asked the Secretary of State for Energy what major projects his Department is sponsoring on tidal power as an energy source; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is sponsoring a £5·5 million research programme into United Kingdom tidal resources. It includes £4·2 million of advanced investigations and site explorations on the Severn, jointly funded by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Severn Tidal Power Group; a £400,000 contribution towards studies of a Mersey barrage; and a programme of supporting studies on environmental issues, construction techniques and the resource available from small sites.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about what is being done. Is he aware that when I visited Norway last month with a number of colleagues we observed the Norwegians using British inventions—in this case the oscillating water tower system, which produces extremely economic electricity—which we have rejected? Will the Minister assure the House that if a scheme that was initially overlooked or passed over appeared to be efficient and suitable for our waters he would reconsider it?

I welcome this opportunity to clarify the position. The Department of Energy's wave energy programme was closed because the unanimous advice of the Department's scientists was that that energy source was unlikely to make a large-scale economic contribution to the United Kingdom electricity supply. The Norwegian experiments do not affect that decision as they are aimed at small-scale supply to remote or isolated communities with favourable coastal conditions. Studies of a similar system have been carried out at Queen's university, Belfast, and further work may be carried out there if it appears to be technically and economically promising.

My hon. Friend referred to the Severn barrage project, which is currently under consideration, but he did not refer to the time scale. Can he tell us what the time scale is and whether he has had any initial information about the success of those studies?

There is no doubt that the Severn estuary is one of the largest and most favourable tidal energy sites in the world. Details of the Severn work programme, related studies and procedures for consultation are presently being discussed by the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Severn Tidal Power Group and my Department. I hope that details of those studies will be announced shortly. I have already made it clear that as soon as the programme of works has been clarified I shall place copies in the Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements have been made for electricity supplies to be provided from France over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

The Central Electricity Generating Board has negotiated arrangements with Electricité de France to provide for bulk imports of electricity from France until 26 March 1988. Arrangements beyond that will be subject to commercial negotiation by the two utilities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he bear in mind the recent strikes in France and what contingency plans Her Majesty's Government might have if we relied upon the French for electricity supplies which were then cut off as a result of strikes? Is not the time now right to provide for another coal-fired power unit so that workers in this country will not be denied an electricity supply? Although we should in no way move away from nuclear power as the ultimate source of energy, perhaps in the short term the Government should give serious consideration to the placing of a new order for a coal-fired electricity unit.

It is important that the generating board should be able to take advantage of economical methods of electricity generation. Imports through the link will help to keep down electricity supply costs and therefore electricity prices. The link with France is designed for flows in either direction. The generating board stated that its present arrangements provide for a two-year supply up to 25 per cent. cheaper than can be generated, on average, in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the generating board does not regard the link as firm capacity in planning for its long-term requirements. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close constituency interest in the possibility of new coal-fired capacity. Proposals for new power stations must come from the electricity supply industry. I understand that the board is considering the possibility of building new coal-fired power stations, but no applications to construct stations have been received, apart from that for Sizewell B.

Has the Minister considered the impact on the balance of payments deficit?

The impact on the balance of payments deficit will obviously depend on how much we buy and how much we sell.

As my hon. Friend has said that the costs are substantially in favour of France, will he consider laying a third cable across the Channel so that the consumer in the United Kingdom can receive that considerable benefit?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Before any further links are considered, the utilities will wish to have further operating experience of the present link.

Will the Minister comment upon the assistance given to maintain the supply link to the United Kingdom by the French Government? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give the same assistance to protect jobs in the electricity supply industry in this country as well as the coal mining industry? Can we have the same protection here as the French workers?

Obviously, the Government are deeply concerned to take every account of employment in both the coal and electricity supply industries.

Bearing in mind that this country was in the forefront of nuclear power development in the late 1950s, will my hon. Friend comment on or perhaps even express disappointment at the fact that this country now produces less than 20 per cent. of its electricity from nuclear sources while France produces more than 60 per cent.? Is that not the reason why, with our more expensive and less plentiful electricity, we are having to import from France?

I note my hon. Friend's view.

Will the Minister tell the House what the foreign exchange costs of this venture have been to date? Is he aware that we totally oppose any extension of the Channel link because we believe that we should be able to produce our own generating capacity in Britain?

I note the right hon. Gentleman's latter view and its likely impact on electricity consumers, both domestic and industrial, in this country. I shall let him know the exact foreign exchange costs.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to limit the amount of oil consumed as vehicle fuel in the United Kingdom.

Our aim is to encourage energy efficiency measures that are cost-effective.

If I am correct in assuming that my right hon. Friend has not made representations to the Home Office that the present speed limit on motorways should be enforced for the sake of oil conservation, will he join me in making representations to the Secretary of State for Transport that the speed limit on motorways should be raised?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge, many complex considerations and factors are involved. As I understand it, one of my right hon. Friend's main considerations at present is the very important question of road safety.

When the Minister considers oil consumption, will he give some advice to the consumer, who seems somewhat bemused by the fact that when oil prices fall the advantage is not passed on to him, but when oil prices rise the oil companies take immediate steps to raise prices at the pumps?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, whatever the price, energy conservation measures are worth while. I hope that he pays tribute to the work done by the motor industry in already achieving much better performance of British cars.

I appreciate the need to encourage energy conservation, particularly in vehicles, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will not be at the expense of the Government's programme and commitment to introduce lead-free petrol, even if lead-free petrol is less efficient that leaded petrol in miles per gallon?

The Government are committed to the introduction of lead-free petrol, and differential pricing and duty are a positive encouragement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he will be saying more about that in the next Budget. More than anything else, that policy underlines the Government's commitment to unleaded petrol.

Is the Minister aware that other issues could play a vital part in the whole question of oil supplies? For example, what will happen if the Iranians reach Basra? The hon. Gentleman will know the impact of what happened in 1979. Have the Government considered meeting the Institute of Economic Affairs to discuss that nightmarish possibility, which could have a profound impact on oil supplies and prices?

Thus far, the IEA has not requested any meeting to discuss the fuel efficiency of vehicles in Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will discuss the conversion of existing oil-fired power stations to coal.

I understand that the board has concluded that conversion of oil-fired power stations to coal would be uneconomic at present.

Should not the Government be encouraging the CEGB to think again in the best energy interests of the nation? Does he appreciate the importance of conversions of power stations such as Padiham in my constituency?

As I hope the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the whole House is aware, there has been a considerable narrowing of the differential between oil and coal prices in the past 18 months, which has considerably reinforced the case against conversion. I stress, however, that it is for the CEGB to take a decision on this.

Does my hon. Friend recall that during the miners' strike the miners tried to deny supplies of coal to the power stations and thus electricity to our people, and that reliable, continuous sources of supply were provided by oil? Will he bear that in mind when considering the matter in the future?

I shall, of course, bear that in mind, as any fair-minded citizen would, but the ultimate decision is for the CEGB.

Bearing in mind the Minister's comments a few moments ago about the economics of conversion from oil to coal, is not one reason for that programme the lack of investment in research and development in new technology in coal-burning power stations?

No, I do not think that that is so. The issue rests on the economic case. Unless we observe the economics of the situation, the consumer and industry suffer and industry, in particular, becomes uncompetitive. Ultimately, those are the considerations that matter.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind especially the need to avoid any overdependence on coal and to maintain a diversity of sources of fuel for electricity generation. so that there is no risk of the country being held to ransom by Arthur Scargill and his friends on the Opposition Benches?

Of all the industrial countries in western Europe, the United Kingdom is blessed with the greatest variety of fuel sources, and it is clearly right to take the best advantage that we can of that and avoid over-reliance on any one source.

Has the Minister seen the report in the Glasgow Herald today that the CEGB is playing ducks and drakes with the Scottish supply system, and that having taken 20 per cent. of Scottish output during the cold weather it has now apparently stopped the imports? Before any decision is made about conversion of power stations, will the Minister look into what is being done to provide for the economic supply and use of power?

One of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom is the mutual assistance that can be given from time to time on both sides of the Scottish border with England and Wales. The fact that assistance goes one way at one time and the other way at another time does not justify criticising what happens on just one occasion, as the hon. Gentleman often chooses to do.

Does the Minister agree that as Britain has more coal than oil there will still be coal when oil supplies have been exhausted, so that on economic grounds coal has the advantage? Secondly, as the power station construction industry is hungry for orders, is there not an economic case for giving it orders for conversion to coal because, on economic grounds, the nation and its people would benefit?

The hon. Gentleman's arguments on economics, taken to their conclusion, would simply put up the price of electricity for the consumer. Having listened to some speeches from the Labour Benches in recent weeks, I am sure that Labour Members would not support that. It would also put up the price for industry, making our goods less competitive in the world. I should be interested to know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the amounts which his Department will spend in 1986–87 on research and development into renewable sources of energy; how this compares with 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

Expenditure on my Department's programme for research, development and demonstration into renewable sources of energy in 1986–87, including external contributions, is estimated to be £17·25 million compared with expenditure of £3·6 million in 1978–79.

I congratulate the Department of Energy on those excellent figures, which, to be fair, must represent something like a doubling of investment since the Government came to office. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to involve heavily the private sector in investment into wave, wind and solar power and subterranean heat so that we are sure that resources are put into those areas that are technically and economically sound?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We have sought to maximise contributions from external sources — in particular, the private sector—and over £3 million in the figures that I have announced for 1986–87 is expected to come from such sources, compared with £800,000 last year. More than £100 million has been invested by the Government in renewables research and development since 1979. My hon. Friend is right to stress that no Government have done more than we have to develop the renewable technologies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce his decision on the report of the inspector on the proposal by the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell.

In an answer pursuant to a question from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on Thursday 22 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would publish the report today. He has done so and has placed copies both of the full report and of a summary in the Library and Vote Office. My right hon. Friend has asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange a debate before he makes any decision.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Did he note that during the recent cold snap the CEGB transmitted more electricity than ever before, and that even ignoring that, the demand for electricity is approaching the higher end of the estimates given by the CEGB to the Sizewell inquiry? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange the earliest possible date for the House to consider and accept the main conclusions of the Layfield inquiry?

I note what my hon. Friend says. It is important that we should have a full debate in the House before a decision is taken, and that will be the position.

Is the Minister aware that a decision to purchase an American reactor, which the Americans have not chosen to order for 10 years, is a major political act and the decision should be taken by Parliament and not by the Minister? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no advance spending authorising the PWR, simply because the Layfield report has now been published, pending a decision by Parliament and, preferably, by the electorate, because during the election this issue will be a central matter between the parties?

I simply emphasise what I said a moment ago — that no decision will be taken until Parliament has debated this important issue and that important report.

Is not an early decision essential if we are to avoid large sections of the United Kingdom power construction industry going out of business altogether? In arriving at a decision, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Britain has had 30 years of building and working gas-cooled reactors, which are now in place and performing satisfactorily, but that while the PWR may be old technology we have little direct experience, except in military applications, of operating it in Britain, and the sums upon which Sizewell was originally based have now been turned completely upside down? Therefore, will he assure the House that even if the go-ahead is given to Sizewell, he is not shutting the door on further AGR development in the future?

I know that my right hon. Friend, as is his custom, will consider very carefully all the points that are made in the debate.

Given that the report concludes that there has not yet been sufficient public and political consideration of the regulation of the safety of the nuclear industry, will the Government give two undertakings? First, will they undertake that no decision will be taken before the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has published its report and the report has been given satisfactory consideration? Secondly, will they ensure that there is sufficient time for the political and public process of consultation to take place on that huge report, especially because on cost and needs grounds the prospect of Sizewell is far less likely to be justified now than ever before?

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has a number of points that he wishes to make. In those circumstances, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that there will be a full debate on the matter in the House.

Would the security arrangements for a pressurised water reactor be any different from those existing at present in Britain's nuclear power stations? Is it true that Mr. R. W. Marshall broke into the Trawsfynydd power station in Wales and that damage could have been done? If such an incident took place in the future, it might turn the British people against nuclear power and some of us do not want that to happen. Can we therefore have assurances about security at power stations?

The hon. Gentleman's question relates to the Sizewell report. We shall have an opportunity to debate that matter and I take note of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that less than 1 per cent. of average radiation comes from the nuclear industry and that chapter 2 of the Sizewell report provides ample justification for going ahead with the Sizewell PWR programme as the most suitable programme for the United Kingdom?

I commend my hon. Friend for the speed with which he has managed to read what he regards as the relevant parts of the report since its publication. However, in all seriousness, it is important that the recommendations and conclusions are read in the context of the report as a whole. They must be considered together before any conclusions can be reached.

Paragraph 12 of chapter 108 of the Sizewell report refers to safety and states:

"The examination of safety was not exhausted."

"many matters were examined only briefly if at all."

"Furthermore, the design was incomplete and not yet susceptible of a final assessment of its safety."

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the advice that I gave earlier. I suggest that he takes that advice. Even knowing the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman, I cannot believe that he could have read the whole report in just one hour and 45 minutes.

Now that the planning process has reached publication, can the Minister tell the House the Department's intentions for the future CEGB proposals following on from Sizewell and other Magnox sites, including Trawsfynydd in my constituency?

Let us deal with Sizewell first.

I should have thought that it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of the State to be present to answer such important questions. Bearing in mind that the report has been produced by an inspector by way of consultation, when will other people be consulted about nuclear power?

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would regard himself as one of the representatives of the people. He will have an opportunity to take part in the debate in the House. I am sorry that, from his own mouth, he has said that he feels that he is not able to represent the people properly. If that is his view, it may not be the proper one.

Will the Minister and his departmental colleagues resist the temptation, which seems to be with him this afternoon, of suggesting that the acceptability of a balanced provision of energy resources, by nuclear or other means, necessitates acceptance of a report which points to the advisability of constructing a PWR? On the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), relating to PWR, why does it appear that the Government wish to accept American technology which the Americans do not believe is safe enough for their people?

The hon. Gentleman asks me not to yield to temptation. That is precisely what I have done this afternoon.

May I press the Minister on the question of the debate? He and the House will agree that it is important to have a debate in the country as well as in the House. Can he give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the date for that debate?

I understand fully what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is a matter for the business managers of the House, and I have no doubt that they will have noted what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the cost-effectiveness of the district heating systems in Felmores and Langdon Hills in Basildon.

The Government recognise the important contribution made by district heating schemes where they are commercially viable. The operation of the two schemes mentioned by my hon. Friend is, however, a matter for the Commission for the New Towns, which is answerable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents in the Felmores and Langdon Hills area, of Basildon are completely dissatisfied with the district heating system, believing it to be expensive and inefficient? In the light of the great success enjoyed by Sid, will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to encourage the Commission for the New Towns to install individual gas-fired central heating?

I very much regret the problems experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents. I understand that the former New Town Development Corporation asked the Department of the Environment to consider agreeing in principle to the replacement of the Felmores estate district heating system with independent systems for each dwelling. Last summer the Department of the Environment invited the Commission for the New Towns to carry out an analysis of that option and of the alternative of retaining the district heating systems with improvements. That analysis is still awaited.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to expand energy conservation measures for the domestic consumer.

As well as supporting the continuing expansion of community insulation projects, which have now insulated more than 300,000 homes, my Department continues actively to promote the cost-effective energy efficiency measures which all householders should take to benefit from reduced fuel bills.

Is it not rather an odd way to celebrate Energy Efficiency Year by removing loft insulation grants from millions of householders? Is the Minister aware that more than half our households have inadequte loft insulation, even by current standards? Is he aware that 12·5 million households lack effective draught-proofing and that 10·5 million households lack cavity wall insulation? What new measures will the Government introduce to deal with the backlog?

The hon. Gentleman is distorting the position. He should be aware that on 19 December my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction announced that he would make available up to a further £1·5 million of resources, which is being distributed to councils in England which had exhausted their present allocations. But with nearly 90 per cent. of accessible roofs in England insulated, the Minister decided to concentrate the scheme's assistance on those who have most difficulty in affording the cost of loft insulation. Therefore, he announced that he would be introducing a new scheme, withdrawing the general grant of 66 per cent., but extending the availability of the more generous 90 per cent. grant to all householders who received housing benefit or supplementary benefit.

Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of the recent neighbourhood energy action week, does he accept that there is anxiety about the delay in the anouncement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services of a replacement for the single payments scheme? Will he exert pressure on the Secretary of State for the Environment to include draught-proofing in any future home insulation scheme, as that is the best way to help elderly people to overcome problems such as those they experienced in the recent cold spell?

I shall mention my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State, but the Government have given a clear undertaking to the House that adequate arrangements will be made to enable those important projects to continue after the social security reforms. Opposition Members should realise that the Government's programme of insulating low-income households dwarfs anything that existed when the Labour party was in power.

Is the Minister aware that those involved in the industry regard with disbelief the statement that 90 per cent. of lofts in Britain have been insulated? Will he disclose the figures on which the Government have based that statement? May I add my voice to those who urge that any money that is proposed to be saved on the loft insulation programme should be used to draught-proof the homes of those on social security benefit?

I repeat what I said, that nearly 90 per cent. of accessible roofs in England are now insulated. It is right to concentrate resources on those who need the greatest help. They are getting the greatest help under this Government.

I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the relative inefficiency of the insulation of most of our homes. To what extent is the Department of Energy co-operating in sharing a common budget with the Department of Employment, the housing department within the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry, and not leaving the matter only to the poor old DHSS?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the fact that Government support for the community insulation project is coming from a range of Government Departments. That support is now worth £30 million a year. We shall continue to intensify it, with 360 of these groups already established, 180 more planned and with a target of more than 500 groups operating by the early part of next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on the recent visit to Leicester by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), to view the presentation by the Leicester combined heat and power consortium.

I visited Leicester on Wednesday 21 January. The CHP consortium is to be complimented on producing a very professional report. The key to further development lies in attracting private sector finance, which I know the Leicester consortium is very much aware of, and I hope that it will achieve the potential to take this important project forward.

Having accompanied my hon. Friend to view the combined heat and power consortium at Leicester, may I reinforce what he probably already knows namely, that it is ready and willing to get on with reducing the cost of heating in Leicester, but desperately needs additional help to meet the particularly high cost of rates of this project and any to cope with legislative burden? Not only are 400 jobs guaranteed if the construction goes ahead but there will be substantial savings for all my constituents and those of other hon. Members in Leicester.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that Leicester is in the lead. I congratulate him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) on the strong support that they have given to the consortium. Following my meeting, I am urgently examining with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the obstacles that the consortium has identified.

Does the Minister accept that the plans of the consortium have the full support of the council, irrespective of party, and that the council is to be congratulated on the efforts that it has made to back it? Meanwhile, as this will take much time to reach fruition, will the Minister press for help for the people who are in need and suffering from cold, especially during the recent spell, such as the elderly, the pensioners, the disabled, the ill, all of whom are not being looked after by the Government and who will suffer until this plan comes into operation?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to those who support the consortium, such as my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Leicester, East, (Mr. Bruinvels) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South, and the local authority. So far as Government help is concerned, it is a fact that this Government have provided record levels of support for the very target groups that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we welcome a new source of energy which would lead to a reduction in heating costs and further sharpen the keen competitive edge of Leicester's industry? Will he see that any scheme remains firmly in the sector of private enterprise?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend. I stress once again that this Government fully support CHP and agree that the key to future development must lie in projects which will attract private sector finance. I hope that Leicester has that potential.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what major projects his Department is sponsoring on geothermal power as an energy source; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is funding a further £6·85 million of research into geothermal energy to determine the cost-effective contribution that hot dry rocks could make in the United Kingdom. This includes a £5·85 million extension to the programme of reservoir investigations by the Camborne school of mines and a further £1 million on supporting studies.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that renewed commitment by the Government to this alternative energy source. Does he agree that although we must continue to obtain energy from main fuels, including nuclear power, there should be an increasing commitment to alternative power sources, such as energy drawn from hot rocks beneath the earth's crust? Will he acknowledge that that is a good way of proceeding, and will he make further commitments in this direction?

My hon. Friend knows that the Department of Energy has made a major contribution in this instance and has invested about £20 million so far. The quality of the work that is being carried out is establishing the United Kingdom as a world leader in this technology. We are delighted to be able to support it and to see it continue.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the work of the Crafts Council and its funding.

I fully support the work of the Crafts Council in promoting the wider practice and appreciation of the crafts. I am maintaining its funding broadly in line with inflation.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the priority that is given by the Crafts Council to the marketing and design of a wide range of craft products? Will he confirm that this has a beneficial spin-off for a wide range of industry, including exports? Will he bear that in mind sympathetically when he comes to review the continuation of a grant to the Crafts Council?

I much endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The council is doing an excellent job under the leadership of its chairman, Sir Nevil Macready, whose chairmanship has now been renewed. In the increased grant that I gave I was glad to be able specifically to allocate £100,000 to regional development, especially for marketing work, to help craftsmen to market their crafts and objects of art more effectively and to export them more effectively.

asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to encourage lending by the national collections to provincial museums and galleries.

Yes, Sir. Many loans already help to widen access to our national treasures, but I believe we could do more. The Museums and Galleries Commission plans to set up a modest touring exhibition scheme this year. I hope that it will help to stimulate yet further activity.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he direct his attention to specific national collections such as the Victoria and Albert and the British museums, both of which have large quantities of material in their basements that are seldom seen by the public? Will he persuade them to part with them, or loan them, to provincial museums and galleries? If security and insurance is a problem, perhaps central Government funding should be directed to that area of expenditure rather than to acquiring further materials and pictures that will be seldom seen by the public?

I agree with my hon. Friend that some of our national museums and galleries have a substantial proportion of their treasures in storage—not necessarily locked away—although it should be acknowledged that they rotate the objects of art that they display quite regularly. I believe that it is right to stress the need to encourage further loans of these objects of art to various parts of the country. It is with that in mind that the Government's indemnity scheme does a great deal to facilitate loans to be made to local museums, for example. It is to encourage this prospect that the Museums and Galleries Commission has now established the unit to which I have referred, which is designed to encourage exhibitions throughout the country.

I welcome what the Minister has said, but will he go a little further and undertake positively to make funds available to assist with the project that is designed to ensure that some of the basement articles are displayed throughout the country? There are many items in London that would be received with rapture in other parts of the country. Will he go further than he has gone so far?

The commission has earmarked a modest sum especially for the purpose of encouraging that to happen and to link those who want to exhibit objects of art from our national museums and galleries. The right hon. Gentleman should not underestimate that which can be achieved through the Government's indemnity scheme. I am sure he knows that the expense of taking out commercial loans means that the cost of the premium is prohibitive. In my view, the Government's indemnity scheme plays the most prominent part.

Will the Minister encourage the national museums to publish an inventory of what they have in their basements? Such an inventory could be sent to local and provincial galleries. Perhaps the Minister could ask national museums to give advice to the provincial museums in respect of storing and exhibitions.

I shall certainly inquire whether it is possible for the national museums and galleries to provide an inventory. With the gradual introduction of computer services in those museums and galleries it may be possible to do that. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know the results of my inquiries.

Surely, if the Minister chose, he could give much more determined support for this policy. Does he accept that people in the regions have a right to see, and want to see, the riches of our national collections? Will he consider initiating a national policy to bring together the Musuems Commission, the Arts Council, area museum councils and regional arts associations, which could be funded to co-operate to open the national collections to the whole of the country?

May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming Opposition spokesman for the arts. I hope that he finds the position as interesting as I do on this side of the Box. I think that we shall look forward, with interest, to discovering Labour party policy on the arts. I am very glad that he supports the general thrust of the discussion on the question of loans to galleries all over the country. It is for the Museum and Galleries Commission to co-ordinate the task nationally, and I shall do whatever I can to support it. The commission is the right body to put forward a national policy, and that is precisely what has been achieved with this new unit.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will seek to ensure that grants made to museums and galleries for the acquisition of artefacts are treated as capital rather than current expenditure.

Funds for national museums and galleries to acquire objects for their collections are voted annually as part of their grant-in-aid. These funds may, however, be carried forward from year to year if institutions wish to use them to accumulate a purchase fund.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the acquisition of a great work of art by a public gallery or museum is not a matter of a one-off piece of expenditure? It is the acquisition by the nation of something that is not only a capital asset but of something which, I hope, adds to the glory of our nation. Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Treasury that to treat such an acquisition as current expenditure is an act of Treasury frivolity? The purchase should be treated as a capital asset. The entire grant should be considered as a capital matter and not a matter of current cash flow. Will my right hon. Friend explain that to the Treasury?

I appreciate the importance of the question that my hon. Friend has asked, but I must point out that it is possible for the national museums and galleries—indeed, it is possible to negotiate the same deal for the local authority museums and galleries — to accumulate a purchase fund for the acquisition of a work of art and to carry over 100 per cent. of that purchase fund to the following year. That is an important concession on the part of the Treasury.

Perhaps the Minister would consider authorising a lease-back arrangement for the great national collections along the lines of some of the arrangements of local authorities. One can imagine the sort of revenue that that could generate. Has the Minister done anything to try to secure for the nation Van Gogh's painting of sunflowers that is due to come up for auction? Will the Minister make the money available to secure it for the nation? Indeed, will he start thinking about imposing some sort of levy on the obscenely high prices paid for paintings at auctions? Money could be taken from the price of those old masters and perhaps be dedicated to some of our young artists.

There are already well-established good procedures for intervention where it is thought that certain works of art ought to be considered for preservation in this country. Those procedures were set up by the Government in 1980 and the National Heritage Memorial Fund helps to fulfil that task. It is for it to make judgments about various works of art. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since the early 1950s there has been in existence the Export Review Committee, which has the job of recommending to me that certain works of art should be stopped from sale abroad until such time as we have tested whether this country is prepared to provide the funds for them.

Will my right hon. Friend take Treasury Ministers on a tour of some of our national museums and, if they fail to be excited by the beauty of the objects displayed, will he point out just how much money they represent to the country, both in capital value and in the tourist revenue that they generate?

In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should point out that he recognised the importance of this when we were able to announce the new acceptance in lieu scheme, which, as I have said, provides an extra £10 million in contingency reserve, on which we can now draw. That is in itself an important acknowledgement by my right hon. Friend of the need to preserve our works of art.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will give the figures for secondment in and out of the Civil Service over the last three years.

Outward secondments increased from 632 in 1983 to 679 in 1985, and inward secondments from 133 to 227. Figures for 1986 are expected to be available in April this year, but the Government are working for a continued expansion in secondments.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he assure us that the Government will do everything that they can to expand the number of incoming secondments to the Civil Service, as the programme brings great benefit to the Civil Service and to industry? Could not the benefits to industry be more widely acknowledged by industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has seen from the figures, there are fewer inward secondments than outward secondments, and I am anxious to persuade industry and other sectors to lend some of their people to the Civil Service for a period of, say, two years. It does good to the Civil Service and should help it. The more that we can persuade industry, the better, and I shall continue my efforts in that direction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that politicians who enter this place having had experience in commerce and industry are perhaps more alert politicians? Is it not healthy that civil servants should be seconded into industry so that they know what the outside world is all about?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is volunteering for secondment, but I agree that there is great value in officials having experience of the outside world. That two-year period can bring enormous benefits when they come back to the Civil Service. That is why I am increasing the target for the number of civil servants who should be seconded outside.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to meet the new general secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association to discuss Civil Service pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the leaders of the non-industrial Civil Service trade unions from time to time, but have no immediate plans to meet Mr. John Ellis. Civil Service pay, in any case, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt join me in congratulating the CPSA and its new leader, John Ellis, on such a decisive election win. Is this not the way that democracy can be seen to be at work, and does it not show that, in true and fair elections, the right people can be elected? When my right hon. Friend next sees Mr. Ellis, will he advise him to pay a visit to the Leicester DHSS office, to ensure that the workers in that office, who are members of the CPSA, are putting my constituents first and putting aside their differences and their past support for Militant?

I am sure that the vast majority of civil servants put service, not only to my hon. Friend's constituents but to the public as a whole, first. Let me endorse what he said. I should like to feel that the House will join me in congratulating the CPSA having conducted a fair and democratic election in which the majority of members participated. I welcome the fact that there was on this occasion a decisive result.

As the Minister meets leaders of non-industrial trade unions may I ask whether he has recently met the appropriate trade unions in the Civil Service about the fact that it is now three years since the shameful ban was imposed on GCHQ employees belonging to a trade union? As, in a few moments, the Home Secretary will be making as much political capital as he can out of events on Saturday, does not the ban on trade unionists at GCHQ demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Government are the enemy of trade unionism?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense and he knows it. He also knows, and the House will have noted, that while this matter is principally for my right hon. the Foreign Secretary, by declaring this case inadmissible the European Commission on Human Rights has confirmed the Government's view that our actions were fully in accordance with our commitments to human rights.

How successful has my right hon. Friend been in persuading the CPSA and other Civil Service unions to have clerical work done in the north? Banks manage to have typing, for example, done well away from branches because modern communications enable dictation to be carried out over a distance. Is there any point in paying an arm and a leg for a typist in London when the work can be done at half the cost and twice as well in the north?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. It is perfectly true that it is much more expensive to recruit people in the south-east than it is to recruit them in other parts of Britain. He may like to note that over the past seven years there has been a natural progression of 5.000 officials moving outside London because it is thought that it is operationally more efficient to move them to other regions.

Does the Minister not think that morale in the Civil Service would be much improved if the Government made it plain that they recognise the value of the Civil Service a ad if they sought to re-establish a settled pay system and improve equal opportunities throughout the service?

The hon. Lady's assumption that the morale of the Civil Service is low is wrong. Of course certain parts of the Civil Service are going through particular difficulties, some of them in the scientific field. On Wednesday the Government will launch, for the first time ever, an annual report on the work of the Management and Personnel Office and on the Civil Service as a whole. The hon. Lady will find there a strong tribute to the Civil Service by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

As the cost of living, the cost of housing, and wage rates, are totally different in different parts of the country, is it not daft that civil servants are paid the same wherever they happen to be outside London? As we have a strong Government, is it not time that some action was taken on this?

Although Civil Service pay is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend may like to note that there has been increased progression towards a more flexible pay system in the Civil Service and that we now have a system of pay additions for those parts of the Civil Service presenting recruitment and retention problems. That is a move in the direction about which my hon. Friend speaks.

asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had regarding the effect of removing value added tax on the performing arts; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations. In particular, the Society of West End Theatres has advocated the removal of VAT from theatre tickets, and the report compiled last year by the National Campaign for the Arts argued for the zero rating of the arts for VAT purposes. As the House knows, these are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Although it is the job of his right hon. Friend to look into these matters, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to his right hon. Friend that a vast amount of work is done for no purpose other than raising subsidy for the theatre, and that that subsidy is then given to the Exchequer? If he could make that clear to his right hon. Friend, a great amount of work would be saved and much finance could be generated for the live theatre.

Of course I acknowledge that the theatre world and the arts world contribute VAT to the overall revenue of the Government. The hon. Gentleman must accept that this policy on indirect taxation is part of the broad strategy of the Government. We want to put greater stress on indirect taxation and seek the reduction of income tax. Against that background one must seek the broadest base for indirect tax, and one must acknowledge that. The best way we can positively help the arts is by of the kinds of changes that we saw in the last Budget, which encouraged individuals and corporations to give more to the arts. This is the time for the arts world to generate support from those sectors.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress of revitalising the South Bank arts complex.

The South Bank Board of the Arts Council has made great strides since it took over in April 1986. I am confident that the imaginative plans of the board will be increasingly justified by events as they come to fruition in the years ahead.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Greater London Members of Parliament who have seen the energetic programme introduced by the committee at the South Bank Centre since it took over from the Greater London council, inheriting a mess when it did so?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The board, under the leadership of Ronnie Grierson, has shown great imagination in planning the longer term future of the South Bank. If we look back to the gloomy prognosis given by so many Opposition members over a year ago, we find the situation is quite different and that the plans for the future of the South Bank are exciting.