asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss investment in the industry.

I have regular meetings with the chairman of British coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British Coal's borings off the north-east coast have led to the discovery of millions of tonnes of new coal reserves? As north-east pits already go miles underneath the sea, will the Secretary of State do all that he can with the chairman of British Coal to ensure that the new reserves are exploited and so safeguard the jobs of thousands of north-east miners, especially in an area where there is no alternative employment?

I know that the Coal Board's policy is to invest heavily in areas where good seams of coal are discovered and, therefore, that it will be tapping those areas. As I have said, it is anticipating about £2 billion worth of new investment in the coal industry over the next three years. I am sure that it will carefully consider prospects in the north-east.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the north-east coalfield is now profitable for the first time in years? Does he look forward to the day when those who work for British Coal have the same opportunity to invest in their own industry as those who work for British Gas? If he sees Arthur, will he tell him?

Productivity in the north-east is at an all-time high and I welcome that. As I have told the House, there are no plans for the privatisation of the coal industry at present—

At present?

That is so because substantial losses are being made. That is what I have always said to the House. If there comes a time when the miners can participate more directly, I shall be delighted.

On future investment, what is the Secretary of State's view about the introduction of the pit-by-pit productivity schemes, with all the inherent concerns about safety in the mines? What will be the total investment involved if it is extended throughout all the coalfields?

I know of no such scheme.

May I put it to my right hon. Friend that one way to secure increasing investment in the pits is to offer groups of miners the right to lease their mines, to hire their own management and, as a co-operative, to raise money on the open market, thereby involving themselves directly in their own jobs?

I am pleased to say that the Coal Board has given a direct interest to miners through the various productivity incentive schemes. I must point out that one of the complications for the coal industry is that one customer takes the majority of coal in this country and has a dominating position. Therefore, the marketing of coal has to be carefully organised.

When discussing investment, did the Secretary of State raise the serious exodus from the mining industry? I am sure that he will agree that investment means money not only for machinery and development but for recruitment and training? Does he agree that a serious situation will arise next year if that exodus continues at its present alarming rate?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, with his great interest in this topic, a major rationalisation of the industry will have taken place by March next year and the results are—I think he will agree—staggering. In the week before last, for example, coal production in this country was 2 million tonnes in one week, which is similar to what it was before any dispute, with a third fewer people employed. I think that rationalisation and improved productivity have proved to be correct and very much in the industry's interest. Of course, training and recruitment are important for the furture.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what overall surplus or deficit accrued to the United Kingdom in its oil trade revenue for the last two years for which figures are available.

The monthly review of external trade statistics shows a surplus of £6·9 billion in 1984, £8·2 billion in 1985 and £3·55 billion to October 1986.

How long does the Minister expect the United Kingdom to remain in surplus, and how long will our reserves last? During the time that the Government remain in power, which we hope will be very brief, will they continue to squander these assets in the disgraceful way that they have done so far?

We expect to remain self-sufficient well into the 1990s. We are still discovering new reserves, and we reckon that we shall continue to do so for many decades to come.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the present drive by OPEC to secure a stable oil price of around $18 is in the United Kingdom's interests and that the British Government could make a useful contribution towards achieving that stability, not least because it would restore confidence in the North sea oil industry and maintain the drive towards energy efficiency?

If the hon. Gentleman supports the policy of production control and full co-operation with OPEC, I should be interested to know whether that policy is supported by his party and the alliance. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about it, he ought also to spell out how he envisages that policy being applied on the United Kingdom side of the North sea. He ought also to acknowledge that if production were to be cut, jobs would be lost.

Does the Minister accept that, although there is an £8 billion oil surplus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now forecasting a deficit of nearly £8 billion in manufactured goods next year? Will he confirm that since 1979 this Government have collected £50 billion in direct taxation from the North sea? If those figures are taken together, is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) right when he says that the Government have squandered the great and marvellous opportunities provided by North sea oil?

Once again the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Compared with the Government of which he was a member, this Government's policies and the programmes that they are carrying through mean that this country is now paying its way in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when the Minister of State last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the question of the power supply industry.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman regularly and discuss a wide range of issues.

Has the Minister read the reports that prophesy a power crisis in the 1990s, which will lead to possible blackouts? I remind the Minister that his Government promised that one order each year would be placed for a new power station. Although this Government have been in office for nearly eight years, not a single order has been placed for a new power station. Energy from France is being imported to two power stations, yet the NEI and GEC are making people redundant because they have no orders. What does the Minister intend to do about it?

The Government fully appreciate the importance of maintaining the capability of the industry when home orders are lacking. Considerable aid and support have been provided to the industry to win overseas contracts to help maintain its capability. However, ordering is essentially a matter for the electricity supply industry. The only current application for consent to construct a station is that for Sizewell B. Recently I met representatives of GEC and NEI, and I have passed on their representations to the CEGB.

When my hon. Friend met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, did he discuss with him any contingency plans that would be necessary if a decision were taken not to have a family of pressurised water reactors in this country? If they were implemented, what would those contingency plans mean in terms of power supply in this country?

No, Sir. Discussion of such matters must await my right hon. Friend's decision on the Sizewell B inquiry.

When is that likely to be?

Next year.

Can my hon. Friend confirm, or deny, the reports in the weekend press that plans are going ahead for coal-fired power stations on the Channel coast? Will he further confirm, or deny, that those plans include two power stations in south Hampshire, on the edge of the New Forest? Would it not be unusual to build coal-fired power stations so near to the largest oil refinery in Britain and the sixth largest in the world?

I understand that the CEGB is considering the possibility of building new coal-fired power stations, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no applications to construct new power stations, apart from that for Sizewell B. The CEGB has identified a number of possible sites for future coal-fired power stations, but has made no firm decisions about where they might be sited.

Is the Minister aware that the design and building of a power station involves a specialised team, including many hundreds of members of my trade union, the Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section of the Engineering Union, in the design part of that work? Will he bear in mind that the dearth of orders over the past seven years has led to the real danger of those specialised teams being broken up and not being available when the Government decide that another power station is needed?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is why I said that the Government have helped the power plant industry to maintain its capability by providing aid and support to win overseas contracts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the CEGB has stated that to abandon a nuclear power programme in Britain would mean an increase of up to 50 per cent. in electricity prices, that continuity of supply could not be guaranteed, that far from being competitive British industry would be hampered, and that for the British Steel Corporation, with an electricity bill of £100 million per year, the consequences of pursuing policies proposed by the Opposition would, frankly, be disastrous?

My hon. Friend is right.

Is the Minister aware that his reply about the Sizewell report is completely unsatisfactory? We understand that part of that report has been given to the Secretary of State. The House and country are entitled to see and debate that report at the earliest opportunity. When will we see it?

As my right hon. Friend has told the House, Sir Frank Layfield has delivered the bulk of his report, but my right hon. Friend can make a decision only on the full report. However, he intends to reach his decision as quickly as possible when he has the full report. He is legally obliged to have that full report before making his decision. The timing is a matter for the inspector. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the remaining sections of the report by the middle of January.

To ensure that industry has the power that it requires, and to make sure that the lights keep burning at home, did my hon. Friend impress upon the chairman of the CEGB that the three options of coal, oil and nuclear power are essential, and that research into and development of wave, solar and wind power are also required?

My hon. Friend is correct. A mix of sources is important.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate discussions with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Coal with a view to reducing coal imports; and if he will make a statement.

Coal imports by the CEGB are a commercial matter for the board. I understand that as part of the agreement announced last June the CEGB has undertaken to purchase 95 per cent. of its annual coal burn from British Coal. In line with this agreement the CEGB expects to continue to limit the amount of coal that it imports.

The Minister must be aware that nearly 5 million tonnes of coking coal, and nearly 500,000 tonnes of anthracite, were imported in the first nine months of this year. He must also be aware of the impact that that will have on Britain's balance of payments and that such a scale of imports will inevitably mean a loss of jobs in our coal industry. Will the Minister give us other than a complacent reply and tell us what the Government will do?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the United Kingdom cannot do without imports in the foreseeable future because of the demand for special quality coking coal by the steel industry and because of demand for anthracite in excess of what can be supplied by British Coal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had an efficient and competitive coal industry we would not need to import because we would be exporting to the huge market over the Channel in Europe?

My hon. Friend is right. The best protection against imports for the United Kingdom coal industry lies in the industry achieving full production at prices which are competitive in the world market. The House should praise the efforts of men and management for achieving that.

What tonnage of South African coal is still coming into Britain, and when will it cease?

The right hon. Gentleman should know that the CEGB does not import coal from South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the proposed route or alternative proposed routes of the electricity transmission line which would be necessary to link the proposed Severn barrage with the national grid.

If a Severn barrage were to be constructed, reinforcement of the Central Electricity Generating Board transmission system would be required. Actual requirements will need much more detailed study and the routeing and extent would depend on other developments before the time of installation of a barrage.

As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the existing main treansmission line passes close to homes, factories, offices and warehouses, through Avonmouth in my constituency. If constructed, the Severn barrage would require a much strengthened transmission line. My hon. Friend will realise that there is considerable worry in Avonmouth about the potential effects of that more powerful transmission line. In the light of that, will he do what he can to at least make an announcement at the earliest possible date?

I recognise that my hon. Friend is voicing anxieties on behalf of his constituents. I hope he will recognise that the main objective of the programme, which is supported by the Department, the CEGB and the Severn Tidal Power Group is to reduce uncertainty to the point where it will be possible to make decisions about whether to plan for construction. I shall, of course, bring his remarks to the attention of the CEGB.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired capacity.

I meet the chairman regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues.

Did the Secretary of State discuss the urgent need to order two new coal-fired stations? As hon. Members on both sides have said, there is some worry about this. I recently met representatives from NEI and GEC. We are aware that the CEGB is anxious to go ahead with such orders. When will the Secretary of State give the go-ahead?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of go-ahead on my part, because I cannot give the go-ahead or make a decision until an application is made. I have received no application from the CEGB for any power station other than Sizewell B. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I do receive applications they will be quickly and carefully considered.

When my right hon. Friend is notified of any proposed coal-fired stations, will he try to ensure that the best use is made of generated heat by utilising combined heat and power?

Yes. The prospect of combined heat and power should be looked at in connection with any power station.

The Secretary of State was in the House last week during Trade and Industry questions and will have heard what was said then about the need to secure a base domestic work load for the power plant industry so that it can compete in export markets. What discussions about these matters does he have with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

We work closely together on a whole range of areas. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry has done a great deal in assisting the acquisition of export orders when little has been going on in the home market. Likewise, my Department has helped in export drives and Ministers have gone out to help with that. Only last week I had a meeting with the chief executive of NEI to discuss problems. There is a close liaison.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record outputs per man shift from Britain's coalfields deserve an announcement before Christmas about two new coal-fired power stations in Nottinghamshire?

I shall have to wait for applications for power stations before I can make any announcement.

Will the Secretary of State see whether he can get some firm information on the rumours referred to by his hon. Friend some time ago about the possible building of coal-fired power stations at deep water ports on the south coast? If those rumours are right, is it not obvious that the CEGB has in mind importing yet more coal?

I gather that a whole range of sites have been considered all over Britain. I genuinely do not know which of those sites, if any, the CEGB favours. When it makes an application, I shall consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the energy efficiency conference in Birmingham.

The tenth national energy management conference and exhibition was an outstanding success, the largest event of its type ever held in this country, or, as far as I know, in western Europe.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, particularly in Energy Efficiency Year. Does he agree that it is particularly important now that homes, particularly the homes of the elderly, are well insulated and energy efficient? Will he join me in commending the work of the community insulation project, and will he speak to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to find out whether all local authorities have taken up all the moneys available to advance this worthwhile project?

There has been an enormous increase in these projects during the year. About 5,000 people who would otherwise have been unemployed have been working on the projects this year. By the end of the year, about 230,000 homes of elderly people and those on low incomes will have been insulated, and about 100,000 of those will have been done this year. I am glad to say that the number of groups being organised is being substantially increased.

The Secretary of State has made a good statement about the insulation of homes. Will he talk to the Secretary of State for Social Services to ensure that the Bill he will be introducing does not stop these community projects?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in my talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services I have found him keen and enthusiastic. I am sure that he will collaborate in every way.

Is my right hon. Friend able to report that the local authorities were strongly lobbied at the Birmingham conference to set up their own energy cost efficiency departments? Can he give some guidance to elderly people who can be taken advantage of by some of the shoddy work that a few of the cowboy companies offer?

Yes, such people should seek advice. The local authorities' management advisory service has suggested that more than £100 million a year can be saved by applying the best management techniques to local authorities.

Despite the figures quoted by the Secretary of State, is he aware that 5 million dwellings have no loft insulation, and that 9 million households have no effective central heating? Do not the figures show the need for a more comprehensive and widespread energy efficiency programme than the one that we have?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has the figures wrong. The figures given in an answer the other day related not to any loft insulation but to loft insulation to a particular depth. About 87 per cent. of homes have loft insulation.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the latest productivity in British Coal.

For the week ending 29 November, average revenue output per man shift was 3·64 tonnes, the eighth time the record has been broken in 10 weeks. This continued improvement shows the growing confidence of miners in the future of this great industry.

Does not British Coal deserve the heartfelt congratulations of the House and the country for the productivity improvements that it has achieved, which have resulted in a much more economic price for coal and more coal being delivered—which will help inflation and old-age pensioners during a severe winter? Would my hon. Friend care to speculate whether these improvements would have been achieved under an alternative Government with the support that the Labour party gave to the National Union of Mineworkers, which inhibited the efficiencies that have taken place?

These tremendous efforts by the miners and management are good news for the consumer, the industry and the country. Weekly output per shift is an impressive 49 per cent. higher than the average in 1983–84, the year before the strike.

As the Minister is praising a few miners for having achieved this extra productivity, and as he refers to figures such as the 49 per cent. increase, will he follow up his words with action and recommend to British Coal that it should consider a proper pay increase for the miners to reward them for this productivity—not on the bonus scheme, but on the flat rate of pay in a similar fashion to the Government's reward to the top generals and top civil servants? If it does that, the miners will be rewarded for their extra efforts.

The hon. Gentleman should take some time to reflect on what he has said. The result of these magnificent efforts, as the "New Earnings Survey" shows, is that miners have once again been restored to the top of the pay league, and long may that remain their position.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding this impressive increase in productivity, obtaining energy from coal and oil involves a much higher proven rate of accidents and fatalities than nuclear power? Will he bear this much in mind when considering the next stage of development of Britain's energy-producing industries?

My hon. Friend draws a comparison between the coal industry and nuclear power. Safety is paramount among men and management in our great coal industry and, fortunately, the safety record is improving. As my hon. Friend observes, however, there is still some way to go.

In congratulating the management and workers in the mining industry on achieving these targets, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the best way to add good news to our congratulations is by ordering further coal-fired power stations? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no reason why that should not be done in advance of the decision on Sizewell?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has already heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State respond to that question. It is only by reducing costs and winning markets that the coal industry can build a secure future and protect long-term employment.

Does my hon. Friend feel that this growing confidence is undermined by the deplorable conduct of Opposition Members, who have sat silent and rooted to their seats while the Coal Industry Bill has been considered in Committee, thus showing a deplorable attitude to British miners?

I was sad that the official Opposition should have chosen to remain silent on clauses that are vital for the industry's future and for democracy in the trade union movement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the public response to the privatisation of British Gas.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many individuals have purchased shares in British Gas; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the results of the public issue of shares in British Gas plc.

I am delighted at the public response to the British Gas sale. More than 5 million people have applied to become shareholders in British Gas and more than 2 million people became shareholders for the first time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 2 million first-time investors who are the result of the sale of British Gas means that there are at least 9 million investors now compared with 2 million in 1979? Is this not a tremendous achievement, there being as many investors now as there are members of trade unions? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that criticisms of the cost of the privatisation are thoroughly unfounded as the cost of the issue was about 2 per cent. of the proceeds, which is well below the average cost of any new issue that is launched on the stock exchange?

I confirm what my hon. Friend asked in the latter part of his supplementary question. The sum spent in informing the public of the details and communicating with them was relatively small compared with the remarkable result that was achieved. There has been a remarkable change since 1979, when on average one home in 12 owned a share. More than two homes in five own shares now, and I hope that soon the majority of homes will own them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under nationalisation the British public neither owned nor felt that they owned British Gas in any way? Do we not now have genuine public ownership of this great and important industry?

Yes, Sir. It is important to realise that now, for the frst time, 99 per cent. of the employees of British Gas have a share in their own industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the attractions of this investment and the concept and principle of share owning in general, the public are manifestly not selling immediately after an issue? They are holding on to their shares instead. They understand the idea of mass share ownership and are enthusiastic about it.

The great majority of people who bought British Telecom shares are still shareholders. I am sure that that will be true of British Gas shareholders in several years' time.

In view of the insider dealing scandals on both sides of the Alantic and the drop in profits of British Airways, which is the next industry to be privatised, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, instead of trying to widen share ownership, the Government should be advising people that dabbling in shares could damage their financial health?

The right hon. Gentleman's party, the Scottish National party, has been totally against privatisation and deeply deplores the millions of people who have taken advantage of it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the privatisation of Britoil, which left a substantial body of stock with the underwriters, the British Gas stock seems to have been launched at about the right level to ensure a fair price for the British people and a reasonable return for small investors?

The flotation went well. Basically, 64 per cent. of the shares went to individual members of the British public and 24 per cent. went to British institutions. The fact that 99 per cent. of employees have equity in the business shows that it was the right thing to do.

Does the Minister acknowledge that, given the amount of hype involved in promoting British Gas, there was some resentment among people who did not have an opportunity to be customers of British Gas—such as people living in Northern Ireland, rural areas and some urban areas—because they were excluded from the premium allocation of shares? Was that not an unfair allocation of an asset that belonged to all the people before it was privatised?

I watched with interest the position of the alliance on this matter. I hope the country will realise that the alliance was totally opposed to privatisation. I hope that the 2 million gas customers who were guaranteed an allocation and obtained it will notice that the alliance was against them, too.

Does the Secretary of State say that, out of the 16 million gas consmers, 2 million have purchased shares? Does that not mean that he has created two classes of ownership and that some of the poorest consumers not only do not have shares but will not benefit from any reduction in prices?

The poorest consumers who have no shares are unlike those consumers who, at the time of the previous Government, had about a 20-odd per cent. increase in gas prices to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the Central Electricity Generating Board has made financial provision in its reserves to cover the expected costs of long-term storage or disposal of radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

At 31 March 1986 the provision made by the Central Electricity Generating Board for the cost of nuclear waste treatment, storage and disposal, totalled approximately £500 million. The charge to the board's profit and loss account in 1985–86 amounted to some £70 million.

Is it not the case that there is no provision for compensation payments for the purchasers of private property around the proposed sites for the dumping of low-level nuclear waste? Will the Minister state what additional costs would be required for such provision?

The costs of nuclear waste management represent about 0·03p per unit. As a proportion of the overall price paid by consumers in England and Wales, those costs represent less than 1 per cent. of the total price of electricity. I shall examine the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and shall write to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the recent flotation of British Gas.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost).

I have hurried back from abroad to ask this question only to find that it has already been answered. May I say to my right hon. Friend that the flotation of British Gas has been an undoubted success, and that many people look to the Governmeent to see further opportunities for similar flotations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for discovering Sid on the beaches of Barbados, and note the speed with which he returned. The flotation has been a widespread success and has given people the opportunity to participate in this important industry.

Does the Secretary of State expect the flotation of British Gas to be more successful in the long term than Slater Walker?

Yes, so long as I remain Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about his visit to Chernobyl.

My right hon. Friend will be visiting the USSR from 16 to 18 December at the invitiation of the Soviet Government. In the course of the visit he will visit Chernobyl.

I thank my hon. Friend and wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an interesting and enjoyable visit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that those of us who listen to the advice that we receive about learning the lessons of Chernobyl have learnt, first, that the Russians intend to get that station back into operation at the earliest opportunity and, secondly, that unilateral abrogation of nuclear power is not on their agenda?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement following his recent visit to the National Railway Museum.

I was pleased to be able to visit the National Railway Museum on 27 November and to meet the keeper and some of his staff. The museum is a marvellous, living, record of the achievements of the British railway industry, in a city that boasts a variety of excellent museums, both public and independent.

I shall switch quickly from nuclear to steam power. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the size of the exhibits at York and the space that they need puts that museum in a different position from museums which, for instance, hang pictures on walls? Museums such as the Science Museum and the NRM need not only more space but more facilities to carry out their job properly. As the working locomotives at York are seen by many thousands of people far beyond York, will my right hon. Friend bear all those things in mind when the museum's allocation of funds is considered?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the whole House knows of his interest in this subject and, indeed, of the role that he plays. Another important aspect is that we are now seeing the development of the national museums and galleries at stations outside London. The NRM at York is one example. The National Museum of Film, Photography and Television in Bradford is another.

Is the Minister aware that Stockton borough council is considering a proposition to open a transport museum on a site on the line of the old Stockton-Darlington railway? Will he encourage co-operation by the nearby National Railway Museum at York with Stockton borough council in bringing that to fruition?

That is only partly on my patch, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of the Science Museum.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of encouraging business sponsorship of the arts.

Business sponsorship of the arts continues to increase. Under the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme a total of £10·7 million new money for the arts has been raised and over 370 businesses have sponsored the arts for the first time.

I welcome very much the initiatives taken by the Government, including the business sponsorship incentive scheme and tax relief on one-year deeds of covenant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that £10 million, although welcome, is a relatively small amount, and that the potential for much greater sponsorship is very great? Will he keep those initiatives open and make sure that many more businesses are made aware of the tax advantages and opportunities that they have?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the problem and the support that he gives to sponsorship. He is right that, although the business sponsorship incentive scheme has allowed 370 new businesses to sponsor, there is scope for a much larger number of businesses to sponsor. This is the time to get across, nationally and in our constituencies, the fact that the scheme exists and that a wide range of tax incentives and reliefs are available to businesses, so that they can give their support to the arts.

No one is opposed to business interests giving more support and assistance to the arts. However, as one who was on an arts committee in my city for many years and who learnt that business interests were not usually very interested in helping the arts, I ask this question: is it not clear that the only way forward is for the Government and the local authorities to give every support possible so that the arts can flourish on a public basis?

Only recently I presented an award under the business sponsorship incentive scheme to a firm which had given solid support in Liverpool last year. I am pleased to have been able to do that. I hope that more firms will do the same. We should view the arts, not in a very narrow sense, but as part of a broad strategy whereby the public sector, the taxpayer and the ratepayer; through the local authorities, and, above all, the private sector, through businesses and private individuals, in partnership give their support to the arts. That is how I see sponsorship developing.

Will my hon. Friend take time during what I hope will be an enjoyable recess to write to all chambers of commerce drawing their attention to the schemes available for business sponsorship of the arts? Will he also write a special note to Sid telling him what British Gas might be able to do?

I am not sure about which Sid my hon. Friend is talking. I have written to 500 managing directors of the top firms, drawing their attention to the range of tax incentives available for giving to charitable bodies, and I hope that that will help. I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion about chambers of commerce.

Will the Minister consider providing some incentive to American theatregoers, who have such deep affection for the British theatre, so that they can contribute to theatre sponsorship and get some contribution from the Government?

The best contribution that American tourists can make is by coming here and going to the theatre. I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for some years, local business in my area sponsored concerts for pensioners, at my request, as a post-Christmas activity for them? Those concerts were always held in a public hall, which was loaned by Ealing Council at no charge. The new Ealing Labour council is now charging for the hire of the hall, but business has come to my aid and is putting up the money for pensioners—many of whom are poor and disabled—something which the Ealing Labour council refuses to do.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that matter to my attention. That is yet another illustration of what businesses can do to support the arts. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his efforts.

Does the Minister stick by his proposition that all future expansion or development must come from private sources, as he has repeated three times in the past 12 months? Is that still his position? Will that not force arts directors and administrators into becoming fund raisers? Is not the main consequence a collapse in basic public funding? For example, does the right hon. Gentleman defend the situation in which he announced on Friday last week a standstill in cash terms, and therefore a cut in the amount of money going to national museums and galleries, which meant that the National Gallery, if faced in the past fortnight with the cost of purchasing a Manet or Rembrandt in the salerooms, could not have afforded even one third of the canvas space?

The hon. Gentleman looks at the arts in a very narrow sense and appears not to know what is going on in the arts. There is an increase in attendance at theatres and in the number of arts centres. I have always made it plain that the Government's commitment is to keep up our support for the arts, but that our broad strategy is to fuel expansion of the arts by encouraging the private sector to play a much more prominent role.

asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the Arts Council grant for the forthcoming year.

I have received a number of representations. The basic grant has been increased by 3·5 per cent. together with an increase of £3 million in the sum to compensate for abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils. In addition, I look to development in the arts through an increasing emphasis on plural funding.

Is the Minister aware that there is concern among some of the major companies, such as Opera North, that if the Arts Council grant increase is limited to the 3·5 per cent. that has been announced, and if it is spread equally over the country, it will take no account of the problems that are faced in raising business sponsorship in different parts of the country? It is not in our nature to whinge, but is it not possible for the Minister to consider assisting such things as Outreach to new possible operagoers and to ethnic minorities separately rather than having it lumped in with the general Arts Council grant?

I have great admiration for the work of Opera North. Its budget is a matter for the Arts Council to settle, but the increase of 3·5 per cent. is broadly in line with expected inflation for next year. That is in line with the undertaking that we would keep up our support for the arts. It is a matter of partnership and not just central Government funding. Local authorities and the private sector should play a prominent role as well.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that it is absolutely essential to retain the strategy of "Glory of the Garden" in Arts Council funding—that the provinces get more of a fair share than they have hitherto? It is not enough to go on supporting the prima donna companies in London without giving adequate support to the many provincial companies which have been underfunded.

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. It fits in with the strategy that arts should be available to people in all parts of the country, not just in cities and other selected parts. I therefore strongly support the Art Council's policy, which is to support "Glory of the Garden".

Is the Minster aware that he is generally regarded in the arts world as one who has completely betrayed the arts by his total failure to fight the arts corner in terms of public expenditure and that what he has asked the Arts Council to do next year is to administer a real cut in the money from the Government?

The hon. Gentleman, with the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), said last year that the whole of the arts world was coming to an end and that a whole lot of institutions would close down. In view of that, I am not prepared to take any judgment from him. If he regards an increase of 5·5 per cent. in the overall arts budget, which is in line with the increase in public expenditure, as a failure, he had better think again.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what terms and conditions of service apply to civil servants giving evidence in courts abroad on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

The normal arrangements for civil servants on duty visits abroad apply in these circumstances.

Does the right hon. Gentleman quarrel with £120,000 a day as the cost of that action in the New South Wales court? If he does not accept that figure, will he give his own figure, or the total cost to date, regardless of the judgment?

I am not answerable for the court case that is going on in Australia. Matters of security are for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I think that she said in an answer not too long ago that, since the court case has not finished, we cannot give a precise figure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to wait.

Are any special arrangements made when civil servants give evidence which might last quite a long time at the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg?

I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot answer that question directly, but I shall try to give my hon. Friend an answer by letter.

Does the Minister agree that the Minister who is chiefly responsible for the Civil Service—the Prime Minister—should, in view of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, make a formal apology to the Australian courts because of the way in which Sir Robert Armstrong, the head of the Home Civil Service, has been obliged to mislead the courts there at the Government's behest?

I find that kind of question deplorable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister puts the national security of this nation first. I hope that the hon. Lady does that as well.

To follow the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), if anybody has come out of this event with banana skin wrapped all over his face, is it not the Leader of the Opposition?

The whole nation sees that now.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

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

I have informal meetings from time to time with the Civil Service unions. Topics of mutual interest are discussed.

When the Minister next meets the unions, will he discuss the need for civil servants to have someone to go to if they have a complaint about the way in which they are used by Ministers? Are there not too many examples of the Government putting civil servants in the hot seat and expecting them to take responsibility for what the Government should take responsibility? Will the Minister discuss with the unions the need for such an arrangement?

The procedures are perfectly adequate, and in a reply during the summer months to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee the Government made it plain that we would work out in discussions with the unions a procedure which gave them ultimate appeal to the civil servant head of the Home Civil Service. That will be a new procedure, and once these procedures have been discussed with the unions they should be perfectly fair and reasonable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the poor level of morale among Civil Service staff at both the British Geological Survey and the Building Research Establishment? Will he discuss with his departmental colleagues the need for early decisions on the future of those establishments, so that at least the civil servants know where they are supposed to be going?

I am grateful to my hon. Frind for drawing that to my attention and I shall certainly look into the two establishments what he mentioned. On the professional side of the Civil Service, whether accountants or scientists, special moves are being taken now to ensure that we deal with recruitment, retention and motivation problems by giving them, for example, pay additions to the basic pay of the Civil Service.

What will the Minister do to deal with the staffing crisis in the Department of Health and Social Security?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is well aware of that and has already announced, as the hon. Gentleman must know, an increase of 5,000 in the number of civil servants over the next few months. That is designed to relieve some of the areas of strain at work.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the union concerned the fact that all branches of the public service get credit for pre-appoinment war service in their pensions, except when that service was performed abroad? Is that not a great injustice? Will my right hon. Friend please see our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to ask him to remove that anomaly and injustice towards a small, mostly elderly, group of people whose lives were spent mostly in adverse conditions, serving Her Majesty abroad?

As both my hon. Friend and I had the privilege of being in the Overseas Civil Service, serving Her Majesty abroad, I shall certainly undertake to look into his point.

Does not Sir Robert Armstrong's appearance before the court in Australia illustrate the urgent need for an update of the Armstrong memorandum on the appearance of civil servants before Select Committees and other such bodies? Will the Minister consider accelerating the discussions with the trade unions to complete that review?

We are slightly confusing issues. At present the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has given its recent report and view on the whole issue and the area in which civil servants should be questioned by Select Committees. We are now awaiting material from the liaison committee, and no fresh guidelines will be given until we have heard from it.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the Civil Service trade unions in respect of Mr. Brian Gentleman, who was traduced by Mr. Gerry Gable and accused of being a Czech spy? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House anything about that?

I am afraid that I cannot. If my hon. Friend could give me more information later, I shall certainly look into the matter.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the executive of the Civil and Public Services Association regarding the fact that, in the recent election of the general secretary, the result of which is due soon—indeed, my right hon. Friend may know it—21 branches were denied the right to vote in the election that Mr. Macreadie won? Is he aware that that amounted to 2,240 people?

As my hon. Friend has already said, there has just been a re-run of that CPSA election and we await the outcome. It could be some time this week.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and the press to keep out of the internal affairs of trade unions, that it is for trade union members to decide whom they vote for, whoever it is, and that Tory Members, the Government and the press should mind their own business?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be a little sensitive today. I do not know why. The House and the country await with interest the results of the CPSA election re-run, which will come out this week.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will now take further initiatives to ensure adequate funds to retain Sadler's Wells theatre for the fiscal year 1987–88.

The problems of Sadler's Wells have been satisfactorily solved in the current year by a combination of sponsorship and grants to Arts Council clients using the theatre. It is for the Arts Council and the other bodies to determine funding levels for subsequent years.

Although I am grateful to the Minister for his staving-off operation for 12 months, he has missed the purpose of the question, which concerned fresh initiatives for the longer term. He has informed the House of the initiatives that he announced some little while ago. Those see Sadler's Wells clear for 12 months. However, one cannot plan for opera, ballet and the sort of thing that that company does in a 12-month period, because there are ongoing commitments. Will the Minister now take fresh initiatives so that Sadler's Wells can plan for the future, and not first the present year, which is safeguarded?

The hon. Gentleman continues to take a keen interest in this subject. There was major new sponsorship this financial year from the Digital Equipment Company, which covered not just this financial year but next year. In addition, the Arts Council must decide how much it can allocate to the companies which use Sadler's Wells, because it is those companies which are being supported by the Government. The Arts Council must decide that, although I give it indicative figures which look to two to three years ahead.