asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the development of the liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr.

The National Coal Board has now begun construction at Point of Ayr. Commissioning is expected in late 1987.

I welcome the Minister's statement about the start of construction. However, is it not true that the public funds that were committed to this project by the last Labour Government have been severely reduced by this Government and that the size of the plant has also been severely reduced? One of our major competitors, Japan, is spending £127 million on non-nuclear reasearch, 56 per cent. of which is being spent on research into coal gasification and liquefaction. Has not the Government's intervention since 1979 impeded the introduction of coal liquefaction and of other uses for coal?

No. This is an important project for the National Coal Board. Its process, which appears to be one of the strongest technically, produces a premium synthetic crude which is easily refined into aviation and other transport fuels. Under this Government, public sector commitment to research and development into coal utilisation is in excess of £100 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the beginning of the construction of this pilot plant is widely welcomed in my constituency as evidence of the Government's commitment to coal to oil liquefaction? Is that not a tribute to the NCB's foresight and determination to ensure that Britain has a share of the potential market opportunity when there is an increase in the price of oil relative to that of coal?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the board has advised me that the project is on schedule and within budget. Civil engineering work began on 6 January and completion is expected in August.

Is it not ironic that the Minister should have the audacity to come to the Dispatch Box and praise the project as one of the best in the country, when that same project was on the table in 1979 and it has taken the Government nine years to make up their mind? In essence, we have a laboratory scheme at Point of Ayr. Nevertheless, the Opposition endorse the conversion of the hon. Gentleman and his Government. We also endorse the NCB's enthusiasm, but it has taken nine years for that to happen.

The hon. Gentleman seeks to make political points out of a project where there is no room for such petty points. The coal industry has had its best deal since nationalisation from this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest productivity figures for the north Yorkshire area of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

Deep mined revenue productivity in the north Yorkshire area of the National Coal Board averaged 3·36 tonnes per man shift in the week ending 19 April. The future prosperity of the coal industry depends upon continuing efforts to reduce production costs.

In view of the Secretary of State's answer and of the sterling work done by the men in the north Yorkshire coalfield in particular, but throughout the coalfields in general, will he have a word with the stone-hearted Mr. MacGregor of British Coal and ask him immediately to settle the mineworker's pay increase and to leave the pension scheme as a separate issue? A settlement is due to the men. I ask the Secretary of State to intervene and ensure that they receive their just reward.

I have no intention of intervening. This is a matter for negotiation between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

Do not those figures demonstrate that when men are allowed to respond to good management they produce good figures? Furthermore, should we not as a House congratulate British Coal on its fine performance in the past 12 months?

Yes. These are substantial improvements on any productivity figures since nationalisation.

What assurances can the Secretary of State give about the future of Redbrook colliery in the north Yorkshire coalfield?

That is a matter for discussion between the National Coal Board and the industry.

Are not increases in productivity in north Yorkshire and elsewhere one way in which miners can secure their jobs for the long-term, in sharp contrast to the action taken by Arthur Scargill last year?

Yes and another result of the good productivity figures is that, under the various incentive schemes, the miners have gone back with good wage packets.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what requests for meetings he has received from oil companies as a result of the fall in the price of oil per barrel; and from which companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate his Department has made of the impact of falling oil prices on developments in the North sea.

I meet the companies regularly, and they are free to raise any subject they choose. As the market remains volatile, and future oil prices uncertain, it is impossible to say at this stage what the impact will be on North sea development.

Why, since we have had a fall in oil prices, has there been no real reduction in the cost of such things as air travel, and especially petrol, plastic commodities and paint? Does that not show that big business is making bigger profits and that it has cocked a snook at the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Should there not be some real, meaningful discussion?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's premise. There have been substantial falls in the price of petrol. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was jeered for his prediction, but it has been more than surpassed in the period since. As existing contracts come to fruition, there is no doubt that other industrial prices will benefit from the lower oil price.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a number of statements by major oil companies casting serious doubts on long-term developments in the North sea? Should there not be a greater sense of urgency in discussions with the oil companies, so that we do not fall into the trap of becoming more and more dependent on OPEC countries in the 1990s?

It would be a mistake to rush through a load of decisions on the basis of an immediate fluctuation in the oil price. I forget what the oil price was when we last answered questions, but it has moved up and down in an erratic way. No one would like to predict with any accuracy what it will be at the end of the year. Rightly, the oil companies have issued warnings that, if prices stay at these low levels, some investment decisions will have to be deferred, but at the moment they are waiting to make a judgment on the market.

I take my right hon. Friend's point about the renewal of contracts, but is it not somewhat surprising that over a period when the price of crude oil has fallen by 60 per cent. the cost of aviation fuel appears to have fallen by less than 15 per cent.? Does that cause my right hon. Friend any concern? In particular, will he be prepared to draw that to the attention of the oil companies next time they request a meeting?

I shall look at the trends in the cost of aviation fuel. There is considerable competition around the world, but I shall look into my hon. Friend's point.

Bearing in mind that for the first time for about 15 years the price of oil has halved, is it true that other energy prices will fall in line with it for the first time for many years? Is it likely that, because of the falling cost of oil, the cost of electricity and perhaps even coal will fall, so that consumers will receive the benefit in their household and industrial bills?

Yes. In the electricity industry there is potential competition between oil and coal. Therefore, if the coal industry is to retain its contracts, it must take note of the present competition from the oil industry. Talks are taking place between the coal industry and the Central Electricity Generating Board with that purpose in mind. If, as a result, the cost of coal is reduced, it will be the consumer, both domestic and industrial, who will benefit.

As the Secretary of State has admitted that already some companies are postponing investments, would this not be an opportunity for his Department to put pressure on colleagues at the Treasury to hold the Chancellor to his undertaking in the Budget. that if there were clear evidence of worthwhile projects being frustrated changes in incremental investment to the fiscal regime would be swiftly introduced, particularly as the Finance Bill would be an appropriate opportunity for the Government to do just that?

No. On the evidence available, I do not think that immediate action of that sort should be taken by the Chancellor. However, my right hon. Friend has ensured in the past and is intent on ensuring in the future that taxation of North sea oil takes account of the realistic assessment of the economic conditions there. I am sure that he will do that.

When may we expect a reduction in the price of electricity?

When agreement is reached on the price of coal, the benefit to industrial and commercial clients occurs swiftly, because of the nature of the contracts in that area which automatically get reduced as costs reduce. It would be for the electricity boards to decide when and how to fix the domestic tariff.

Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of the impact of the diminution in oil prices on jobs in Scotland? Will he also assure us that, in addition to exhortations to the oil companies to continue developments, the Government intend to take positive action to safeguard the onshore industry, which has been built up so painfully in recent years?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of activity is still taking place in the North sea, and the oil companies themselves very much wanted us to have a further round of licensing. A great deal of exploration work is taking place. However, what happens will depend on trends in the oil price, and none of us can have any certainty about that. We shall have to watch developments and take action accordingly.

Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said, should there not be a great welcome for the fall in oil prices? Is not the only concern the fact that there is still too much variance in fuel prices, particularly petroleum? If my right hon. Friend were able to come to Leicester, he would find petrol in Melton road at 1·58 per gallon, which is very good value compared with prices in other parts of the country.

There is no doubt that substantial competition is taking place at petrol pumps throughout the country, and the consumer and industry are benefiting.

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), is the Secretary of State aware of the impact that falling oil prices are having on the city of Aberdeen? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that we shall be able to receive the benefits of North sea oil in future? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we are facing a short-term problem. Is he satisfied that the Government are doing enough to ensure that the benefits of North sea oil will be available to us soon?

Developments are still coming forward on quite a substantial scale. The hon. Gentleman's assessment, that future development in the North sea may be needed because this may be a temporary drop in the oil price and, therefore, we need production in the mid 1990s, is shared by a number of oil companies. That is the reason for their interest in continuing exploration and development and further rounds of licensing.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to discuss privatisation.

I regularly meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

Given the fall in oil prices and the questions raised by a number of my hon. Friends, and given that there is such a delay in legislation getting through the other place, when does the Secretary of State expect to float shares in BGC, and what does he expect to get for them?

I am delighted to say that the progress of the legislation is exceedingly good and that preparations for the flotation are going well. I look forward to the floatation in the autumn, and I shall do my best to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a special form.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that BGC employees are looking forward to privatisation because they will have a direct stake and interest in their industry for the first time, and that customers are looking forward to privatisation because they know that they will get a better service?

I believe that both employees and customers are looking forward to privatisation. Doubtless its widespread popularity is the reason why Opposition Members are not looking forward to it.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the fall in oil prices, we should not sell the shares at any price?

I agree that we should not sell the shares at any absurd price, but there is nothing happening at present that will prevent a successful flotation in the autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Moscow.

My many high-level meetings revealed substantial scope for enhanced energy trade with the Soviet Union. The detailed memorandum of understanding which I signed with the Chairman of the State Committee for Science and Technology opens the way to progress in many areas of mutual interest. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he realise that the widespread reporting of his visit in the press, in the light of the serious events recently in the failure of Soviet nuclear technology, has thrown up a great deal of retrospective interest in that visit? Will he tell the House whether he discussed nuclear safety with Soviet officials? Does he accept that in large parts of East Anglia there are misgivings and forebodings about the serious failure in Soviet nuclear technology, and that he could ease feelings in East Anglia if he would act decisively and recommend cancellation of the pressurised water reactor?

The hon. Gentleman's latter point is a matter for the Sizewell inquiry, and decisions on that will be taken when the report is received, which will probably be in September this year.

Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to explain to his hosts that the British nuclear programme, which started at Calder Halt exactly 30 years ago this year, is based on gas-cooled reactors? Does he agree that that system has proved itself inherently very safe because, should there be a loss of coolant, there is a longer time to take remedial action than would apply in a water-cooled reactor, where overheating, fire, or something worse, can take place, as we have found out?

The heating of the Soviet reactor is on a scale different from any system of reactor operated in the West. There are some fundamental differences. Certainly we are proud of the safety record that has been achieved in this country, and it is important that we ensure that that continues.

In view of the openness which is now being pushed, quite properly, by the Government on the Russian Government following events at Chernobyl, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will suspend work and expenditure on the PWR until the full report of the Chernobyl inquiry is available for examination in this country and that the House, not Ministers, will take the decision on whether to go ahead?

No, Sir. In the normal way the Sizewell report will be examined in full. It will be made available to and debated in the House. Unlike the Soviet system, before any such development takes place here there are planning inquiries and parties can democratically present their views in the House. I expect that the Soviet people would like a similar system in their country.

When my right hon. Friend next visits Moscow, will he extend sympathy to the people of the Soviet Union on the nuclear accident? Will he confirm now that the nuclear accident in the Soviet Union makes nuclear power in the United Kingdom neither safer nor more dangerous and that the risks involved were taken into account? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that the debate in this country is conducted rationally, not hysterically?

Anybody looking at the long-term problems of energy will recognise that there is tremendous advantage to the world in having this form of energy throughout the next century. People will also realise that there are potential dangers if the industry is not conducted safely and well and with every possible safety measure taken. Therefore, it is important to get proper international standards operating throughout the world.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one future benefit from this appalling accident might be better international co-operation on nuclear energy? Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to use the contacts that he made during his visit to Moscow since the Chernobyl disaster?

I immediately contacted the various Ministers I had seen, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been placed in charge of the inquiry into the incident. I spent several hours with him when I was in Moscow. I offered the Russians all the help that we could give, and some of the help that they have requested has been provided by this country. Since then I have communicated with the Deputy Prime Minister and asked for the fullest detail of what took place. I also asked that the type of working party that we suggested when we were there should quickly be put into operation, so that we get the maximum collaboration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of his visit and the recent regrettable events in the Soviet Union, that a premium has always been, and will now be even more so, placed on this country having the safest form of nuclear power generation? Depending on the results of the inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree that the safest form might be the pressurised water reactor?

There were more than two years of hearings during the Sizewell inquiry and a distinguished person took more than one and a half years to write the report. Before any decisions are made, I think it is right that we all objectively examine and read that report.

The Secretary of State, on his return from the Soviet Union on 27 April, praised nuclear development there and stated that it was an excellent nuclear industry. That was in dramatic conflict with his statements post-Chernobyl. Was he advised on the safety of those power stations, and will he explain the contradiction between those statements?

On my return I said that the Soviet Union had decided to double the size of its nuclear industry, and it has confirmed that since. I made no comment at all on the safety elements.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete the allocations to exploration company applicants of blocks in the lastest round of North sea concession areas.

Consultations on the 10th round are now taking place. I expect the round to be completed some time next year.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the fall in the oil price, he and the Government expect a healthy weight of applications? Will he further confirm, not only that the timetable will be kept, but that British companies will get more than their fair share of these applications?

With regard to the 10th round, what matters is the price of oil, not today, but in the 1990s. The oil industry is a long-term, continuing industry. I am glad to say that I have had every indication from the oil industry that it welcomes the announcement of this round and intends to support it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to pursue previous practice and ensure that, in any developments arising from those blocks, conditions relating to United Kingdom rates and yards will be included in the licence conditions?

While licence applications are being considered, every oil company making an application has interviews with my Department. I shall certainly bear very much in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I am determined that the United Kingdom should play a full part in the development of the industry, particularly the new high technology.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest progress of National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd. in providing alternative employment in coalmining areas.

At the end of April 1986 NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. had committed £10 million, assisting 488 projects, which will create 6,410 job opportunities. That commitment has generated a further £52·7 million of investment from other sources.

Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the figures that he has given, having regard to the number of jobs lost through pit closures, the NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. scheme is almost a complete failure? That is so in my area and in the north-east. Is there to be any increase in the resources available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Will any other changes be made to convince the people of the mining areas that the whole thing is not a sham to cover up pit closures?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made it clear in the Chamber many times that there is no shortage of funds available for those who come forward with proposals for the creation of real jobs in coalmining areas. As for Easington, I understand that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is contributing towards a study of the east Durham coalfield, which will examine the problems of developing the potential of the area. To date, NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. has provided assistance for nine projects in the Easington area and is at an advanced stage of discussions with Easington district council about building starter units costing about £100,000. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pause for a moment to pay tribute to the magnificent efforts of those involved in NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. in producing such remarkable results.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does he agree with the comments made by many of my constituents, who have said that the help now available to those coping with change in the industry is far more generous than it was under Labour Governments, especially in the 1960s, when a dozen pits closed in south Derbyshire? Does he agree that the Government keep their promises and help those who need assistance with this scheme?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight. No one would pretend that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. will provide an immediate answer to the serious employment problems of mining communities faced with pit closures, but it continues to show encouraging results.

Is the Minister aware that, in the report on the east Durham coalfield, of which he has a copy, produced by Easington district council, Durham county council and Sunderland borough council, projects worth about £78 million were mentioned, of which £30 million were for the Sunderland borough council area? Is he also aware that, at the careers office, 4,500 youngsters are registered as having no proper jobs and that there are only 94 job vacancies? Why does he not give the £30 million to Sunderland borough council so that it can get on with some of the projects, create jobs for youngsters and, above all, give them some future?

The enterprise company works closely with bodies such as local authorities and welcomes any ideas for the creation of real jobs, but it must be remembered that the enterprise company was established with the principal aim of creating permanent jobs in coalmining areas rather than the temporary jobs that tend to result from the infrastructure improvements proposed in "Communities in the East Durham Coalfield".

Since the decline in oil prices is likely to accelerate pit closures, will the Government give firm undertakings that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. will be given vastly increased funds to avoid the social and economic friction that will result from that accelerated closure programme?

The important point to make about the company is that it has had remarkable results in persuading into coalmining areas funds that have always been available from banks, in venture capital resources and from other Government sources. It has continued its impressive record. Money already allocated will provide approaching £150 million of total investment. The resources of the enterprise company will be kept under careful review.

Is my hon. Friend as dismayed as I am to hear some Opposition Members carping about the efforts of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does not their attitude threaten to undermine the good work that the company has done?

I have been most disappointed by the attitude of some Opposition Members. Others have come forward with extremely good and constructive ideas. I wish that their colleagues would follow that example.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board at regular intervals to discuss a wide variety of issues concerning the coal industry.

Will the Secretary of State be complimenting the chairman of British Coal on the fact that, unlike the miners, he will receive his golden handshake from his firm as well as his wages, even though it takes two to make a strike? Will he ask him to publish a list of those employed by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? It has been drawn to our attention that two of the people who have obtained real jobs in that company are Colin Clarke, who was a member of the National Working Miners Committee, who recently received his redundancy pay from the Coal Board, and Roy Ottey, who did not support the strike although he was a member of the NUM executive, but who supported MacGregor and the Secretary of State for Energy? Is it not a question of jobs for the boys who supported MacGregor, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and not for displaced miners?

The productivity improvements that have taken place in the coal industry over the past year will do more to guarantee future jobs in the industry than anything else that has taken place. We are hearing incredible carping about an organisation that has already produced more than 6,000 new jobs and encouraged £50 million-worth of new investment, with another £10 million being allocated to it. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would praise the excellent work that is being done, instead of carping.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the board is now giving proper recognition to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers as the only union representing the best interests of the miners and the future of the coal mining industry?

The board is giving recognition to those unions which have the majority representation in the various establishments.

As even this Government accept that the coal industry must have a significant future, is it not sad that the board's youngest employee in south Yorkshire is now almost 20 years of age? When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the board, will he point out that the board needs to appoint more young people to ensure that there is continuity of labour and maintenance of skills in the industry?

Yes. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the board's attention.

When my right hon. Friend met the chairman of the board, did he discuss with him the possibility of raising productivity in British pits to a higher level than it has reached already, ackowledging that there has been a great increase in productivity since the strike?

Yes. I think the Coal Board is well aware that fierce competition exists in world markets and that it is important to have still further improvements in world productivity.

The Secretary of State urged dismissed miners to put their case to industrial tribunals, and what has been the result? Is he aware that in 62 cases reemployment was advised by tribunals, but that only six dismissed miners have been taken back by the board? Is this justice? What will he do about this?

It is a matter for the board, and the board will have to make its decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress towards the introduction of pressurised water reactors in the United Kingdom.

The CEGB's application to construct a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell has been the subject of a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will reach a decision on the application as soon as possible once he has the inspector's report.

To reassure public opinion, does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea, between the submission of the inspector's report on Sizewell and a final decision being made by the Government, for a full parliamentary debate to be held?

The holding of a parliamentary debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention.

Instead of investing in a pressurised water reactor, will the Government consider reopening the arguments over tidal barrages, and especially the scheme for the Solway Firth, which would have provided for the production at peak demand of 1,400 Mw? Would that not be a far better way of investing public money? I do not expect an immediate answer on the Solway barrier scheme, but will the Minister at least take it off the shelf, dust it down and re-examine the arguments that were employed 20 years ago?

Any decision on the PWR must await the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry. I shall consider the issue of the Solway Firth barrage.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Chernobyl reactor contained graphite moderators, which are not present in PWRs? Does he agree that the sequence of disasters that led to the release of radioactivity at Chernobyl could not occur in a PWR?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Chernobyl reactor is a very different design from the proposed PWR at Sizewell and from reactors currently operated in Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to dispose of the Government's single special share in NIREX; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Perhaps he would now be kind enough to tell the House how the share is viewed by his Department and who represents the Department's views to NIREX. Does he agree that it would be better if the Government's interest was looked after by the Department of the Environment, which, after all, has an interest in maintaining and safeguarding the environment? Is not the watchdog too closely identified with the burglar at the moment?

Whether the special share should be held by the Secretary of State for the Environment or by the Secretary of State for Energy was considered carefully before United Kingdom NIREX was set up. The Secretary of State for Energy answers for the nuclear industry and NIREX in Parliament, so it was considered that he should hold the share. That remains the Government's view.

asked the Minister for the Arts which art forms win most business sponsorship incentive scheme awards.

The awards are widely spread, but music has received 33 per cent. of the awards, the theatre 21 per cent. and festivals 11 per cent.

Although I welcome the fact that music and the theatre have taken advantage of the BSIS, does my right hon. Friend agree that more could be done to encourage local festivals to use this successful scheme, which brings money into the arts through sponsorship?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is enormous scope for sponsoring local festivals, which rank third in terms of the level of support. For example, the Glasgow Festival now has sponsorship. The more that my hon. Friend and others can do to encourage sponsorship, the better.

Will the restoration of Hampton Court palace be eligible under the BSIS?

That is principally a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but it does not qualify.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he has received any representations from the actors union Equity to apply a cultural sanctions policy against South Africa.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Equity, following a referendum in which only 10·5 per cent. of its members took part, decided to ban its members from working in South Africa? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that decision would be more credible if it applied to the Soviet Union, where the only expression of artistic and cultural freedom is to defect?

The High Court has granted an injunction preventing Equity from implementing that policy until the Court has considered its legality further. The matter, therefore, is sub judice. The broader issues are primarily matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, but our broad policy is that there should not be cultural visits to South Africa if they are in any way likely to encourage apartheid.

I agree with the Minister that we should not probe too deeply as this is a matter for judicial proceedings, but does he agree that arts and culture also involve morality and social interpretation? Should not the Minister's party be pleased that the decision was made as a result of a ballot in the trade union? Should it not therefore be supported?

The hon. Gentleman anticipated that it would not be right for me to comment further on this case. I have explained our policy with regard to South Africa.

asked the Minister for the Arts what initiatives he is taking in the European Economic Community to promote cultural co-operation.

I shall be chairing a meeting of Ministers of Culture during the United Kingdom presidency and hope to put forward initiatives encouraging further cultural co-operation. In addition, my office is funding jointly with the Community a major symposium by the British Film Institute on "Film and Television: a European partnership", and I expect to have discussions with some of my opposite numbers in other member states.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such co-operation should be limited to cases in regard to which there is some practical benefit for the countries concerned?

My hon. Friend is right. Although it is healthy for Ministers of Culture of the European Community to meet and discuss areas of mutual interest, the matter is one principally for national Governments and there should be co-operation only when there is benefit to us all.

asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the extent of works of art in national collections which are not regularly displayed to the public.

The proportion of the collections in the national museums and galleries on public display at any one time varies from institution to institution. Most institutions aim to rotate items between public display and the reserve collection. All allow access by members of the public to items in their reserve collections by arrangement. They are aware of the need to improve public access generally, and I encourage them to do all they can within available resources.

Is the Minister aware that there is some concern that certain institutions are hoarding collections that should be made available much more widely throughout the nations and the regions of the country? As they tend to excuse themselves by praying in aid evidence of the complexity of the indemnity arrangements, will the Government take some initiative to overcome this problem to ensure that there is wider dispersal of these national collections?

As I said earlier, the practices of institutions—principally the nine that receive money from myself on behalf of the Government—are extremely varied. I am most anxious to encourage the maximum exhibition of objects of art—those that are in national institutions and stored away—in all regions of the country, not just in London. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the policy on indemnity. Three out of the nine national institutions have doubts about the Government's policy on indemnity. We have therefore had discussions with them, and hope that shortly all three will join the other institutions and do everything that they can to lend objects of art to various parts of the country.

Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that the museum authorities are extremely unhelpful about requests of this type? Will he assure the House that no reasonable and properly underwritten request will be turned down for the loan of such pictures in the provinces?

In principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the more that pictures and objects of art are lent in various parts of the country the better, but it is up to the trustees of the institutions to decide what they can and cannot lend. In fact, they must have insurance coverage before they can lend. It is that problem of indemnity that I am now seeking to overcome.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he has given any guidance to the Association for Business Sponsorship in the Arts on matching funds provided by trades unions; and if he will make a statement.

There is at present no special guidance to the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts on funding provided by trades unions; the same rules apply to trades unions as apply to businesses.

Why did the Minister support ABSA's recent act of political censorship against the Crucible theatre, when it refused to match a grant from NALGO for the sponsorship of the play "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui", which is a Berthold Brecht play? Does the Minister approve of this sort of political censorship by ABSA'? Is it not the thin end of the wedge? What other productions would he be prepared to support ABSA in censoring, given that he supported ABSA on that occasion?

There is absolutely no question of any censorship on the part of ABSA. The play to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in respect of which the producers had asked for sponsorship from NALGO, went ahead as planned and was not stopped in any way. The sponsorship was stopped, and neither I nor ABSA can accept sponsorship that leads to party political activities and propaganda. To do otherwise brings the whole sponsorship scheme into total disrepute. Sponsorship must therefore be confined to promoting the main products or services, and nothing else.

To be precise, it was not the sponsorship that was stopped, but the matching funds, and that arose because of the interpretation of politics and party political argument. I have read the material carefully. It is certainly political, but it is not party political. NALGO would have used exactly the same argument—and has in the past—in relation to Labour Governments. Does the Minister riot accept that in this interpretation we must make a distinction between sponsorship from private and commercial firms, which are concerned with profit, and that from trade unions, which are concerned with the wellbeing of their members and of society as a whole? That is the crucial distinction, and if the Minister fails to understand that, he will fail to understand the basis of trade union sponsorship.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that ABSA was unwilling to give the matching grant. Although it is right to allow trade unions to be part of the sponsorship scheme—my predecessor decided that, and I stick firmly to that policy—it is essential that the provision of taxpayers' money in the scheme should in no way lead to party political propaganda. That is what would have happened had the sponsorship been granted.

asked the Minister for the Arts what priority the Arts Council gives to promoting arts for school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

The Arts Council and the regional arts associations actively encourage all their clients to develop and implement educational policies.

How do those bodies encourage artists to go into schools, and facilitate first-class productions at places such as Stratford-on-Avon for children to see special performances for schools? Does my right hon. Friend accept that efforts with children at this stage will establish an interest in the arts for life, and that that is important?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subject. The Arts Council has established a specific allocation of funds for educational development work, which amounts to £320,000 in 1986–87. That, in itself, is a substantial increase on the previous financial year. In addition, some of the regional arts associations fund placement schemes for writers, artists, musicians and so on to operate within schools to inspire and encourage the young. That is the right way to encourage schools to participate in arts activities.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if Her Majesty's Government are still committed to the simplification and review of administrative forms; and if he will make a statement.

The Government remain fully committed to this initiative. Review procedures are now firmly established in Departments and good progress continues to be made. Between 1982 and 1985 some 15,700 Government forms were scrapped. A further 21,300 have been redesigned. Savings to Departments are estimated at about £9 million per annum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the Management and Personnel Office for a further progress report in 1987.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made in the simplification of forms, in particular the use of simpler English, may I ask him whether he will now turn his attention to simplifying reports and letters written by civil servants? Will he please bring to their attention the fact that the height of sophistication is simplicity?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Plain English Campaign, whose exhibition I recently sponsored in the House, is doing a great deal to encourage the use of plain English. A number of recent examples include Inland Revenue and Department of Health and Social Security forms, which are much simplified and, I hope, of benefit to consumers. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need plainer English.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the passport application form, which is a model of simplicity and could be used as an example for many other forms?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving another example, and there are several of them. The Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the DHSS have all introduced much simplified forms, which benefits consumers.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps have been taken to encourage interchange of personnel between the Civil Service and the private sector.

The Government continue to encourage the policy of secondments in both directions between the Civil Service and the private sector. Last year there were 386 secondments in both directions in operation with industry and commerce, an increase of 28 per cent. over 1984. The details are given in a report on the interchange programme published recently by the Management and Personnel Office, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

In welcoming that trend, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that there is scope for much greater interchange, particularly to enable civil servants to gain experience in industry, to the benefit of everybody? Will he sympathetically consider the additional incentive of setting up a trust along the lines of the Parliament and Industry Trust to encourage this interchange?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's objective is to encourage this. I am glad to say that there has been a 28 per cent. increase in 1985 over 1984. There is a Whitehall and industry scheme, which is clearly limited, but has started, in which a number of civil servants are able to have up to 15 days with businesses. This also plays its part. As to the broader area of concern, the information that I have given is confined to the private sector, but at least 520 other jobs are outward secondment for non-civil service sectors, including universities and colleges. This sector should be encouraged as well.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most important aspects of this secondment lies at a much higher level within the Civil Service, particularly assistant secretary and under-secretary grades? It is there that we are falling far short of what can be achieved. How many of those 386 civil servants come from the assistant secretary and under-secretary grades?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to pinpoint the fact that the bulk of secondments come in the principal grade, which is a lower grade. There are just over 11,000 principals. It is true that there are fewer secondments at more senior level. I am examining this to see whether more can be done to encourage secondment at a higher level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that contact by civil servants with the wider world of industry and commerce would give them a breath of fresh air and invigorate them for their future service in the public service?

I hope that that is what civil servants already find. A number of people—just under 200—come in from industry and the private sector for a period of secondment to the Civil Service, and that is also helpful.

How many out of the 386 who have been given this opportunity are women? Will the Minister ensure that women in the principal grades are given proper opportunities, because this will enable them to achieve higher levels in the Civil Service later in their careers?

I cannot give an answer to the specific question without notice, but I shall make sure that the hon. Lady's question is answered. As she knows, the Civil Service and Government Departments are equal opportunity employers and we are pursuing that point as vigorously as possible.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been dispersed under the Government's programme for dispersal since 1979.

Some 5,017 posts have been dispersed since 1979 under the Government's programme.

Does this mean that the number has gone up? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's policy to disperse as many employees as possible from the London area to areas of high unemployment, such as the north-west?

The policy that was adopted in 1979 was to disperse 5,900 civil servants to various parts of the country by the mid to late 1980s. In the past few weeks another 500 or so civil servants have been dispersed to the region around Glasgow, principally from the Ministry of Defence, so progress is being made.

How many of the civil servants so dispersed have been of assistant secretary or undersecretary grade, because these are, after all, the policymakers? How much policy can be made by the people in the areas to which they are dispersed?

Without some notice I cannot give a detailed answer, but the majority of civil servants are not the policy advisers. Policy advisors remain in London. The vast majority, if not all, are in administrative sectors of one kind or another, and have been dispersed to various parts of the country. It should be stressed that four out of five civil servants are already outside London.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would help to redress the balance between the south and the north, and the south and the midlands, if many of those bodies which receive money and grants from the Government were told that they will continue to receive them only if they move their head offices north instead of using expensive buildings in London, which is often totally unnecessary?

Some regions, such as the north-east, have a high proportion of civil servants compared with the total working population. However, I am sure that they would like to have more civil servants. Several regions, including Scotland and the north-east, do quite well in terms of the number of civil servants there.

By how many does that figure of 5,900 fall short of the original Hardman proposals? Will the Minister bear in mind that my constituency of East Kilbride has so far seen only 60 per cent. of the 1,000 dispersed posts promised?

In 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, the Government took a clear decision that 5,900 was the right number to disperse. It is expensive to disperse civil servants, and a careful analysis needs to be made of the cost benefit of dispersal. But we are on course, and in the past few weeks another 500 civil servants have been dispersed.