asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the present position in respect of onshore oil exploration in the Merseyside area.

In the recent onshore licensing round I awarded four new petroleum exploration licences in the Merseyside area. These are in addition to the three exploration and three production licences already in existence.

Can the Minister tell me the names of the constituencies in which these licences have been granted? Are they progressing well in terms of permissions from the landowners, occupiers and local authorities? Is he able to say when employment possibilities are likely to arise on Merseyside as a result of these developments?

The whole of the Merseyside area is covered by the existing and new licences. If the hon. Gentleman would like further information I shall be happy to provide it. I understand that exploration work is proceeding, but unless some discovery is made one cannot tell what activity may flow from the exploration.

As further developments in Merseyside or elsewhere are likely to be affected by the continuing fall in oil prices, is my right hon. Friend aware that the industry is becoming increasingly anxious about the tax regime and especially about the ring fencing of oilfields? Has he had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this urgent matter to ensure that further inducements exist for continued exploration and development?

I am certainly aware of the problems of the falling oil price. There is no evidence that any existing activity or any developments recently approved or developments at an advanced stage of consideration by my Department have been inhibited by the current tax regime. If activity is hindered, 1 assure my hon. Friend that I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will look carefully at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest available figures of imports of coal into the United Kingdom and from what sources.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the countries from which the United Kingdom imports coal; and what proportion of United Kingdom enegy needs are met by coal imports.

The latest available figures for imports of coal into the United Kingdom cover the period January to April 1986. I shall publish the information in the Official Report. On a primary fuel input basis, 4 per cent. of United Kingdom energy needs were met by coal imports in 1985.

Now that the Foreign Secretary is not going to South Africa, does the Secretary of State think that a good response from him would be to ban all imports of this blooded coal? Does he appreciate that the continued import of coal is a kick in the teeth for the mining communities and the miners? The Secretary of State is aware that there is to be a rundown of miners' jobs. Will he assure the House that any miners made redundant after March 1987 will under a new scheme receive benefits equivalent to those that they receive now?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European leaders have agreed upon an approach to South Africa which after three months would include action on a number of materials, including coal. That is the right approach and I hope that it will have some influence on negotiations in the coming months. The hon. Gentleman asked about benefits for miners. The present scheme ends in March 1987, and if further redundancies are required it will be the responsibility of the Coal Board to decide what measures are needed.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the British people why, when we have massive coal reserves and over 4 million people unemployed, we need to import coal, especially from countries with regimes like that in Poland, which has no free trade union movement, or South Africa, which has no freedom? Surely this is one case where sanctions against South Africa would be of benefit to Britain and Britain's work force?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Figures that I shall publish in the Official Report will show that in the past six months Britain imported far more coal from Poland than from South Africa. However, during the period of the last Labour Government pits were being closed and unemployment increased, and imports from South Africa and Poland continued throughout the whole of that period.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recently negotiated agreement between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board makes little provision for imports, the result of which is likely to be that the public will be deprived of the opportunity of cheap coal from countries other than South Africa, which would be greatly to their advantage?

On the other hand, the CEGB wants continuity of supply and our coal industry to continue to provide the volume of coal that is necessary to meet electricity demand. It is perfectly reasonable therefore for it to enter into long-term contracts to ensure that that supply continues to be available.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that were it not for the activities of the private sector in coal production, imports would be higher than they are? Given that the private sector is anxious to expand its operations, does it not make sense to strike off the restrictive shackles that have been placed upon it so that it can expand its output and thereby cut our import bill still further?

If we look at the totality of coal production, we must recognise that under the present system of nationalisation there is a very substantial coal industry in which this Government have invested heavily. It is providing very substantial yields of coal, with much better productivity figures. No Government can ignore those factors.

Is the Secretary of State aware that for every 1 million tonnes of coal imported 1,000 jobs are lost in the British coal industry and in supporting industries? Over 12 million tonnes of coal were imported last year, which means that 12,000 British jobs have been lost. Where does the Secretary of State's interest really lie? Does it lie with South Africa and those countries which export cheap coal to Britain, or does it lie with the British miner and the British coal industry? In view of continuing low-cost oil imports, 20,000 more jobs in the British coal industry are threatened. That is another reason why all coal imports should cease.

If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that last year's figures were so important for unemployment, I should point out to him that the reason for the enormous rise in imports was the disastrous strike led by Arthur Scargill, supported by the Labour party. The reason for the rise in unemployment is completely, in my view, to be laid at the feet of Arthur Scargill and nobody else. As for imports, the right hon. Gentleman also knows, as a former Cabinet Minister, that every Government of which he was a member closed pits and also imported coal.

On redundancy payments, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this Government will make finance available to the Coal Board if it wishes to continue to make the same kinds of payments?

We shall discuss, as would any Government, the financial requirements of the Coal Board in the years that lie ahead and the public expenditure that it requires. Because of his great interest in the coal industry, the hon. Gentleman knows that the scheme that has been operated by the Government was a temporary scheme, and it was announced that it was a temporary scheme to bring about the considerable transition in the coal industry that was necessary. When that major transition ends, it is perfectly reasonable that that responsibility should be returned to the Coal Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the European Commission that is concerned with coal believes that imports into member states are necessary? If so, what will be the influence of the EEC's policy on the size and output of the British coal industry?

Imports over the past six months were about 4 per cent. of our coal requirements, and some of those imports were of specialist coals, some of which are not available here. Had we not had the disastrous strike, there would not have been such a rise in imports. I hope that now, if there is stability in the industry, we can reduce imports.

Is the Secretary of State aware that last week I met the president and general secretary of the South African National Union of Mineworkers, who impressed two points on me? The first was about the imprisonment and internment of trade unionists in South Africa, including members of the South African NUM. The second was their desire to see the imports of South African coal into Britain stopped. I note what the Secretary of State said about consideration by the EEC. That is insufficient.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that during the whole period that he was a Minister, the regime in South Africa was just as intolerant to the position of the blacks, and imports from South Africa came in every year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of energy efficiency savings so far achieved by Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

All Government Departments have been made aware of the need to establish and implement effective energy management practices during Energy Efficiency Year.

I recognise the valuable work that my hon. Friend has done during Energy Efficiency Year, but is there not still a shocking waste of energy in Government Departments and offices, particularly here in the offices in the Palace of Westminster?

Hot air.

Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he, as the Minister, will set an example for the rest of industry to follow?

My Department's energy manager has already cut the consumption of electricity under his control by about 10 per cent. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the considerable savings that can still he made. As to the Palace of Westminster, I hope that the hon. Member who shouted "Hot air" will realise that I am not an expert in these matters. I understand that there is a great deal of surplus heat in the Palace of Westminster and I know that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee would greatly welcome any practical suggestions as to how best it could usefully be re-cycled.

In addition to savings in Government Departments, does the hon. Gentleman recall the Public Accounts Committee report, which said that huge savings could be made in the National Health Service which could be used for better patient care? How much progress has been made towards the targets that the PAC said should be set?

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. He will be aware that I and my hon. Friend iat the Department of Health and Social Security launched a major initiative with all the regional health authorities, and he will be aware of the publication of the Encode, which has gone to all managers in the Health Service. I hope that we shall soon see those ambitious but, nevertheless, necessary targets being met.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the enormous savings in the Health Service, Defence Department and all other parts of the public sector will not be achieved until he persuades the Treasury to remove the stupid restriction that prevents private enterprise third party financed energy management companies from offering services to the public sector without it being added to the public sector borrowing requirement, even if the investment is financed from outside by the private sector?

I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest productivity figures for British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary or State for Energy how the latest productivity figures for the coal industry compare with those in 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

British Coal's average deep-mined revenue productivity for the week ending 21 June was 3·25 tonnes, the highest weekly figure achieved so far. This compares with an average of 2·24 tonnes during the financial year 1978–79. This further growth in productivity reflects a continuing effort by all concerned to reduce costs, which provides the industry with its only sure route to a viable future.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the management and work force of British Coal on achieving the best productivity figures ever? In view of the progress being made by the industry towards achieving improvements in productivity, would it not be madness for Arthur Scargill to attempt to foment further industrial action? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be the action of a madman, such as Arthur Scargill has proved himself to be, to put so callously and pointlessly at risk the future of the industry and its work force?

Alas, it is not the actions of Mr. Scargill that concern me, but just his words. Every time he makes one of those speeches, a number of industrialists who are contemplating converting to coal decide that while such speeches are being made they cannot take the risk. That is doing real damage to the industry.

May I add my congratulations to the management of British Coal to those of my right hon. Friend? May I invite my right hon. Friend also to congratulate the western area of British Coal, which has achieved record productivity of 3·49 million tonnes per man shift, which is 9 per cent. up on the record of the preceding month? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if such progress continues throughout British Coal we shall see it breaking even by 31 March 1988?

Yes, Sir. I should like to see that target achieved. British Coal has the added problem of lower oil prices and the competition which has resulted from that, which means that it will achieve somewhat lower revenue than it anticipated. Certainly the improvements in productivity at last show after all these years some return on the enormous investment by British taxpayers in the industry.

In response to those impressive figures, will the Secretary of State ensure that the importation of coal from dumping countries is deterred in Europe and prevented in Britain? Also, in response to that performance within the industry, will he advise the NCB to extricate itself immediately from its international arrangements which involve the promotion of and trading in South African coal?

The action on South African coal has been agreed by the European Community, and we must see the effect of that in the negotitations that will take place in the coming months. One of the great factors of the improved productivity is that it will genuinely eradicate the potentality of coal imports.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the productivity of the Castlehill mine in my constituency which is in existence only because two men who have been victimised by the NCB stayed underground to save the mine? Without them the high productivity there would not exist. Further, will he reflect on the deal between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and British Coal which was concluded last week and which reduced the coalburn to 3·6 million tonnes a year at a time when the SSEB is having a high oilburn and is promoting a high nuclear content in its operations?

It is a matter for negotiation. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the obligation placed on the electricity industry by a statue introduced by a Labour Government for the nationalisation of electricity makes it clear that the boards must provide the cheapest possible electricity.

Is my right hon. Friend not also impressed by the productivity in the private sector mines, although they must pay royalties to the NCB on their production? Has the time not come to review the procedures for licensing private sector coal mines to put them on the same footing as the NCB?

No, Sir. If the NCB is put on the same footing, which would mean that for each highly productive pit it could charge one price and for the others it could charge a higher price, that would be absurd. Obviously the licensing system is constantly reviewed, but at present it is working satisfactorily.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the miners of the south Wales coalfield on achieving all the productivity targets set for them during the past year as a result of their having, for the first time, their proper share of capital investment, especially in heavy duty face support development? In doing so, will he ask the director of the NCB in south Wales to stop moving the goal posts in setting targets over and above and beyond what they are at present achieving, which will result in even more closures, as the Secretary of State well knows?

I welcome the substantial improvement in productivity in south Wales. The problem for the NCB management is that, without its desiring it, the goal posts move because a sudden massive drop in the price of its major competitor affects it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain these good productivity figures into the future? Is he yet able to make a statement about the proposed development at the Cadley Hill colliery in my constituency, which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited on 20 June which, if agreed, will enable me to go on representing in the House efficient coal miners into the next century?

I know how much my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State enjoyed his visit to that coal mine, but obviously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) knows, decisions on these matters are for the NCB.

Yes, the miners deserve congratulations on their increased productivity, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a crisis of confidence is emerging in the mining industry? He will be aware that on Saturday the Fraser of Allender institute said that 4,000 mining jobs in Scotland would go west, with a total of 8,000 as a consequence. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that such stories will affect productivity and that the message in the mining industry will be that the harder one works the more pit closures and redundancies there will be?

In giving his congratulations, and with his considerable knowledge of this industry, the hon. Gentleman should reflect that under "Plan for Coal" money was poured in for 10 years but productivity agreements were never implemented. Instead of achieving 4 per cent. productivity per annum outlined in "Plan for Coal", 4 per cent. was achieved over 10 years. Thank heavens, for the future of that industry, at long last improved productivity is taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress so far of Energy Efficiency Year.

Energy Efficiency Year continues to make a strong impact. The "Monergy" logo, and the slogan "Get More for Your Monergy" are well established, and over 800 "Monergy" events have already take place. To reinforce the strong tide of interest, we shall be running a major autumn campaign of television and press advertising to coincide with the start of the heating season.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in Energy Efficiency Year it would be a great breakthrough if he were able to accept the proposals of the combined heat and power consortium in Leicester?

I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his constant lobbying and support for the consortium. Aware of the significance of this subject, I await with interest the consortium's report, which I understand is likely to be the first of the lead city consortia to complete work.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the prospects for Energy Efficiency Year would be greatly improved if local authorities had more finance available for loft insulating grants? Is he aware, for instance, that the St. Helen's authority is already informing its citizens that it can accept no more applications for such grants because it has no money left?

I am very surprised to hear that, and I shall follow up that case immediately. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the history of the homes insulation scheme is, sadly, one of underspend. Indeed, the arrangements made by the Department of the Environment this year were primarily laid down to ensure that no local authority would run out of money. I shall, of course, investigate the point that he has made.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that for commerce and industry, Energy Efficiency Year is, frankly, the flattest of flat pancakes?

The targets and the potential for industry and commerce are so enormous that any assessment of progress so far must of necessity be something of an anticlimax. But we have already been able to identify the fact that industry and commerce have been able to make savings of £500 million as a result of my Department's programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has had any discussions on the privatisation of the electricity industry.

There have been no recent discussions on this subject. The Government have no present plans to privatise the electricity supply industry,.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no objection in principle to privatising the electricity supply industry, which has the largest holding of state assets in western Europe? Will he also confirm that the Government will seek to ensure that this is a manifesto commitment for the next general election?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to privatise the electricity industry as soon as possible, in view of the fact that it is not sensible to have the gas industry in private ownership and the electricity industry in public ownership because of the unfairness of that situation to the electricity industry?

I note my hon. Friend's view, but as I said earlier, the Government have no present plans to privatise the electricity supply industry.

The House might welcome that, but it is a less than complete assurance. Will the Minister acknowledge that there would be great anxiety about the privatisation of the electricity industry, as that would involve the privatisation of nuclear power, which he may have something to say about later? Will he also acknowledge that there is a great desire to decentralise electricity in the public sector, and will he undertake to give more discretion to regional boards and less control to the Central Electricity Generating Board?

The Government have already encouraged a more open market in electricity supply by removing the legislative and institutional constraints on private generation and establishing a framework for fair dealing between private generators and electricity boards.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the terms on which he expects shares in British Gas to be made available to the corporation's customers.

As I announced on 18 June, we shall be making special arrangements for gas consumers and other small investors to purchase shares in British Gas. Domestic gas consumers who register their interest in advance will be guaranteed to receive a certain number of shares when they apply. Full details will be announced before the sale.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that upwards of 16 million households will be entitled to buy shares in British Gas under the privatisation proposals? Will he take steps to ensure that those shares are not confiscated by a possible future Labour Government, as the Labour party proposes to confiscate the shares of the 1·5 million shareholders in British Telecom by nationalisation under another name?

The 16 million customers of British Gas will, for the first time, have direct participation in the industry of which they are customers. As for the Labour party's plans, I must confess that I am torn between deploring the morality of the proposals and being delighted at the political advantage that they will give to the Conservative party.

When does the Secretary of State expect British Gas to come on to the market?

This autumn.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the privatisation of British Gas offers a remarkable opportunity to extend share ownership to the many millions of British Gas customers? Does he agree that it will be more successful than the privatisation of British Telecom? Will he ensure that the terms sufficiently reflect those interesting possibilities?

I am delighted at the possibility of large numbers of customers, employees, small invest ors and pension schemes having direct participation in the industry. I look forward to successful privatisation taking place this autumn.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his noble Friend has created some confusion over the proposed sale of the shares? Will he clear that up for the House? May we now have the details of how the shares will be launched, the number and at what time they will be made available to the public?

On the latter point, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would declare his personal interest in the matter. We will let him have the details, and I will send him a special form as soon as possible. As for the House of Lords, my noble Friend is coducting matters with immense care. I do not think that there is any misunderstanding.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to have a meeting with the chairman of British Gas to discuss gas prices.

Prices are a matter for the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation.

With regard to industrial gas prices, when my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Gas, will he discuss different gas prices for consumers on interruptible contracts, who receive good, competitive price charging, compared with those on long-term firm contracts for gas supply, whose contracts are still subject to price increases far out of touch with the present energy position?

My hon. Friend is right. There has been a considerable drop in the price of interruptible gas. The price for the supply of firm gas by contract is a matter for each contract commercially negotiated by British Gas. I understand that some planned increases have been cancelled and in some cases there have been reductions.

When the Minister meets the chairman of British Gas to discuss prices, will he ask him how they will be affected by the flotation of British Gas shares, especially as most will go to foreign investors and British Gas customers will own a very small percentage of the shares that will be sold?

The hon. Gentleman knows that privatisation of itself has no effect on the price of gas. As for the availability of shares, I simply ask him to await the details. A real opportunity will be given to many millions of people—who recently, for the first time, and under a Conservative Government, have enjoyed having shares in industry—as a result of this exciting and enterprising flotation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the sterling work carried out by energy cost analysis companies, which have negotiated very reasonable prices for gas all over the country? Does he agree that there is now an opportunity to promote some of these private arrangements so that other major companies can benefit from a tariff analysis which is fair to them?

For interruptible gas, many companies already enjoy very favourable tariffs from British Gas. I note what my hon. Friend said about the opportunities provided by consultancies and others. No doubt they will make their services available to those who find them useful.

As the Government plan to raid British Gas accounts to the tune of £2·5 billion on privatisation, to collect nearly £500 million in the gas levy and still leave British Gas with a large profit, instead of trying to benefit some gas consumers with some shares, why not benefit all gas consumers by reducing gas prices?

We are trying to give the British public, for the first time, a genuine share in the ownership of one of our greatest industries. Many people outside now realise how the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party would deny them an opportunity of which I know many people will avail themselves.

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

I regularly meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree about the importance of reaching a good and effective code of practice for the elderly and disabled?

Yes, Sir, and that will be done.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he be kind enough to explain to him why it is wrong for the Gas Corporation to have drilling and exploration activities when it is in the public sector and right for it to have drilling and exploration activities when it is in the private sector.

There is no need to explain it. He is delighted about going into the private sector, for that reason.

When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman, will he tell him that a fair minority of my constituents look forward to privatisation and even now would be prepared to pay the going rate for gas if only they could get connected to it? Is he aware that they are increasingly irritated by the splendid television advertising of the virtues of gas? Is it not a scandal that they are asked to pay prohibitive connection charges?

The problem with connection is that the cost of linking places to gas, especially in rural areas such as my hon. Friend represents, has been difficult. Under the process of nationalisation, there has been a clear basis according to which British Gas has had a statutory duty to connect potential consumers. That basis will continue unchanged after privatisation. The difference is that, after privatisation, if other groups wish to take on areas which British Gas has not taken on, they will be free to do so.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Gas, will he explain that, although British Gas has got away lightly in the Gas Bill in terms of the lack of effective regulatory control, if it abuses its monopoly in the private sector, a future Government, which might be a Conservative Government, will have no hesitation in imposing stronger regulators?

In view of the policies and differences in the alliance at the moment, I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman will have any influence on any future Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he remains satisfied that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has the staff and the resources to fulfil the responsibilities in respect of which it reports to him to appropriate standards of competence and expedition.

The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is able to meet its essential commitments. The Health and Safety Executive is now seeking to recruit over 20 per cent. more well qualified inspectors to deal with further work.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I recall his categorical and emphatic response to a question that I asked on 14 April, when he assured me that there were no deficiencies in the staffing and resources of the inspectorate? Does he accept that that answer was an extremely grave example of misleading the House on a matter of great importance? Can we be absolutely sure that the Government's responses to our questions will be accurate in future, especially when we are dealing with a matter of such importance and concern?

There were and are no deficiencies in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters about the strength and recruitment of nuclear inspectors are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General. As I said to the House, the Health and Safety Excutive is to start a recruitment exercise this month to recruit up to a maximum of 20 more inspectors. In addition, discussions on the pay of nuclear inspectors are going forward.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Is it not true that the supply of energy has a price? Every year in the coal mining industry tens of people are killed, 400 are injured and thousands suffer from lung-related diseases, and in addition we have problems with acid rain. Of course, that is an improved safety record compared with a few years ago. Therefore, would my hon. Friend like to compare that with the safety record of our nuclear industry? Would we not need a Chernobyl incident every three or four years if we were trying to match the safety record of the coal industry?

My hon. Friend is right. The safety record of the nuclear industry compares favourably with other forms of electricity generation.

asked the Minister for the Arts what recent discussions he has had with the Arts Council about funding of the arts on Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

I have discussed the Merseyside situation with the chairman of the Arts Council, and my officials have been in constant touch with officers of the Arts Council and the Merseyside Arts Association. I am very pleased that a satisfactory settlement has been reached, which secures the future of all the major arts organisations on Merseyside.

Bearing in mind that it took eight months of intense negotiation to reach a settlement for the performing arts, I do not think that the people on Merseyside can be as glad about the situation as the Minister's answer suggests that he is. Is he resisting the attempts of the Treasury to cut the Arts Council's budget? Does he realise that not only the voluntary sector on Merseyside will be at stake, but that institutions such as the Philharmonic Hall could still be threatened with closure next year if the budget is cut and the Government's contribution is any less than it was this year?

The people who live on Merseyside have every reason to be pleased that there is now a conclusion to the long negotiations. I am glad that the Arts Council, which contributed over £1 million, and the local authorities are playing a positive part in that settlement. It is the last of the areas to reach a settlement. I believe that there is a positive long-term future for all the major arts bodies on Merseyside.

When my right hon. Friend was considering Arts Council funding for Merseyside, was he aware of the large sums being made by Sir Peter Hall and Trevor Nunn, which could well be used on Merseyside and in the east midlands?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. As I have already made plain, as has the chairman of the Arts Council, the question of the guidelines for the terms and conditions of directors of organisations, such as the National theatre and the Royal Shakespeare company, have been referred to the Cork inquiry, which is looking into the future of subsidised theatre.

I thank the Minister for the personal help he has given this year in securing funding for many of the arts institutions on Merseyside. Has he had a chance to consider the representations made to him about the "Act Now" venture, which he saw earlier this summer, and will he be able to provide any funding for that in the future? Will he also comment on business sponsorship for the arts on Merseyside and how successful that can be?

I have already had a meeting with representatives of those who have been behind the "Act Now" venture, and I have great admiration for the work that they have done. I am considering the points that they made to me and I hope to have a meeting with them in Plymouth next week during meetings of the Council of Regional Arts Associations.

asked the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received from his Greek counterpart on the future of the Parthenon marbles.

There have been no formal representations from the Greek Government on the future of the Parthenon marbles since Her Majesty's Government's reply to the request for their return through UNESCO in October 1985.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Parthenon marbles are housed in nine museums in six countries? Does he agree that the Greek representations would be a little more credible, and the Labour party's response a little less pathetic, if similar requests were made to the Governments of all six countries in which the marbles are housed?

My hon. Friend is right, to the extent that the British museum possesses only about 50 per cent. of all the Parthenon sculptures. Apart from some in Greece, the rest of them—at least nine — are placed in other European centres. My hon. Friend is right on that. However, I must also ask whether the Opposition have considered the precedent that would be set if the marbles were returned. What would be left of the British national collections in many areas?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the marbles were to be returned to the Parthenon that would be one matter; but, as that is not practicable, to move them out of one museum and put them into another does not make much sense? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if we were to pursue that line of cultural apartheid many works of art might leave our shores, and all that we would get in return would be a few statues of Queen Victoria and possibly old London bridge?

The right hon. Gentleman puts the point most effectively. That would set a precedent, which would lead to a major reduction in our great national collections, in which all the objects, including the Elgin marbles, have been acquired legally. The right hon. Gentleman should also put that question to his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who appears to be committed to the return of the Elgin marbles.

As it is clear that the British museum has looked after the Elgin marbles very well for 150 years, can my right hon. Friend say what sort of care was given to them by the locals when the marbles were in Greece?

It would not be right for me to comment on that in detail, but I can say that the museum looks after the marbles magnificently. It has an excellent conservation service. Moreover, what is really important is that they were acquired legally, and it would require an Act of Parliament to change the position to compel the trustees to return them. I do not believe that that would be the wish of this Parliament.

Rather a lot of rubbish has been talked, and it will be difficult to deal with all the rubbish in a short reply. May I point out, in the form of a question as a reply to the Minister, that when it is argued that the marbles were legally acquired, in fact they were sold by an occupying country? In other words, would the Minister say that the pictures that were removed by the Third Reich from Holland, Belgium and France, which, among other things, had been acquired by Goering, had been legally acquired? We said that they should have gone back to the countries of origin. In the same way, we believe that the marbles properly belong to Greece and that more British people will see them in Athens than in London. We unswervingly adhere to the proposition that they should be returned.

It is firmly established that the Elgin marbles were legally acquired under the sovereignty of the Ottoman empire as it was at that time. In 1816 the British Parliament passed an Act of Parliament that gave the authority to the British museum to retain the Elgin marbles.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require local authorities to introduce charges for the loan of books from public libraries; and if he will make a statement.

I have no such plans. The Government intend to maintain the present arrangements for freel ending of books and other basic library services for individuals, but I encourage library authorities to develop other sources of revenue.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's support for the library service. Does he agree that the opportunity might be given to libraries to charge for fiction loans so that the extra resources can be used within the library service in the same way as charging for records already takes place?

My hon. Friend's point is perfectly legitimate. I know that other countries, including New Zealand, have a distinction between fiction and nonfiction. I have come to the view that, on educational grounds, it is difficult to draw a distinction between fiction and non-fiction. Therefore, it is best to retain the great traditions of a free lending service. It is possible for libraries to make charges in other areas, and a number of libraries do so with a great deal of enterprise.

I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome what he said. Will he steadily remember the importance of free access to books, whether fiction or nonfiction, for those studying.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have already made it plain that I intend to maintain that service. At the same time, I reinforce the view that I think there is scope for libraries to raise revenue in other ways, and they should be encouraged to do just that.

The Minister has taken something of the sabre away from his answer. We want a firm response that in no circumstances will libraries be permitted to charge for the loan of books. The Government are trying to do that with museums. I believe that they are also trying to do it in other aspects of libraries. We want a clear and unequivocal statement that in no circumstances will that happen.

It would be good news if the hon. Gentleman would listen to my answers sometimes. I have made it plain that we have no intention of changing any of the existing plans to maintain a free basic library service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what was discussed.

have had no formal meetings with the Civil Service unions, but I did meet them informally on 25 March, and I attended the dinner of the First Division Association on 14 May. Topics of mutual interest were discussed informally.

When the Minister next meets the unions, will he raise with them the future of the Crown Suppliers and confirm the decision of the review staff that to privatise the Crown Suppliers would be against the public interest? Will he assure the House that he respects that decision by his own review team? Will he publish the supplementary report by the central purchasing unit that seems to be causing Ministers some embarrassment and is at the moment hidden from public view?

I shall look at the latter point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I am not absolutely clear that his first point is within my remit. I shall look into the matter and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Next time the Minister meets the trade unions, will he consider with them the damage that has been done by the Government's actions over GCHQ to industrial relations, to GCHQ itself and to the position of staff at GCHQ? In the light of all that, will the Minister reverse his decision and restore trade union rights at Cheltenham?

The position at GCHQ has been made clear repeatedly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I have nothing further to add.

In the light of the election of a Militant. supporter to the general secretaryship of the CPSA, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the sadness of the fact that he and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench did not accept the amendment put forward by myself and other colleagues of his in favour of secret postal ballots?

I note my hon. Friend's views. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain last week, the election of officers of a trade union is entirely a matter for the membership itself. We have a long tradition of impartiality, professionalism and loyalty in the Civil Service. I hope and believe that that tradition will continue.

Does the Minister think that it would he a good idea, when he next meets representatives of Civil Service unions, to discuss the need for more training for equal opportunities officers?

There are designated officers in each Government Department who look after the problems of equal opportunities. I am satisfied that that is working well.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if, pursuant to his answer of 16 June, Official Report, column 743, to the lion. Member for Leicester, East, he will list the groups regarded as subversive for the purpose of prohibition on employment on work vital to the security of the state.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend include members of the Militant Tendency and its supporters who, I believe, are subversive? Does he recall that it was Militant that organised the great dispute at the DHSS office in Newcastle, costing the taxpayer £170 million? Does my right hon. Friend realise that John Macreadie's election is a danger to this nation's security, is anti-democratic and involves an organisation that seeks to undermine our valid Parliament? Surely something should be done urgently to purge Militant from the Civil Service.

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I must point out that the general secretaries of these unions are union officials, not civil servants. Therefore, they have no more access to the Civil Service than an ordinary visitor, and the ordinary security precautions prevail. I repeat what I have said before to my hon. Friend:

"No one is precluded from employment in the Civil Service because of membership of a particular organisation. However, no one may he employed on work vital to the security of the state who is or has recently been a member of a Communist or Fascist organisation or of a subversive group whose aims are to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means," [Official Report, 16 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 743.]

Is there not a case for looking again at Lord Denning's wise judgment, that "subversion" should be defined as undermining the state by unlawful means? That would enable people, including the hon. Member:for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), to give evidence to the police, or else deal with the matter in the normal way.

The criterion is well established. It was established in 1975 by the former Labour Government, and I am content to stick to that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the worrying aspect of this infiltration is that, if it increases, there will be an increased tendency for Ministers, whatever their party, to bring into government their political nominees, and we shall thereby lose the benefits, which we have had for many years, of an impartial Civil Service?

I strongly reinforce my hon. Friend's comments on the need for an impartial Civil Service. The heart of the stability of our system is that we should have an impartial Civil Service which is loyal to any elected Government. We are entitled to that, and I believe that we have a Civil Service which, broadly speaking, is impartial, loyal, dedicated and professional.

Is the Minister aware that, despite his statements about the need for an impartial Civil Service and the fact that that is what we have—I entirely support those sentiments—the Government have worsened relationships between the Civil Service and the trade unions by their ban on trade union membership at GCHQ? Will he confirm, or deny, today's press reports that the director of GCHQ, Sir Peter Marychurch, has been asked to stay on until June 1988. one year after he is due to retire? Does he agree that the Government are perhaps hoping thereby to ensure that management at GCHQ is able to persuade an incoming Government to maintain the trade union ban'? Will he take on board the fact that the Labour party, when it takes office after the next general election, will do nothing whatsoever of the kind and that it will reverse the Government's decision and allow trade union membership to continue at GCHQ?

I have already said on several occasions that the question of GCHQ is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is wrong to take the view that the Government have not taken account of conditions in the Civil Service. The latest pay settlement shows that we are taking fully into account movements in the pay sector outside the Civil Service.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his earlier answer, when he said that the conduct of elections of trade union officials is a matter for the trade union? Does he agree that there is a wider and legitimate national interest in securing that elections for office in trade unions are conducted in every respect with scrupulous fairness and integrity?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many permanent secretaries and deputy secretaries at the present time are members qualified by examination of a United Kingdom chartered professional body.

This is not uncommon. Detailed records are not held centrally.

Is the Minister aware that my question was about the number ofpeople in top jobs in the Civil Service who have professional qualifications? Will he answer it?

We do not have a specific record, but, if it is any help to the hon. Gentleman, roughly one in six of all those who are permanent secretaries or deputy secretaries have professional qualifications.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the cost implications of negotiations to facilitate early retirement from the Civil Service.

The negotiations are intended to secure more flexible early retirement arrangements within the Civil Service. The intention is that the average cost of early retirement will not increase.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that civil servants will not be able to retire on full pensions at the age of 50, as has been reported in recent press articles?

I can confirm that there has been inaccurate press reporting of the matter. The proposal, which is part of a comprehensive package which is still being discussed, is that civil servants should be given the right to retire on actuarially reduced pensions at no extra cost to the Exchequer.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many non-departmental public bodies have been (a) abolished or (b) reformed since May 1979.

Between 1979 and 1985 a total of 756 non-departmental public bodies were abolished, rationalised or substantially reduced. During that period 242 new bodies were set up, resulting in a net reduction of 514.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's quango hunt has not run out of steam?

I can confirm that. In the past year, in which there has been a review of the number of quangos, there has been a continuing net reduction.

Does the Minister believe that when non-departmental bodies are set up by the Government, particularly when they replace democratically elected bodies — I am thinking specifically of the residuary bodies that were set up to replace the democratically elected Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils — Ministers should have the guts to answer questions about the activities of those non-departmental bodies?

I think that we are referring here to transitional bodies. The criterion whether a new quango should be set up is whether it can be proved to be the most cost-effective means of fulfilling Government policy.