improve our position.

As one of the criteria for assessing the benefits of the energy efficiency scheme is the price of fuels, what view does the right hon. Gentleman take of the oil price over the next two to three months?

I should be foolish if I took any view, but I shall always be interested in the speculation and views of the hon. Gentleman.

One of the most important ways of improving energy efficiency is to improve insulation standards. Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment any proposals to put to the House about improving building regulations to cover insulation?

Building regulations can be examined, but existing insulation provisions ensure that it is very much to the benefit of any family to install basic draught proofing and insulation. I am delighted to say that we are doing much more to encourage a widespread voluntary movement to help those on lower incomes.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has been informed of the likely level of coal imports until the end of 1985 by the chairman of the National Coal Board.

The chairman of the NCB is not responsible for coal imports. The increase in imports which has taken place this year has been influenced by contracts placed during the strike and by loss of confidence in the security of indigenous supplies. I hope that by improved performance we can return to the 1983 position, when Britain was a net exporter.

We would expect the Secretary of State to be worried about coal imports, even this year, because of their effect on the prospects of the mining industry. Baron Marshall has made veiled threats today about coal imports in 1986, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there still persists, in circles of which we are both aware, the allegation that the NCB refused an order for £3 million of exports to Denmark? Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us about that allegation?

I have no details of anybody refusing an order at any sensible price. I am sure that the NCB would be eager to take advantage of such an opportunity, and the present chairman of the board has shown more interest than perhaps any of his predecessors in the possibilities for exports.

Now that the board needs to waste fewer of its resources on subsidising hopelessly high-cost coal production and can instead reallocate those resources to opening new, low-cost coalfields, will it not be a question of re-establishing our export orders, rather than having to import? British coal will be competitive again.

There is no doubt that in the next few years, with the high investment and improved productivity that are taking place, Britain can have the most efficient and successful coal industry in western Europe by a long way. That will open a range of new opportunities, including export opportunities.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman far too complacent about the present state of the coal industry? Bearing in mind the high level of imports and the new colliery review procedure, which has not got under way and is not understood by the Department of Energy, the NCB or the NUM, it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House when the new colliery review procedure, in so far as he knows anything about it, will begin its proceedings.

I hope that that will be done very soon. The finer points of detail were settled last week. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my original reply, namely that in 1983 Britain was a net exporter of coal. The effects of the strike and the insecurity and loss of supplies created the need for increased imports of coal. I hope that the performance of the industry will ensure that that need is eliminated.

How can it make sense to read reports during the past few days of ships loaded with 110,000 tonnes of coal coming into the north-east at a time when Britain's non-oil trade deficit is well over £4,000 million?

I repeat that the strike, which was so enthusiastically supported by the hon. Gentleman, was the main reason for the large increase in imports.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements will be made for the pension fund of British Gas when it is privatised.

I understand from the corporation that there will be no change in the management of the funds or the benefits they provide.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for trade union leaders to stop indulging in scandalous scaremongering about this subject? Does he believe that that is in direct proportion to their fear that the privatisation of gas will be a roaring success?

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Such talk about the pension fund is complete scaremongering. Those who indulge in it are trying to detract from the real benefits to the consumer, the employees and the management of that industry.

If, as the Minister suggests, there will be real benefits after privatisation, can he tell the House whether gas will become cheaper?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend last week's debate. With the greater spur for efficiency that a privatised industry will undoubtedly create, there are no grounds for thinking that the price of gas will be higher than it would otherwise be.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

I am pleased to say that the Council of Ministers has, in recent months, agreed substantial new Community programmes on research and development and on the demonstration of new technologies in non-nuclear energy. A considerable proportion of the funds allocated to both programmes will be devoted to renewable energy sources, and my Department intends to encourage strong British participation.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the balance between Community and national research into alternative sources of energy is right? Should a larger proportion of it be undertaken on a Community basis?

The proportion is about right. Each member state has specific needs for which nationality funded research, development and demonstration is appropriate. Other matters of concern to the entire Community are suitable for Community action.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish a draft licence under which British Gas will operate after privatisation.

As my hon. Friend will now be aware, the draft licence was made available to the House on Monday 9 December.

I thank my right hon. Friend for making available the draft licence before the Second Reading debate last week. Has he had an opportunity to consider whether a specific duty in the Bill on the regulator to promote competition would help to strengthen the licence that he has produced?

My hon. Friend must recognise that, unlike other industries that supply services or materials in the domestic market, there is no scope for providing two separate pipelines to two houses in the same street. It was in recognition of that fact that we drafted the Bill and licence in the way that we did. However, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter in Committee.

Does the Minister accept that the draft licence hardly enlightens the House, since it is almost incomprehensible? Does he also accept that although those who will serve on the Committee might be pleased that the licence was published last week, they will still wish to know how much the Government expect to make from the sale of the British Gas Corporation.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand those simple mathematics. I look forward to debating the matter with him in the weeks ahead.

May we take it from the reply that the Secretary of State gave a few moments ago to our questions that this draft licence is a firm deal between the Secretary of State and Sir Denis Rooke and is not subject to any substantial change?

It is a draft licence, which was put before the house to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate it. The House will have full opportunities to consider this important matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the funds available to National Coal Board (Enterprise) Limited.

The Government will continue to monitor closely the funds available to NCB (Enterprise). By the end of November £4·4 million had been committed in support of 222 projects, and £600,000 had been committed to help more than 40 enterprise agencies to start up or to expand.

Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of money from NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. being used to study why industry does or does not go to former coal mining areas? If infrastructure problems were found, for example, would the right hon. Gentleman approve of road links with motorways being developed by NCB (Enterprise) money so that industries could see former mining villages as more attractive places in which to invest?

I understand that point. Obviously, expenditure on a road link would come from the designated programme of local authority and Government expenditure. There is nothing to stop NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. putting the importance of that development to those authorities. I know from my experience in the 1970s of the enormous benefit that was brought to the north-east by improvements in road communications.

Why does the Secretary of State keep bragging at the Dispatch Box about the amount of money available for NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. with respect to pit closures? Is he aware that in my area, where there have been a number of pit closures, the people think that the right hon. Gentleman put the money in the safe, locked it up and purposely lost the key?

I am sorry that the Opposition are not delighted that, unlike what happened during the closures made by the Labour Government, a great deal of activity is now taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements there have been in the last year in productivity in the coal industry.

Overall deep-mined revenue output reached an all-time record high of over 3 tonnes per man shift in the week ending 30 November. This was the fourth successive week in which the industry's overall productivity record had been broken.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all the Front-Bench team on this astonishing record-breaking , activity in the coal industry. Is it not due substantially to the new incentive schemes and to much improved industrial relations in the industry, which gives the lie to everything that Arthur Scargill has been saying about the coal industry since he became president of the NUM?

Gratitude is certainly due to the men and management who have produced the coal. It is remarkable that in the last five years of the Labour Government the highest output figure was 2·28 tonnes per man shift. It is now 3 tonnes per man shift.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss industrial relations in the industry.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this increased production will not continue unless industrial relations are improved? Whatever the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may have said, I do not recollect the industrial relations record being so low since nationalisation of the mining industry. Recently, the NCB chairman informed me that the position of sacked men differs from area to area, whether or not they have been made redundant. Men may have committed similar offences, but those who work in one area will get their jobs back, while those who work in another will not. Is that justice?

I have been underground seven times in the past few months and been impressed by the way in which the men have come together after the strike. Continual talk of perpetuating divisions only damages a great industry that is shrugging off a disastrous political strike.

Did the hon. Gentleman speak to the NCB chairman about the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme? I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 August. The reply, on 11 September, said that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing urgently with the matter. Many miners in my constituency are worried about their future payments being jeopardised because of problems relating to national insurance contributions during the strike. When will the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State make a statement?

The Government are carefully and urgently considering whether changes to the present legislation governing the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme would be appropriate given the failure of some mineworkers to make sufficient national insurance contributions during the strike to qualify for unemployment benefit during the benefit year 1986.

The Minister has talked about the industry returning to normality in relation to consultation and conciliation. None of us would disagree about that. Does he think that it is helpful to return to consultation and conciliation when the chairman of the National Coal Board was responsible for holding up the new modified coal procedure closure agreement, as the NCB demanded that the unions should pay the full cost of any hearing relating to that procedure? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a departure from the history of the industry and that it will not help to restore good industrial relations if the chairman of the NCB continues to conduct his business in that aggressive way?

The hon. Gentleman should not put such a one-sided view. It is true that at a meeting on 10 December between the National Coal Board and the unions the costs of the final stage of the review procedure were allocated. The board will meet the cost of the secretariat and administrative services and pay half the cost of the fees payable to the members of the new body. That is a good result. I understand that it has been agreed that the new body will consider the proposed closure of Horden at its first inquiry in January, probably in the second week, with Bates' being considered in the next week.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy that industrial energy prices reflect variations in mean temperature.

No, Sir. Prices are a matter for the industries concerned.

Has not industrial space heating grown into a major cost for industry? In so far as there is a clear variation in mean temperature levels between, for example, the north of England and Scotland and the south, is there not a justification for the Government to introduce an energy premium to help manufacturers in the north of England and Scotland who have to pay higher energy prices and who are now at a competitive disadvantage?

As I said, tariff structures and prices are a matter for the industries concerned. Tariffs for gas and electricity are structured to reflect the cost of supply, including, where appropriate, the main variations in costs caused by patterns of demand. It is unlikely that relating prices to temperatures would result in more accurate representation of costs, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairmen of the Electricity Council and of the British Gas Corporation.

Does the Minister acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, although industrial costs are not directly related to mean temperature, there is a component, and that in Scotland and the north of England there is real concern that there is not a fair opportunity even to compete on energy prices, given that the Scottish electricity boards do not negotiate industrial prices with their customers because the base price is less than that of the electricity boards in England and Wales? Does the Minister accept that all electricity boards should negotiate fair prices with their industrial customers, and that it should not be confined to the industries operating in England and Wales?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairmen of the utilities concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of total recoverable reserves of oil in the United Kingdom land and waters; how much of this was discovered in the last five years: and how much oil has been recovered in the same period.

The latest estimate of total recoverable reserves of oil on the United Kingdom continental shelf is 2,000 million tonnes, of which 80 million tonnes were discovered in the past five years. Five hundred and fourteen million tonnes of oil were recovered over the same period.

Is my right hon. Friend disappointed that only 80 million tonnes have been discovered in the past five years? In view of that, do the Government accept that our reserves will now fast run out, or is it still hoped that there are plenty of other reserves waiting to be discovered under our land or in our waters?

Our reserves will not fast run out because the reserve figure is based on reserves that are proven and probable. It excludes possible reserves, of which there are large quantities, and also much greater reserves that are still to be found. It is significant that in the past year, as in the first year of exploration for oil and gas, we are still making one discovery for every five wells drilled.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement regarding the position of mineworkers who did not pay national insurance contributions during the last mining dispute.

As I told the House on 25 November, I will make a statement as soon as conclusions have been reached on the details of any new scheme to cover the financial year 1986–87. In the meantime, I emphasise that the board is maintaining its policy of not making compulsorily redundant any man who wishes to stay in the industry.

It is disgraceful that the Government have not yet made a statement about the plight of miners who did not pay national insurance contributions during the dispute. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the safety net under which those miners have been working will end on 6 January, before the House returns after Christmas, and that if they continue working and suffer serious injury or illness they will not receive welfare benefit?

I recognise the importance of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is a complicated and difficult situation, but I hope that a statement will be made shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the current position regarding the proposed Margam deep mine project in south Wales.

At my right hon. Friend's meetings with the chairman of the NCB, all aspects of the coal industry are discussed, including proposals for new mines. My right hon. Friend has not yet received proposals for approval of the Margam project.

Is the Minister aware that 11,000 jobs have been lost in the coal industry in south Wales since 1979 and that only 700 alternative jobs have been offered by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does he agree that there has been a great deal of misinformation about the Margam project? During the strike the NCB said that investment would go ahead, but that statement was totally untrue. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how that deception occurred?

No such deception has occurred. Planning permission has been granted by West Glamorgan county council for the Margam mine. However, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, decisions on the development of new mines and the extension of existing mines are matters for the National Coal Board. I have not yet received proposals for approval of the project at Margam or for the development at Carway Fawr, and I understand that it has not yet been decided whether it will be financially viable to proceed with them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has had from hon. Members on research and secretarial allowances.

I have answered a number of parliamentary questions and have discussed the matter with an all-party delegation.

Does the Leader of the House agree that if there were improved secretarial and research allowances, some of his hon. Friends might not need to supplement their incomes by becoming consultants to companies such as those involved in the Channel tunnel development?

I see no relationship between the two points. The hon. Lady often makes a reasonable point, but she is spoiling that this afternoon.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received about the extent of the requirement for hon. Members to disclose their interests; and if he will make a statement.

I have answered a number of parliamentary questions on this subject. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is to be a debate tomorrow on the recent report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what was shown on the television programme "Newsnight" last week is bound to strengthen the view that the Register of Members' Interests should contain at least some details of the outside financial sources of hon. Members? Should not the register be strengthened by making it an obligation for all hon. Members to fill in the details? I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that there is also the question whether hon. Members who have financial links should be able to vote?

The hon. Gentleman raises many points that are either in the substantive motion or in the amendments to it for tomorrow's debate. I do not think that I should anticipate what might be said tomorrow.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not unreasonable for hon. Members to be sponsored by trade unions? Has he any idea how many hon. Members are sponsored by trade unions? If it were necessary to oblige Members not to vote because they were sponsored by a business interest, would that not also apply to those sponsored by trade unions?

Again, my hon. Friend is enticing me to anticipate what I might say tomorrow evening. Wherever an interest exists, I hope that it will be registered.

May we have an absolute assurance that there will be a free vote tomorrow night?

That is not my responsibility, but I expect that the House will behave as it always does on such occasions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will report on the progress in providing computer facilities for hon. Members in the House.

Since 1983 hon. Members have been able to claim the costs of computers and word processors against the office, secretarial and research allowance. I understand that about a hundred Members have already taken advantage of that facility in order to purchase such equipment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is not a sufficiently satisfactory approach to the matter? Should not all hon. Members who wish to have computers be issued with computers linked to a central resource mechanism, such as the Library? Is not the Government's attitude to modern technology so backward and sloppy that if the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends were running a secondhand shop it would go bust in a fortnight?

The principle of an office allowance being available for the purchase of such equipment is important. It is reviewed every four years. It would be unwise to suppose that just because some hon. Members find that facility of use, all hon. Members must or should.

If computers are brought in, will the Leader of the House guarantee that they will not be linked to the telephones, because we have enough trouble as it is?

I cannot give a categorical answer this afternoon, but I shall view the matter with the same sympathy as I extend to most of the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman makes.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what assessment he makes of current morale in the scientific Civic Service.

The scientific Civil Service is undergoing profound changes which we believe are essential, and some anxieties have arisen from this, but I should like to commend the positive way in which scientists—and all civil servants—have responded to change and to acknowledge the valuable and increasingly efficient service that they provide.

Is the Minister aware that members of the Standing Committee on the Agriculture Bill—his own colleagues as much as mine—have had a great deal of contact with staff at agricultural research stations and with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and others who represent them? Is he further aware that the picture that we have, if not one of chaos, is one of great and demoralising uncertainty? Are those people to be left to the MAFF accountants, or has the Minister some role in protecting people who have been good and imaginative servants of this country?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about the standard of service provided by those scientists. This is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but rationalisation is currently taking place in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which I believe affects the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything possible is being done at this stage to find alternative jobs for all the people working at Lasswade.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the low morale among the distinguished scientists of the British Geological Survey at Keyworth, many of whom are my constituents? Will he consider whether they should remain under the control of the Natural Environment Research Council, as they believe that in that body science is decreasing but administration is increasing?

I believe that the Civil Service has been losing some good scientists. For that reason, we have introduced a number of changes, including an additional pay allowance for some civil servants of that type so as to give priority to recruitment and retention.

I appreciate the Minister's respect for the civil servants in his charge. Will he ensure that they receive the same respect from other members of the Government, notably the Prime Minister, who does not have a very high regard for civil servants? Does he agree that he has a great responsibility to ensure that the demoralisation of the Civil Service that has occurred in the past few years is ended with respect to pay as well as to other matters?

The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the extent of the change in the Civil Service that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led and with which all Ministers have co-operated—indeed, advocated—fully. The change has led to vastly improved efficiency through the financial management initiative and various other improvements and efficiency schemes, the results of which are acknowledged by all of my colleagues.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will indicate the change in work load for civil servants between June 1983 and June 1985 and the corresponding increase in productivity between the same two dates.

The annual reports by the Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Civil Service manpower reductions, copies of which are in the Library, provide some indication of the effects on Civil Service manpower levels of changes in work load. These show a saving of nearly 20,000 posts between 1 April 1983 and 1 April 1985 from improved efficiency and more streamlined working.

I welcome the increased productivity of Civil Servants. Is it due in part to performance appraisal? Do civil servants in the Department of Education and Science participate in such performance appraisals? Is that not an example to teachers who reject appraisal?

I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the appraisal of teachers, but in the Civil Service we are putting ever more emphasis on performance assessment and on individuals' achievement in the job. The result is much more effective management, and it provides a good example.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the work load of civil servants in agricultural research and development, does the Minister agree that there has been a 41 per cent. cut in funding of the service in Scotland at the very time when there is an unprecedented need for research into alternative techniques, and that the result is impossible strain on people working in the Department?

The details of that matter are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there is careful monitoring of the work load on civil servants in all Departments. When a special case is made out—as, for example, with Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue—adjustments can be made.

Is the Minister aware that the burden on DHSS and Department of Employment staff, especially in the coalfields, leads one to the view that the Government might be asking too much from conscientious officials?

I have no doubt about the remarkable job being done by a pared down Civil Service under considerable pressures because of the efficiency changes. There is constant monitoring of the efforts made by civil servants and their work load, and adjustments can be made.

Can the Minister explain this bizarre contradiction? He mentioned a reduction of 20,000 in Civil Service manpower. It cost £1·2 million to run 10 Downing street when the Labour Prime Minister left, but it costs £3·8 million in 1984–85? Does he agree that there are more civil servants in 10 Downing street now—some with beards and some probably economists—in direct contradiction of everything for which the Prime Minister stands for everybody else? There is no rate capping at 10 Downing street.

There are civil servants at 10 Downing street, just as there are everywhere else, and they are of the highest calibre. We have rightly reduced Civil Service manpower by 20 per cent. in the past six years. We have asked the Civil Service to become more efficient and more streamlined. It has become more professional.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if DHSS staff are under pressure—as they are—we need a simpler system? We look forward to hearing a statement on a simpler system later today.

That is why we emphasised the need for more efficient systems and a more streamlined service. That is what we are working towards.

The Minister's reply to that last question will not do. Is he aware that the Chief Auditor's report shows that one in three supplementary benefit claims is mistakenly administered because of enormous pressures on DHSS staff? Is he further aware that the White Paper, which is shortly to be announced, will put enormous pressure on DHSS staff? It will not reduce their work load it will increase it, partly because of administration of what was called the social fund.

All those questions should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We continually monitor the work load of the Civil Service and take that into account when examining the size of each Department.