asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss representations on behalf of miners who are still dismissed as a result of incidents during the 1984–85 industrial dispute; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish group of Labour Members is incensed by the cursory and dismissive letter from the chairman of the board on this issue? Does he recognise that 130 miners and their families in Scotland are still suffering from the dispute, and that they have the support of a broad range of opinion, including local authority representatives, the police and the churches? Will he ask the board, particularly in Scotland, to adopt a more compassionate approach?

Of those dismissed during the strike, 75 have been reinstated and a number of others are appearing before industrial tribunals, which are making various decisions. This is a matter for the management, who must decide on each case.

How many of those miners sacked at the conclusion of the strike still wish to be reinstated? The figure must run into hundreds. They lost 12 months wages during the strike and nearly another 12 months while on the dole. Is not victimisation being taken too far? What is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do to try to help these men?

I watched what happened during the dispute and I have never agreed that all those who took part in the dispute had a right to return, irrespective of whether they caused violence or damage.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the call for the men to go before industrial tribunals was made from the Government Dispatch Box? When those tribunals find that men have been unfairly dismissed by the Coal Board, should he not make the Coal Board take them on again? Some of my constituents were found to have been unfairly dismissed, but months later they are still labouring in the dole queues in south Yorkshire.

If a tribunal suggests that a person's job should be restored and the employer, whether the Coal Board or anyone else, decides not to reinstate, compensation is available. The hon. Gentleman and many others suggest that all miners should be restored to their previous positions, but some tribunals have rejected that proposition.

The Secretary of State and others on the Government Front Bench have advised aggrieved miners to go to an industrial tribunal. Some industrial tribunals find that men are unfairly dismissed and suggest that they be given back their jobs. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that parading a bogus neutrality before the House offends opinion everywhere?

The hon. Gentleman says that if a Labour Government were in power they would decide whether an employee should be kept on. That has never happened under a Labour Government, nor do I think it would happen if a Labour Government were in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the objectives of his Department's policy on wind energy.

We currently consider wind energy to be the most promising renewable energy source for electricity generation in the United Kingdom. Our policy is to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of large wind turbines, to assess their environmental impact and to encourage research and development aimed at cost reductions and improved performance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous export potential in this area? Is he aware that a company in my constituency has earned £2·5 million in the last year by making wind turbine blades for export? Will he ensure that research programmes are properly funded so that we can maximise our export potential?

I am pleased to endorse my hon. Friend's remarks and to pay tribute to the company in his constituency. Since 1979 the Government have spent more than £16 million on research and development into the use of wind energy. For the current financial year, our estimated spend is more than £6·5 million.

In view of the Minister's reply, will he explain why the installation of a wind turbine at Richborough is not yet on stream, even though planning consent was given in 1984? What minor altrerations must be made to the planning consent so that it can come on stream?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to draw that conclusion. A number of developments are proceeding. This country is in the van of technological and technical advances.

Will my hon. Friend carefully consider the complaints from one or two private generators of wind power that they are not receiving from area boards the fair deal to which they are entitled under the Energy Act? If he does not deal with that problem, potential will be put at risk.

I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to realise potential. I shall certainly consider any cases that he brings to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about recent increases in public funds for research into alternative forms of energy; and what have been the results therefrom.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of funding proposed for research into alternative sources of energy in 1986–87.

The Government have identified what we believe to be the most promising renewable energy technologies, and major support will be given for their development. Expenditure on the renewable energy programme is currently running at about £14 million a year.

I welcome the increase in Government funds for research and the fact that more than 400 projects are being supported. Which research programmes show the most hope for renewable forms of energy that will make a significant contribution to our energy demands —apart from wind, which has already been mentioned?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of the very substantial increase in funding for research and development into renewables. He referred to the very important advances in wind energy, as described by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Obviously the expenditure referred to by the Minister is welcome. However, as 10 times that amount — £486 million — has been spent on sacking mineworkers, has not the Minister got his priorities slightly wrong? Would he not be better advised to take steps to conserve and protect our coal capacity, at least for the forseeable future, because coal will remain our primary source of energy?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the importance of coal in our energy resources has been recognised by the Government through massive investment, and that will remain the case.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week that only 17 per cent. of the money spent on energy research is on non-nuclear. Does that not mean that the share for alternative energy is very small? Does he not think that a rather larger percentage would be justified?

The level of funding on research into renewables has been considered by the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, which decided that the total size of the programme was reasonable.

In considering what resources the Government should devote to renewable energy sources, has the Minister taken account of the latest release of radioactivity at Sellafield, the great anxiety about the dangers in that area, the number of releases of radioactivity from Windscale and now Sellafield, the failure of the Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc to provide information and the fact that the United States has not ordered a nuclear power station for nine years? Does that not point towards less nuclear and more coal conservation and renewable energy?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will keep in proper perspective the matters that he has raised. Of course all relevant factors are taken into account. During the last four years of the Government in which he was Secretary of State, departmental spending on renewable energy research and development amounted to £7·6 million. Over the past four years of this Government, departmental spending on renewable energy research and development has amounted to £56·8 million—over seven times as much.

Is the Minister aware that if it were not for the incidents at Windscale, which have more to do with managerial incompetence than with deficiencies in the technology, nuclear power in Britain would have an excellent future? Will he accept the importance of my comments in that context and do everything possible to ensure that higher standards of management are introduced at that plant?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and, as I have told him before, it is extremely important that the magnitude of any incidents should be kept in the proper perspective. I believe, as I know he does, that nuclear power in Britain has an excellent future.

The Minister must recall that on 25 October 1985 the House debated alternative sources of energy and the broad general view was that to spend £14 million on that was not enough. It was also announced that we did everything but scupper the wave energy programme, yet we have now learnt that the Norwegians have developed wave energy. Is that not a slap in the face for British expenditure and British technology?

This Government have spent a great deal more than was spent by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power. It lies rather oddly with him to suggest that there should be greater expenditure. He will be aware that the Advisory Committee on Research and Development has advised that the amount is reasonable. The wave energy programme was ended because a detailed assessment showed that it would be uneconomic for large-scale use for United Kingdom electricity supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries permit the investment of private sector capital in major deep mined coal operations.

Investment of such capital is permitted in a number of OECD countries with major coal industries, including Australia and the United States. I shall arrange for a full list to be published in the Official Report.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he read in today's papers that the workers of the National Freight Corporation, who bought shares in their own company, now find that those shares are worth 22 times what they were when they made the original investment. Will my hon. Friend write today or later this week to Mr. Roy Lynk and ask whether the Nottinghamshire miners might like to set up a similar deal?

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work force at the National Freight Corporation. The Government have always said that they would look positively at any plan put forward by the miners to take a more direct stake in their industry.

While the Minister is looking at investment, will he look at the level of investment in capital projects in the mining industry that was undertaken pre-MacGregor on the basis of the number of pits and men at that time? Will he take into consideration the rundown of pits and men and bear in mind that it is time that there was a capital review with the object of wiping out the capital debt of the few remaining collieries?

No, Sir. But in the same breath the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the fact that under this Government over £4 billion has been invested in the coal industry. The productivity figures are now so good because of the tremendous effort of the work force, combined with clever investment in existing pits.

Is there any reason in principle why profitable pits should not be privatised?

As we have made clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the Government have no plans for privatising the National Coal Board's mining activities, and no discussions on any such proposals have taken place between the Department and the NCB.

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the hon. Member for Glanford and. Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) that the level of industrial investment in the private sector in Britain is well below the average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Would it not be wise for such investment as there is to be channelled into appropriate directions and not into this unwanted direction?

The hon. Gentleman has omitted to pay tribute to the level of investment, 80 per cent of which goes into existing pits and only 20 per cent. of which goes into new pits. The level of such investment is much more than the level in the rest of the Community put together.

During the miners' strike the chairman of the NCB made a commitment not only to the National Union of Mineworkers but to hon. Members that the Margam new mine would be developed when the strike was over. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether Mr. MacGregor was lying or whether—

Order. The subject is private sector capital.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether Mr. MacGregor was telling untruths or whether he was saving the money for private development by friends of the Conservative party?

No proposal on the Margam mine has been put to my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much gas was flared from offshore fields on the United Kingdom continental shelf during 1985; and how this compares with 1979.

A daily average of 6·6 million cubic metres of gas was flared from offshore installations in 1985. In 1979 the comparable figure was about 18 million cubic metres a day. This represents a reduction of about 63 per cent. in gas flaring over a period when oil production increased by about 60 per cent.

I congratulate the industry and the Government on achieving this substantial reduction in gas flaring. Does that not confirm that we were right not to proceed with the gas-gathering pipeline? Is there further scope for improvement in systems to reduce gas wastage?

The industry's action in gathering gas is significant. For example, this summer we shall see the commissioning of the Fulmar-St. Fergus pipeline, which has the scope to take in additional fields. The north leg extension of the flags pipeline is just beginning to take gas from Statfjord. I welcome all these developments.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the implications for safety in the gas industry of the legislation to privatise the British Gas Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations. As the hon. Lady knows, the Gas Bill strengthens and extends the existing safety arrangements.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that privatisation of the industry will place additional responsibilities on the Health and Safety Executive? Does he agree that since 1979 the executive's staff has decreased by 13 per cent. and that the number of inspectors has decreased by 15 per cent.? What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give on safety?

Staffing is a matter for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Health and Safety Commission is fully satisfied that it can carry out these duties. I am sure that it will do them very well.

Has not safety in the gas industry been of paramount importance throughout its long history? Are there not many industries in the private sector dealing with dangerous substances which have an excellent safety record?

Yes, Sir. We took advantage of the presentation of the Gas Bill to improve in a number of ways the legislation applying to the gas industry. The industry's excellent safety record will therefore continue and, if anything, will be improved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gas Bill, which is in Committee, will enable the private sector to have the right of entry into people's homes for safety purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any plans for controls to prevent abuses of that right?

That will be looked at in the normal way. The only right of entry into people's homes will be in the interest of safety. I have received no complaints on this issue.

I welcome the privatisation of the industry, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possible advantages of compulsory registration of all gas installers?

That is a matter for my noble Friend rather than for me. Progress is being made in the preparation of a proper code and a report will be made. One wants to avoid a highly bureaucratic and expensive system for which there is no real justification.

Is it the practice of the British Gas Corporation to keep files on individuals who are opposed to privatisation and on members of their families, and to make them freely available to employees of the British Gas Corporation, in the same way as British Nuclear Fuels plc keeps files on those who are opposed to nuclear matters and on members of their families, and makes them freely available to employees? Who authorises that practice, and what will the right hon. Gentleman do to stop it?

There is a clear statement from British Nuclear Fuels plc that the hon. Gentleman's allegation is totally untrue. There is no justification for the remarks. The file of people opposed to the privatisation of the British Gas Corporation would be so thin that I would not bother.

What will be the future of the Gas Consumers Council after privatisation and will my right hon. Friend outline its role in monitoring safety standards?

I do not think that its role has been the monitoring of safety. That is an expert role, which the Health and Safety Executive will continue to fulfil. We have provided for a strong consumer council, and I think that it will be a very effective one.

During our debates on the Gas Bill we have become increasingly worried about the strength and manpower of the Health and Safety Executive for delivering the provisions under the Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the other Ministers to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive will have sufficient manpower to monitor the responsibilities given to it by the Bill? We need more, not fewer, inspectors for that purpose.

I am pleased to say that the Health and Safety Executive is confident that it will have more people devoting more time to that matter than ever before.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his policy towards the level of resources available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in the light of the document "Communities in the East Durham Coalfield", produced by Durham county council, Easington district council and Sunderland borough council, a copy of which has been sent to him.

The Government will continue to monitor closely the adequacy of the funds available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The £20 million to which the company presently has access remains sufficient for its current needs.

I assume that the Minister has had the opportunity to read the document to which I refer—I see he has a copy—and I am sure he will agree that it is well produced, containing a number of interesting and worthwhile projects. The hon. Gentleman will also notice that £31 million of that money is for economic development. Because NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. money is generally channelled through the private sector, which is poorly represented in the region covered by the document, will he make money available for the project? Above all, will he tell me that the principle of channelling money through local authorities is one that the Government find acceptable?

One of the great success stories of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has been the way in which for every £1 that it invests in a project, £6 has been attracted from other sources. The cost of creating new jobs, estimated at about £5,000 when NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. was set up, may now drop as low as £1,500. That is a tremendous success story for the company.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a great achievement on the part of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Will he confirm that it is his impression that any teething problems which the company experienced have now been overcome? Will he tell the House whether NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. or any equivalent body existed under the previous Labour Government, when so many pits were being closed?

I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend said. The Government have done something which no other Government have done. They have made the National Coal Board responsible for bringing new job opportunities to mining areas through the work of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The Opposition seem to forget that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is now creating job opportunities at the rate of 500 a month.

Does the Minister agree that the document shows that the future of the east Durham coal communities mentioned in the question, most of which are in my constituency, is very bleak? In those circumstances, will he press the National Coal Board not to close pits until the work being done by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in providing other jobs is firmly established? If not, is he prepared to see more than 30 per cent. unemployment in my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that many pits in his constituency and around that area closed at the time of the previous Labour Government when NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. did not exist. By the end of January NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. had committed £1 million to aid new industry in the north-east, creating nearly 500 job opportunities. Of course, pits have always closed, because reserves are exhausted or for economic reasons. The Government have done something about those reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers; and what matters were discussed.

I have not yet met the leaders of the UDM, but I shall be happy to do so if they request a meeting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of my constituents that the Leicestershire mineworkers did not leave the National Union of Mineworkers to join the Union of Democratic Mineworkers? Will he confirm that it is in order for any individual mineworker to join the UDM if he wishes to support Roy Lynk and be an alternative voice to which the National Coal Board will listen?

That is a matter for the decision or choice of the individual miner, and I am happy to confirm that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement this afternoon is welcome? Will he condemn the unwillingness of the energy spokesmen of the Labour party to meet that important body of representatives of ordinary working people in the midlands?

It has always been the view of the Government that any leader of an officially recognised trade union should have the right to meet Ministers. That should apply to shadow Ministers as well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in south Derbyshire, although the men are united in their opposition to Arthur Scargill and all his works, they are divided as to which of the coal unions they should join? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it behoves not only the National Coal Board to be completely even-handed between the unions, but the men to work together for the future of the industry?

The NCB is pursuing the policy that any employer should, which is to recognise the representatives of those who are in the majority in any location. That has been the NCB's policy, and I think that it is correct.

Has it come to the Secretary of State's attention—and will he draw it to the attention of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels)—that the Leicestershire coal miners remained in the NUM because they had a ballot and decided by a substantial majority that that is where they wished to remain and fight and that the vast majority of Leicestershire coal miners are behind Jack Jones and his leadership, and so am I?

I should be interested to hear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are also behind Arthur Scargill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Nottinghamshire councillors who are members of the UDM are being boycotted by the Labour party? Will he assure the House and the UDM that they will always have a sympathetic hearing on the Conservative Benches?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the working of the modified colliery review procedure.

I last met the chairman on 12 February when, among other matters, we discussed the operation of the modified colliery review procedure.

Does the Secretary of State recall that last week I raised with him the serious inconsistency in the reviews on Horden and Bates'? Will he confirm that he has the authority to instruct, or to offer strong guidelines to the review body that social and economic effects must be taken into consideration when decisions are taken? If not, does that not make a farce of the review system and, perhaps more important, lead to a substantial loss of confidence in that procedure on the part of the NUM?

I can only say that one of the problems of starting a genuine review body is that if several individuals are judging individual cases, they will not all come forward with a universal viewpoint. That is bound to happen. I can understand the concern and aggravation that there is not a uniform viewpoint. If there is a uniform viewpoint in one direction some might be pleased, but if it is in another direction, others might be displeased. The review body is at the commencement of its proceedings, and that is what has happened so far.

Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that on 4 February Mr. Peter Bowsher, QC, made a strong recommendation that the Bates' colliery should remain open for two years? Is he further aware that the NCB has so far refused to accept that recommendation after a three-day hearing, when the evidence was carefully analysed? Will he use his influence to persuade the NCB to take a decision immediately, upholding the recommendation of Mr. Bowsher?

No, Sir, I shall certainly not use any such influence. I do not set myself up as the arbiter of which of the review body's proposals are accepted and which are rejected. That is not my task, nor is it the task of any of Her Majesty's Ministers. No one who has read the Bates' report would say that it was a lovely, clear report enthusiastically suggesting something in one direction. It was perfectly correct for the National Coal Board to announce that it will carefully study the details of the report before taking a decision.

In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) and his point about Bates' colliery and the review body, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he has discussed the matter with the chairman of the National Coal Board, and whether he has a personal opinion on the matter?

No, Sir. I have made it clear that it is for the board to decide and come to its conclusions on the matter. I was informed by the NCB chairman that when this substantial report was issued, about a day before a meeting of the board, it decided—sensibly—to examine the report thoroughly before putting it to the board for decision.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that on Friday last, as a result of a long-standing engagement, I visited the regional director of the NCB in the north-east of England and discussed, among other things, pit closures? He expressed the view most strongly that it was disappointing that only three Members from the north-east had bothered to see him, two of whom were Conservative Members.

I cannot comment on the detailed discussion that took place. I can only say that an increasing number of coal mining constituencies now have the privilege of being represented by Tory Members of Parliament.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take it after Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total United Kingdom oil production in 1985; and what is the total forecast for 1986.

Our provisional estimate for total United Kingdom oil production in 1985 is 127·4 million tonnes. Equivalent output in 1986, as published in the 1985 Brown Book, is expected to be between 110 million and 130 million tonnes.

Will the Minister acknowledge that this is substantially more than the net self-sufficiency which was the Government's original objective? Will he also acknowledge that although a fall in oil prices may be beneficial, the collapse of oil prices is not in anyone's interests, in this country or abroad? Does he accept that the time has come for the Government to talk to other oil producers about reducing North sea production?

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman advocating our joining an oil producers' cartel. He forgets that Britain is a major consuming country and that its industry has major interests in that direction. I am surprised that, with his knowledge of the North sea, he does not know that the character of North sea production is different from that of the majority of OPEC countries.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, despite the current confusion in the oil industry, exploration and development in the North sea will not decline and that Britain will need that oil in the next decade?

It is significant that the oil companies tend to take a much longer-term view of the prospects of the North sea than do some Opposition Members.

Should not the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about the collapse of oil prices? Hon. Members are entitled to have such a statement. What would happen if the price fell by another $5 a barrel? Would the Government still not take any action? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to make a statement at the earliest opportunity?

What does the right hon. Gentleman expect will come from such a statement? For what action does he ask? The right hon. Gentleman asks many questions, but does not fully understand the background to the position.

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

The Monergy campaign has made a very successful start. Already over 100 events have taken place, including the first two Monergy breakfast briefings attended by 1,700 top executives. The supporting advertising and publicity activities have generated a high level of interest.

What incentives are being given to voluntary organisations to help with insulation programmes for homes in the public sector? Will the Secretary of State say something about alternative energy schemes; in particular, about the possibility of a barrage on the River Mersey to save other forms of energy?

The Mersey barrage scheme is being examined. I cannot make any statement about it. We have managed to create many more voluntary groups involved in insulation. At the moment more than 200 voluntary groups are operating and over 130,000 homes have been insulated.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to increase the current range and level of support facilities for hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The present arrangements do, however, review those facilities from time to time.

I thank the Leader of the House for that helpful reply. Does he agree with the impression of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that our constituents are frequently surprised by our lack of facilities and accommodation here and in our constituencies, and the bad effect that that has on us trying to provide a good standard of services for them? In view of that, will he, in the short term, consider more ways in which the range of facilities and office accommodation for hon. Members can be improved, because such space would be put to good use?

I do not think that I can helpfully comment on the reasons which cause our constituents to judge the quality of our performance. A review of the secretarial, research and office equipment allowance should be under way this summer. Accommodation is the subject of a later question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have come, as I have, from the City, where we are used to a professional level of services, now find ourselves having to work four to a room, 20 ft by 10 ft? Does he accept that it is about time the House became more professional, knocked down that hideous collection of old buildings above the tube station and built proper accommodation for Members of Parliament?

I have always felt that Westminster provided a generous refuge for those from the City. There has never been a shortage of those wishing to make the pilgrimage. Phase one of the Bridge street site should be completed by 1990, and I believe that it will have some impact.

Does the Leader of the House know of any other country in the developed world which has a system as backward as ours? Does he realise the situation that I am in today—my secretary is off sick so no one can reach me on the telephone; I have an office by Westminster abbey; when my secretary is not sick she is down by the Embankment and there is a 15-minute walk between the three; and 1 am having money transferred regularly every month from my salary to my expense allowance to pay for the new technology which he and the House say is a good idea?

Despite that litany of misfortune, I know of no Parliament half the equal of this one.

Will my right hon. Friend be extremely careful when he considers further facilities for right hon. and hon. Members, because we seem to have had a host of new people called research assistants since the summer? They have led to an enormous number of written questions. If we are not careful, we will all drown in a sea of paper.

As I have already explained to the House, there is every likelihood that a review of the secretarial, research and office equipment allowance will be undertaken in June. I look forward to reading the evidence which my hon. Friend will doubtless contribute to it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us were better serviced by research and secretarial officers in local government before we came here? Does he agree that the problem is that those who do not need extra servicing are so dominant that they prevent better servicing for those who need it?

I must confess that I have a genuine and high regard for the quality of the Opposition in the House. I am not sure that it would be enhanced by further provision of research assistants. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his case when he gives evidence to the review that will be undertaken later this year.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received about the results of the programme for cleaning the exterior of the Palace of Westminster.

This is, of course, the subject of an early-day motion signed by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

However costly it might be to clean up the exterior of the Palace, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the best possible investment for the country in terms of tourism, and especially in restoring the pride of our people in their glorious Victorian architectural heritage?

Yes; I very much agree with that sentiment.

Is the Leader of the House aware that those of us who work in an occasionally water-logged slum called the Cloisters are more interested in the inside rather than the outside of the building being put right? If I thought that the Conservative party would be in government long enough, I would ask him if, in future, he would make that his priority.

I worked in the Cloisters for many more years than the hon. Gentleman is ever likely to. I should be very happy to come down and do a reunion meeting and a site inspection.

Will my right hon. Friend note that Conservative Members are extremely happy at the excellence of the outside of the building? Will he have a word with somebody to ensure that the pig sty between this building and our offices elsewhere is cleaned up? Westminster city council allows it to become a cesspit for all visitors to this place to see.

I am not sure that that falls within my responsibilities, but I shall look into the matter and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement on the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier.

Consideration of this matter continues.

I think that the Leader of the House has already answered my question—nothing seems to be happening. There is a great deal of support for the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, but Ministers continually say that it is a matter for Parliament. When we approach the only Minister who can enable things to happen in this House, he says, "Well, it will happen some time." Could we please make some progress, or when the Leader of the House has ceased to be the Leader of the House still nothing will have happened?

Perhaps that will be my contribution to posterity. Discussions between the parties are taking place. Most Irish matters are ones in regard to which speed can be just as dangerous as sloth.

I have an idea. If the parliamentary tier were added to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, could we not then be rid of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which is the cause of so much trouble in Northern Ireland?

I am sure that will be one of the many considerations that will weigh with the inter-party talks.

What is the status of the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman says have taken place with the other parties on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier? Has he taken account of the 46 signatures to the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), asking for the tier to be established? Will he take the opportunity this week, with the visit of the Taoiseach to Westminster, to initiate talks to establish the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?

The answer to the first part of the question is informal, the answer to the second part is yes, and the answer to the third is it will not be necessary because talks are already under way.

Will the Leader of the House discuss these matters with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who led a successful all-party group to Ireland last year as chairman of the Inter-parliamentary Union? Should not the IPU be involved in any tier that might be created?

That is a very reasonable comment. I shall be very happy to get in touch with my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress made in improving office accommodation for hon. Members.

Substantial improvements depend on the completion of phase 1 of the new parliamentary building, which is scheduled for 1990. In addition, the Services Committee has recently published proposals for the use of the former Cannon Row police station, which it is hoped will be ready for parliamentary use by October 1987.

Will the building programme remain within the timetable that has been set for it?

I understand that phase 1 of the programme is on time.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members believe that nothing could be more damaging to the work of this House than for hon. Members to lock themselves away all the time in brand new executive-style offices?

It would depend on which hon. Members.

As Cannon Row police station has been judged to be unacceptable for the accommodation of police constables, what kind of budget has been allocated to making it worthy of accommodating hon. Members?

Not quite sufficient to make it suitable for the accommodation of secretaries.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list the accommodation made available specifically for the use of members of the press accredited to the Palace of Westminster; and what proportion this represents of all accommodation made available to outside organisations.

The parliamentary Press Galley premises include some 34 offices, writing off and refreshment rooms which represent approximately 36 per cent. of the accommodation allocated to outside organisations within the Palace of Westminster.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all members of the press and of the press lobby have equal access to and facilities for dealing with hon. Members? Is my right hon. Friend able to say whether these premises are being put to the maximum use, or whether other areas of the Palace of Westminster could be handed over to hon. Members who would prefer to be in this part of the Palace rather than in the precincts?

My hon. Friend raises a wide number of questions. My judgment is that these premises are being put to full use. There has been a long tradition that The Times has a room of its own, although I do not know whether that will outlive the new technology.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has now explored ways of giving further encouragement to ethnic minority school leavers to apply for Civil Service posts.

A study by Social and Community Planning Research of the attitudes of ethnic minority school leavers towards Civil Service employment is currently in progress in London, Manchester and Leeds.

Without awaiting the results of the survey, does the Minister not know that the proportion and number of successful applications for Civil Service posts by people from the ethnic minorities is very small, so much so that many of them believe that it is not worth while applying? Surely steps ought to be taken at once to give people a fair chance and to take positive action in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this Government and the Civil Service Departments are committed to being equal opportunity employers. That is important. It will take some months before we know the outcome of a series of surveys that are being undertaken to establish the degree of discrimination. In the meantime, we have drawn the attention of community relations councils to the need to ensure that the ethnic minorities are aware of the recruitment procedures and how to apply for recruitment to the Civil Service.

Can my right lion. Friend reaffirm that the sole principle of recruitment to the civil and public service in all its forms will be merit and ability and that no other criteria will be admitted?

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that those of us who are anxious to increase the numbers of ethnic minorities in the public service are nevertheless concerned that ethnic monitoring might take such a form as to be capable of being traced back to an individual member of an ethnic minority? Will the Minister give an undertaking that whatever kind of ethnic monitoring is used, it will not be possible for it to be traced hack in due course to an individual?

I can confirm that the heart of the scheme is that it should be operated on a voluntary, self-classification basis.

When encouraging school leavers to enter the Civil Service, whether from the ethnic minority groups or elsewhere, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if more Civil Service departments were to leave London and go to the regions that would provide a greater opportunity for all school leavers, whatever their ethnic origins?

My hon. Friend knows that there is a policy to disperse civil servants outside London. The programme of dispersing 5,900 civil servants to the regions has not yet been completed.

Will my right hon. Friend visit the local Department of Health and Social Security office in Leicester, where he will see large numbers of members of the ethnic communities already active and working well there? Are they not, therefore, already applying for jobs? Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has not visited those offices and spotted the large number of members of the ethnic communities who are already working there.

I am encouraged to hear my hon. Friend's evidence. No national statistics are available, because we do not make surveys that are based on ethnic origin. There is a clear policy of equal opportunity in the Civil Service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government from the First Division Association of Civil Servants about relations between Ministers and civil servants during the Westland affair.

None, Sir.

May I ask the Minister a question of which I gave his office notice last Wednesday in the hope of a considered reply? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that Sir Robert Armstrong's guidelines are sufficient? If Ministers start criticising the professionalism of civil servants for lack of understanding, even high flying civil servants will take that as a professional insult. Should there not be a method whereby civil servants can defend themselves in public if they are to be named and criticised in public?

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman told me in advance what his question was about. I understand the nature of the question. As I said in answer to a question that the hon. Gentleman posed some months ago, I consider that the guidelines established by Sir Robert Armstrong—the restatement of principle—which deal with the matter of conscience, which allow for various procedures to be followed if a civil servant is worried about his position and his conscience, and which are applicable right up to the post of permanent secretary are adequate. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service is looking at the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give evidence to the Committee.

Will the Minister be prepared to look at the findings of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service when they come forward and to think again about the adequacy of those rules? Do not the events surrounding the Westland affair illustrate the fact that civil servants are sometimes put in dreadful dilemmas when collective responsibility breaks down? Does the Minister agree that this area needs to be covered more adequately than it is covered by the Armstrong guidelines?

Of course I attach importance to the work of the Select Committee and will study with great care what it has to say in its recommendations. As I have said, I consider that the guidelines laid down are adequate. They allow for questions of conscience by any civil servant to be dealt with through internal procedures up to the level of permanent secretary. The Select Committee is looking at this matter, and I wait with great interest to hear what it has to say.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Armstrong guidelines, to which he and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have referred, are mandatory, or discretionary, upon Departments?

Those are established guidelines which every Department is expected to follow. A point that I have not made hitherto is that at the end of the day it is Ministers, not civil servants, who are accountable for policies. The relationship between civil servants and Ministers is clearly established in the guidelines.

Is the Minister aware that civil servants are worried because of the way in which Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have put the responsibility on civil servants for the leaking of the letter from the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence? Is that not a most unfortunate practice? Should not the Prime Minister accept the responsibility instead of putting it on to the private secretary in her office and on to the director of information in the Department of Trade and Industry?

In the light of all that has happened, we have seen a fine example of ministerial accountability in the actions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).

If any civil servant has been less than competent in his or her advice or action during the Westland affair, will action eventually be taken against him or her, or is it just politicians who always have to take the blame for everything?

It is absolutely right that the principle of ministerial accountability should be at the heart of our system, and I am a firm believer in that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows, disciplinary procedures are available in the service, and they are brought into action as and when necessary.

I am glad to hear the Minister's last remarks. In view of what he has said, will he admit that during the Westland affair civil servants have all too often been made to carry the can for the Government's responsibility? Will he consult his ministerial colleagues to see whether the Government can go beyond the Armstrong guidelines and introduce a code of ethics which will make clear the distinction between a civil servant's responsibility to the Government of the day and his responsibility to higher duties?

I know that some, including the hon. Lady, take the view that some sort of code of ethics should be developed, but it is exceedingly difficult to know on what basis one could anticipate every set of circumstances in the relationship between a Minister and his civil servants. I believe that the guideline procedures are perfectly adequate.

If the civil servants who have been publicly blamed are not to be disciplined, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggests, ought they not to be publicly exonerated?

The principle at the heart of this discussion is ministerial accountability, and we have seen a fine example of that in the past few weeks.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I will take points of order in their usual place, after the private notice questions.

My point of order arises out of Question Time.

I know, but I will take points of order after the private notice questions.