asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase the staffing and extend the role of the Offshore Supplies Office; and if he will make a statement.

I shall continue to ensure that the Offshore Supplies Office is sufficiently staffed to enable it to fulfil its important role.

Does the Minister agree that the role and staffing of the OSO should be increased over the next few years to deal with what will be the Petroleum Act? Is the Minister satisfied with the OSO's role in securing contracts for United Kingdom companies? Naturally, I am primarily concerned with the fortunes of Scott Lithgow.

I pay tribute to the staff at the OSO who are hard-working and dedicated, and who are ensuring that British industry has a full and fair opportunity to win orders. I expect that for 1986, United Kingdom firms will have gained more than 80 per cent. of the orders available. That demonstrates the success of its work. I want that to continue, as I know the hon. Gentleman does. I am grateful to him for what he said.

Given the admission by the Government that 20,000 jobs have been lost in the oil industry in the last 12 months or more, and given the awful announcement today of the loss of highly skilled jobs at Huntings, one of our most internationally renowned consultancies, should the Government not be bringing forward more positive measures to stimulate development and exploration of the North sea, instead of this misplaced confidence and attitude that the Minister has shown today?

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have noticed that there has been a substantial drop in the price of oil, which has a great effect on the industry. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge that.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of oil and oil-related construction activity in the United Kingdom.

The total contract tonnage associated with current developments on the United Kingdom continental shelf which has been awarded to United Kingdom construction yards, is around 200,000 tonnes. That construction work takes place over a period of time related to each project schedule.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I underline—I know that he is very conscious of this—the extremely depressing effect that the oil slump has had on construction-related activity in the Highlands? Will his Department be sympathetically disposed towards accepting evidence from, for example, the Highland regional council as to the related impact which the regional development cuts have had on the oil-related construction sector in the Highlands, which has acted as a double blow against it, and which also underlines the need for further tax concessions in the forthcoming Budget?

The Highland regional council has been in touch with my Department and I am sensitive to what the hon. Gentleman says. In my own area, Grampian regional council has said the same thing. Both councils have taken the opportunity of giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy which is looking into these problems. I accept that there are much wider repercussions to the economy of these areas, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the problems and shares my concern.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update of onshore exploration and development, particularly that which is related to sensitive areas of the south of England?

Onshore activity has continued and there was considerable interest in the first onshore licensing round. It provides opportunities for smaller British firms to get involved, but I know that my hon. Friend acknowledges that, as I have said previously, any activity is strictly controlled under planning legislation and environmental considerations are involved. That must be right.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the Government's long-term policy towards nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of letters, principally in relation to Sizewell B.

The Secretary of State's response was very brief. Bearing in mind the fact that since the publication of the Sizewell B report, the chairman of the CEGB has said that he wants to press ahead with nuclear power stations in other parts of Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the folly of the proposition that a group of nuclear power stations should be built on a coastal strip of Northumberland, adjacent to a profitable and extensive coalfield and close to a coal-fired power station, which is owned by the CEGB and is ripe for coal-fired development?

From the statements by the CEGB chairman that I have seen, I know that he has mentioned the board's interest in new coal-fired stations. However, I have received only an application for Sizewell B and that is the only one on which I can comment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a PWR is urgent and would be competitive and timely as the only power station that is likely to be commissioned before 1995 when it will be required?

I cannot comment on such matters until I have made a decision on Sizewell B.

Will the Secretary of State go further than he went in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and address himself to the unemployment problem in the north-east? Productivity is greater than ever in our coalfield and it would be a suitable place for a coal-fired power station. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be cheaper to build and run a coal-fired station than a nuclear power station.

I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot comment on his final point until I have made a decision on the report that I have received. I believe that the coal industry in the north-east has considerable importance for the future and I am pleased that the enterprise company is bringing new jobs to the region. I hope that that will be on an ever-increasing scale. I am certainly aware of the unemployment dimensions of the problem.

Among all the representations about the future of nuclear power, has my right hon. Friend received any that point out the need to conserve hydrocarbon fuels, particularly as they will be chemical feedstocks in the future and will be a source of man-made fibres, fertilisers and plastics, as well as premium fuel for aviation use?

I have received representations on almost every aspect of energy and every possible use of energy. The factors mentioned by my hon. Friend deserve careful consideration.

The Secretary of State mentioned that the CEGB has been talking about new coal-fired power stations. Will he comment on reports in the press and elsewhere that the Treasury is very much opposed to that type of development?

I read with amazement the newspaper report that a debate was taking place between the Treasury and myself. No such debate was taking place.

As the CEGB will be applying later this year to build a PWR at Hinkley Point in Somerset, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, while safety requirements must be rigorous, the planning inquiry will be more narrowly focused and that it will take less than a year to reach a conclusion?

As I have not been informed of any such application by the CEGB, I cannot comment on it. I know that people in Somerset or any other area will want the proper planning considerations to take place, and that should be done within a limited time scale, which gives enough time for objectors, but does not delay important decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the chairman of British Coal has kept him informed about the results of his review of cases involving dismissed miners; and if he will make a statement.

On 8 September 1986, the chairman of British Coal announced a final internal review that would look at all outstanding cases of alleged unfair dismissal arising from the National Union of Mineworkers strike. The result of that review is not yet available, although I understand it is now nearing completion.

Since it was in October last year that the chairman of British Coal promised a review of the cases of the dismissed miners, is it not time that we knew the results of that review? Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that the strike has been over for two years, 113 Scottish miners are still dismissed? Is the Minister aware that the dispute will never be over until justice is seen to be done and these men from all over the country are reinstated?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the dismissal and re-employment of employees is a matter for British Coal. Indeed that would be the case with any employer. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, of the 1,014 members dismissed as a result of that tragic and unnecessary strike, over half have been taken back. I plead with the hon. Gentleman for one moment to lift up his eyes from his normal Scargill brief and to recognise that the barriers to progress, which have been built up over the years by negative attitudes and entrenched by restrictive practices, are coming down all over the coal industry. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that the only power left to Arthur Scargill appears to be the control that he exercises over the Labour party's energy policy.

When discussing coalfield manning will my hon. Friend congratulate the chairman of British Coal on the acceptance by the South Wales miners at Margam, as a result of their vote last Thursday, of the six-day shift system? Has my hon. Friend noted that that vote took place exactly two years to the day after the end of the coal strike?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that a far better topic of conversation with the chairman of British Coal would be the important meeting on Margam. My hon. Friend is right that that vote took place exactly two years to the day after the tragic and unnecessary strike.

Does the Minister agree that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was less than helpful? Our concern is for miners who have been dismissed— in some cases for reasons that would not have warranted dismissal in normal circumstances. Some of the cases for dismissal result from stealing a bit of coal and the Minister and I would have done that if we had found ourselves in similar circumstances. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members would not have done, they have forgotten their marriage vows. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good stroke for industrial relations to make a magnanimous gesture in these cases?

As well as hoping that the hon. Gentleman will regret some of his words, I wish to make it clear that what I was protesting about is that Opposition Members are aware that these are matters for British Coal and that a review is being carried out. Over half the miners concerned have already been taken back. It is not a matter for Ministers.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal will he take the opportunity to congratulate, through him, the management and the work force on achieving record levels of productivity? Surely, it is that productivity that offers a better prospect of security and continuity of employment for the work force?

I believe that the enthusiasm and determination of the men and management in pushing through the new productivity records will take the industry into a stable and viable future. It will ensure good markets and job security.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed the development of the north-east Leicestershire coalfields with the chairman of the Coal Board.

My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Is the Minister aware that pits in northwest Leicestershire are closing down rapidly and that it is vital that new pits are opened in north-east Leicestershire? There has been exploration and an inspector's report approving a pit additional to Asfordby. Will the new pits be opened in time to preserve the jobs and the work of the excellent Leicestershire coal miners?

I understand that British Coal is still considering the future of the rest of the Belvoir coalfield, and it is for it to assess the relative attractions of potential investment projects. British Coal is discussing a six-day shift in south Wales and the good news is that discussions have been going on with the trade unions on mulit-shift workings at Asfordby. If the discussions reach a successful conclusion, the mine will be uprated to production of 3·5 million tonnes a year and the number of jobs available will be in excess of 1,500.

Will my hon Friend give priority to the south Leicestershire coalfield miners, who have endured a number of job losses and worked in extremely difficult circumstances? They are known to be some of the best miners in the country. I ask my hon. Friend to recall that in the south midlands coalfield production is at a record level. The miners in this area would be a tremendous enchancement to the mining industry if they were kept on and given priority for jobs within the Leicestershire coalfield.

Decisions on the manning of these pits must be a matter for British Coal. My hon. Friend is right to recognise the men's tremendous effort in his area— in Leicestershire and in the south midlands. These successes are being built on as we move from one productivity record to another, and that must be the best possible news for the future.

I wish to support the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for further development in this area of the mining industry. I visited it recently and it was impressed upon me that the original decision was that there should be three pits in the area. Can the Minister give an assurance that development will take place very soon in north-west Leicestershire?

These are matters for British Coal. I am pleased to hear that Asfordby is on schedule and that the upcast shaft and the downcast shaft are now 300m and 180m down, on schedule, on cost and within budget. There is also the important development of south Warwickshire, where I understand tha discussions are proceeding on multi-shift working.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the needs of the Leicestershire miners, it would make more sense to develop the Witham coalfield in Nottinghamshire, which is adjacent to the present site of West Burton power station, and will also be the site of the next coal-fired power station in Britain?

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the last part of his supplementary question. As for the first part, I shall pass his remarks to the chairman of British Coal—[Interruption.] I remind Opposition Members as they heckle me, that productivity measured by output per man shift fell each year under the previous Labour Government, compared with a 4 per cent. per annum improvement envisaged in "Plan for Coal". We have seen record productivity under this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had on a regular basis with interested bodies concerning the Mersey and Severn barrage schemes.

My colleagues and I have met representatives of the Severn tidal power group and the Mersey Barrage Company. It is my right hon. Friend's policy to ensure that the organisations carrying out these studies consult fully all interested bodies.

Will the Minister confirm that neither of the bodies to which he has referred has an obligation to consider the environmental impact of the schemes, despite both areas being of international wildlife significance? Will he take steps to establish appropriate advisory bodies to ensure that research takes place? Will he give an undertaking now to continue formally to consult the voluntary organisations, which have already expressed their concern about the environmental impact of the schemes?

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that environmental studies are recognised as an essential feature of barrage studies and that a significant proportion of the present expenditure on the two estuaries will be devoted to environmental studies. Full environmental appraisals will not be possible, especially for the Severn, until a decision is made to progress the scheme beyond the scope of the present studies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in west Gloucestershire on the banks of the river Severn accept his undertaking to consult all the interested bodies as being thoroughly responsible? We are concerned not only with the environmental aspects, but with the full impact of the cost of construction, since the Severn barrage could be one of the most expensive civil engineering projects ever undertaken.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Friends who have pressed my ministerial colleagues and I on what I believe is one of the widest work programmes and consultation arrangements that the country has ever seen into what is, after all, one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources.

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Can the Minister say what timescale is involved in taking a decision, particularly on the Severn barrage? To my knowlege, the decision-making has been going on for about 30 years. The proposal presents a viable alternative to the further development of the nuclear energy programme which will not provide anywhere near as many jobs as the Severn barrage scheme stands a chance of providing.

Without commenting on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are seeing remarkable progress on both the Severn and Mersey barrages. Indeed, I heard only last week that the Mersey barrage studies are well ahead of schedule and part I of the study is expected to be finished later this year. On the Severn barrage, we are now in the midst of a two-year programme, jointly funded by the Severn tidal power group, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Department. I have every optimism that the studies will be completed ahead of schedule.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many fatal accidents there have been in the civil nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and what was the number of fatalities.

There were 10 accidents, each involving one death, in the 10 years to February 1987. None involved radiation.

Although one fatality is one too many will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given the House compare favourably with accidents in other major energy-conversion industries? For example, will he confirm that in the coalmining industry the figure is over 300, and does he agree that safety is an important factor in assessing how we meet our energy demands in the future?

I note what my hon. Friend says. He is correct that there were, sadly, 388 fatal accidents in the coal industry in the 10 years to 1985. The Government and the nuclear industry are fully conscious of the importance of both site and environmental safety, and the industry's record in that respect is excellent.

Is the Minister aware that the figures—I do not challenge their accuracy in any way—are totally misleading? A fatality in the mining industry is a tragedy for the individual concerned and his family, but it is totally unlike incidents in the nuclear power industry which have implications for the local community and society at large? There is no relevant comparison between figures.

The important point is that the industry is conscious of its safety responsibilities.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will keep in mind the importance of maintaining the excellent safety record when he arrives at his decision on the possibility of constructing Sizewell B? Will he assure the House that approval for Sizewell B will be given only if his Department is satisfied that there is every prospect of maintaining the safety record?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm that all information relating to the Windscale fire in 1957 has now been published and will he accept that one of the problems for the supporters of nuclear power, such as myself, is that the industry is clouded in a cloak of secrecy? If we could remove that secrecy I believe a majority of the British people would wholeheartedly support its development.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that full publication has been made of the details relating to the Windscale fire. I agree that openness on the part of the industry is extremely important and I believe that the industry is very open with information. All incidents at nuclear installations, however minor, must be reported by law to the nuclear installations inspectorate. Any incident that might give rise to a significant radiological hazard, either to the public or to a member of staff, is also promptly notified to Ministers. The details of all significant incidents are published regularly by the Health and Safety Executive.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much oil has so far been brought ashore to the Shetland Islands; and if he will make a statement about the future involvement of the Shetlands in North sea oil development.

Up to the end of 1986 the total amount of crude oil brought ashore to the Sullom Voe terminal was 351·6 million tonnes. There is continuing opportunity for the Shetlands.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that the Select Committee on Energy recently visited the Shetland Islands. Will he acknowledge the co-operation that the Shetland Islands have given the North Sea oil companies over recent years? Will he also ensure that his Department does all that it can to let the companies that have business in the North sea know that they will be welcome in the Shetland Islands, so that the expertise and technology that has been built up there can be used to full advantage?

Yes, Sir. The Shetlands have some good facilities, not only at Sullom Voe, which I mentioned in my answer, but in the Lerwick base and at Sumburgh airport. In the longer term, the geography of the Shetlands is such that they could find themselves strategically placed for developments in the northern North sea or in the area to the west of the Shetlands where prospecting is taking place.

Does the Minister of State acknowledge that one should be wary in the House and elsewhere of speaking for the Shetland islanders because they are pretty good at speaking for themselves? Does he concede that one of the things to which he should turn his mind, with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is the ring fence arrangement for taxation in the North sea, so that development for satellite fields can be assessed as new development to step up the rate of activity both east and west of the Shetlands and in the North sea as a whole?

Having for many years had dealings with the Shetlanders on fisheries and oil and gas matters, I believe that no one respects more than I do the independence of the Shetlanders, but, so far as I am aware even the Shetlanders have not claimed a ring fence for those islands.

It may not necessarily follow from the Minister's departmental responsibility, but does he accept that the reform of local government finance will have an important influence on future oil developments in the Shetlands, not least on the terminal at Sullom Voe? Has his Department been in touch with the Scottish Office on the importance of that, the necessity for the arrangements that will follow from the changes to the non-domestic rate, and any implications for possible pooling of non-domestic rates?

The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that, like the rest of the House, he will welcome the interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) showed following the enterprising visit by the Select Committee on Energy to those islands. I very much welcome the interest taken in the House in the important role played by the Shetlands in the economy as a whole, particularly in relation to oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications for the construction of coal-fired power stations have been submitted to hint or his predecessors by the generating boards since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

No applications for coal-fired stations have been made by the CEGB since May 1979, although for much of the period since then the largest coal-fired station in western Europe has been under construction at Drax. It was completed last year to time and budget at a cost of some £900 million.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As he has given us assurances that the Treasury will not interfere in any approvals that his Department gives for the construction of coal-fired or, indeed, nuclear power stations, can he also give an assurance about the conversion from oil-fired to coal-fired stations, especially now that the oil-fired station at Inverkip desperately needs that conversion, and needs it quickly?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. On no occasion in my ministerial life have I ever, alas, been able to say that the Treasury will not interfere in anything. I can only say that no discussion or debate is going on between myself and the Treasury on those matters because only one application is before us. Conversion schemes or any other application by the CEGB will be carefully and quickly considered.

When the Secretary of State is considering alternative forms of power generation, will he bear in mind that there is a very wide consensus of support for coal-fired power stations and that the power generating industries that make and design much of the power station equipment for nuclear and other types of power generation can also generate jobs and wealth in designing and commissioning a coal-fired power station?

I am well aware of that. If the Government had not recognised the continuing importance of the coal industry, we would not be investing £2 billion in that industry over the next three years. We have invested far more over recent years than the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman used to support. In return, I hope that he will give careful consideration to the 150,000 jobs that are involved in the nuclear industry, particularly in the north-east.

In considering Sizewell B, will my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of the coal-fired industry particularly as it relates to NEI Parsons in the north-east of England where any further loss of jobs would be quite untenable? Until those orders come from the Government, nothing further can he done. We wish for a lead in that respect.

Orders come from the CEGB, not the Government. The Government do not own or run any power stations. I understand that applications must come from the generating industry, depending upon requirements. My hon. Friend knows that the CEGB has been examining a number of sites for coal-fired power stations. It will undoubtedly be considering what future strategy to pursue. I can only repeat what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), that as soon as any applications come in they will be carefully and quickly considered.

Is it not a fact that, because there have been no orders for any type of power station over the past eight years under this Government, there is now a shortage of capacity, particularly in the south-east and south-west of England?

The Labour Government, who made the decision in 1978 on the Drax power station, decided to compensate the CEGB because they decided that the power station had been ordered ahead of time and the capacity was not needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired power stations.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the ordering of coal-fired power stations.

I meet the chairman regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB, and I have received no application in respect of a coal-fired station.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless orders for new power stations are placed quite soon there will inevitably be more redundancies in the power construction industry? Does he accept that that could be very serious, because it could damage one of our most successful industries not only in its capacity for building power stations in Britain, but all over the world?

My hon. Friend is well aware of the way in which the Government have given quite considerable assistance to the industry in obtaining overseas orders. He will also be aware of the manner in which we have organised credit facilities and so on for power station projects on a considerable scale. My Department has done all in its power to obtain those overseas orders. My hon. Friend will also understand that, as the CEGB applies to me to meet its capacity needs for the future, these matters will be quickly and carefully considered, as I have already said.

Is it not a matter of serious concern to the Secretary of State that the CEGB should not have submitted applications for coal-fired power stations to him? Does he not recognise that that was part of the strategy to get Sizewell through? Will he not now recognise that his overall responsibilities for energy require him to ensure that we have investment in coal-fired power station building quickly because that would be of immense importance to industry in the north of England?

The hon. Gentleman should be more objective in his study of capacity needs. It is not true that capacity needs will not be met at present. Quite reasonably, before deciding on its overall strategy, the CEGB should know whether the availability of nuclear power stations is part of that strategy. That is a perfectly reasonable decision to take. The CEGB has not delayed decisions so that there will be a lack of capacity. Therefore, I do not agree with any suggestion that it has done that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the difficulties in ordering a coal-fired power station before the 1990s is the technical problem of getting rid of nitrous oxide, which is a real problem in the industry?

It is a problem, but it can be tackled.

If the Government wish to improve the manufacturing base, would it not be sensible to start to build a coal-fired power station immediately and to follow it with another? Does the Secretary of State accept that a coal-fired power station, or stations, should be built adjacent to the coalfields and that he should make an early start by siting one in the north midlands and south Yorkshire area as quickly as possible to provide some jobs?

It is important that the CEGB should decide how best to meet its capacity needs, and in terms of employment those needs must he dealt with efficiently and effectively. The improvement in the productivity of the coal industry will considerably assist it in making people believe that it deserves the orders that it requires. The industrial dispute which the hon. Gentleman supported so enthusiastically considerably damaged the coal industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are coal-fired power stations important to British manufacturing industry but that civil nuclear power stations are important, especially to the north-west and to William Fairey, which he will visit next week? Has my right hon. Friend read the report in The Sunday Times yesterday? Will he confirm that he will not be bullied by the French and other EC members, but will continue to support British manufacturing industry?

As for the report in The Sunday Times, as far as I am aware, no official complaint of any description has been made by the Commissioners of the European Community, so I cannot comment on the issue. The Labour party's decision to eradicate the nuclear power industry during the next 20 years will be disastrous for jobs, especially in the north-east and the north-west.

asked the Minister for the Arts what is the current level of expenditure on the arts in Scotland.

The Arts Council of Great Britain has allocated £13·52 million to the Scottish Arts Council in 1986–87. In addition, the programme of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland provides for £80 million expenditure on arts and libraries this year.

The Glasgow citizens theatre is anxious to extend its season from 35 to 52 weeks at an additional cost of £250,000. This will help tourism and jobs in terms of the garden festival in 1989 and the city of culture in 1990. Will the Government and the Arts Council help in this laudable endeavour?

I acknowledge the remarkable range of arts facilities in Glasgow, including the citizens theatre, and I am glad that in 1990 Glasgow will be the cultural city of Europe. I hope that will bring many tourists and give much help to Glasgow. The allocations of funds is a matter for the Scottish Arts Council, which this year will receive a 4·6 per cent. increase in its overall grant. It is for the council to decide how precisely to allocate that money.

Has the Minister made any assessment of the effect upon expenditure on the arts of the transfer of responsibility for leisure and recreation from the regions to the districts? Has central Government funding taken any account of that effect, especially to offset the damage that has been suffered in rural areas because of the withdrawal of funding from the arts?

What I can say—I can only speak for the arts—is that the Scottish Office has provided an extra £600,000 for this financial year and the coming financial year to help the national arts organisations for Scotland. A formula has been operating for many years to allocate the total sum of money to the Scottish Arts Council, whose policy is to spread the money as widely as it can and to make the arts as accessible as possible to as many people in Scotland as possible.

Does the Minister understand that the feebleness of his answer will greatly disappoint people in Glasgow and in Scotland in general? The Glasgow garden festival and the year of culture will need positive investment by the Government if their potential for the arts and for the people of Scotland is to be realised. Is the Minister aware of the possibility of a substantial Scottish arts presence at the 1989 Toronto arts festival, and does he accept that the Government must invest in that if the potential is to be realised? Will he again allow these opportunities to slip because of the feebleness of the Government's arts policy?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. When the cities made their bids to become the culture city, it was made quite clear that there would not be funding from central Government, that we would look to them to take the lead, and that it was a test of their good intent and plans to do a good job in providing arts facilities in their city as a cultural centre. It was precisely on that understanding that Glasgow was chosen and Glaswegians have shown their confidence in their city by saying that they can set aside, to add to local government and private sector money, enough resources to enable the city to be a great success in 1990.

asked the Minster for the Arts if he has any plans to change current arrangements for acceptancein-lieu of works of art.

I continue to keep the arrangements under review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Will my right hon. Friend say how much was spent last year securing pre-eminent works of art for the nation and whether he believes that the £2 million reserve in his Department and the £10 million reserve at the Treasury are adequate for this purpose and also whether co-operation between his Department and the Treasury is adequate?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the important new arrangements for acceptance in lieu, which means that we can now draw on a contingency reserve to the tune of an extra £10 million in addition to the £2 million that my Department gives. Overall, in this present financial year, just over £3 million has been drawn upon. There have been only seven acceptances in lieu this year and the opportunities for more are very strong. The more people who take this up, the better.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, with the recent escalation in prices at auctions, what might have been adequate a year ago is no longer adequate? Does he accept that these sums need to be revised to take account of changing circumstances.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rates of inflation of some objects of art are very high, and that is a factor to be taken into account. As I have already said, the contingency reserve has not been fully drawn upon for this year and opportunities to draw upon it are still available. He will be aware of other arrangements, including the private treaty sale and the douceur, all of which are mechanisms for making it cheaper to purchase important objects of art and to save tax for the seller.

I acknowledge the substantial contribution that the Government have already made to enable the National Trust to acquire Kedleston hall., but is my right hon. Friend aware that the trust is still about £1·5 million short of the funds it needs to enable it to preserve the contents? As the origin of the problem is very much bound up with capital transfer tax obligations, will he look urgently to see whether there may be further scope, perhaps by drawing on the contingency fund that he has mentioned, to help by way of the AIL arrangements, or, if that is not appropriate, by some other route?

Many of these matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will recognise that the new arrangements for acceptance in lieu have been operating for only a short time and that the full contingency fund has not been adequately and fully drawn upon. The opportunity is still there, and I urge people to take full advantage of it.

We appear to be less and less able to compete with American galleries and foundations in our attempts to retain art treasures in Britain. Does the Minister agree that one way in which he could assist in the retention of such treasures would be for him to take a much more generous view of the valuation of such treasures which may be given in lieu of tax?

There are very clear mechanisms and we bring in expert advisers to assess values. I am satisfied that those arrangements are working well. As regards the selling of treasures abroad, the export review committee, which has been in place for over 30 years, does an extremely good job in recommending what should or should not have a stop put upon it. These procedures are working well.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing national museums and galleries.

I attach high priority to maintaining and improving these buildings, and have allocated over £27 million to it in 1987–88. That is over 30 per cent. more in real terms that in 1979–80.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but may I ask him whether he is obliged to accept the services of the Property Services Agency? The agency does a good job and provides professional expertise in many cases, but occasionally some museums could benefit from competitive tendering for refurbishment.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter. From 1 April 1988 our museums and galleries will be untied from the PSA and will be able to take whatever action they wish about tendering and will be able to recruit whatever staff they need to enable them to do their job on that basis. This is the right way to proceed and it is right to give more responsibility to the trustees and to the directors.

Is the Minister aware of the appalling state of upkeep of many of our great national museums— particularly the Victoria and Albert museum? Since voluntary charges were meant in part to assist in the refurbishment of that museum, what has been the most recent impact on attendance figures of the amount of money that the V and A has been able to produce from those charges? Has it not resulted in a great fall in the number of people attending the museum?

I must make it absolutely plain to the hon. Gentleman that, over a number of years, I have made available £27 million to the Victoria and Albert alone to enable it to undertake very important maintenance and refurbishment work. The record shows that the V and A has done a marvellous job under Sir Roy Strong's leadership and that a number of new galleries have been refurbished, including the medieval treasury. It is for the trustees to decide whether voluntary charges are in the interests of the museum. If the net increase in income leads to an improvement in facilities, I am sure that the vast majority of the British people will welcome it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even where there are charges, voluntary or otherwise, there is always a time during the day when children have access to museums and galleries, and that he is pleased to see that happen?

I welcome the fact that a number of museums which charge, including almost every independent museum, give an excellent service to the public and offer a wide range of special services to enable schoolchildren to enter at a discount.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to change the system of recruitment into the Civil Service.

There are no plans to change the basic principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit in Civil Service recruitment. Changes are continually being made to the detailed procedures to meet the changing needs of the Civil Service and of the labour market.

Although it is now 17 years since the Fulton report was produced, is the Minister aware that the administration group of the home Civil Service—and, even more, the equivalent grades in the diplomatic service— are overwhelmingly dominated by the products of Oxbridge? Is it not time that we ended this elitism in the Civil Service and introduced some democracy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, and is he content with the fact, that 70 per cent. of those recruited into the home Civil Service administration groups in recent years have been the products of Oxford and Cambridge? Can it be that the other universities are no use at all in turning out our higher officials in Government service?

Our sole interest must be to get the best people for the Civil Service. [Interruption.] We have a fair and open system, based on merit. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to this answer, because it may be of some interest to him. Whereas, in 1982, 75 per cent. of the recruits for the high fliers in the Civil Service were from Oxbridge, at the end of 1986 the proportion was down to 46 per cent. the hon. Gentleman will see that a much broader range of hackgrounds is now coming into the Civil Service.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who have to deal with the administrative sections of the Civil Service think that they are extremely good and do not want them mucked up with some sort of equality nonsense from the Opposition?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The thing that really matters in the Civil Service is that the system should be fair and open and that we choose people on merit, irrespective of their background.

As we are considering recruitment, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that civil servants will be recruited to staff the management centres for the Government data network? Will he also ensure that any exchange of information between Departments when the network is established will come under parliamentary scrutiny, bearing in mind the fact that information about individuals from the Department of Employment, the Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security could be put together in a package, thus posing an obvious threat to civil liberties?

I shall consider what the hon. Lady has said and, if I may, write to her in due course.

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

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

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the trade unions, will he discuss with them the effect on morale in the Civil Service of the cuts being made by his colleagues in other Departments, especially the DHSS, where cuts are preventing the provision of a good standard of service to the public and undermining morale in an increasingly serious way?

I and my colleagues who are in charge of Departments are keen to ensure that the morale of the Civil Service is high. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has acknowledged that there have been pressures on certain parts of the DHSS, particularly in offices all over the country, as a result of which he is planning to increase the size of the Civil Service by 5,000. That is an acknowledgement of the pressures and an attempt to deal with the morale problem in the Civil Service.

May I suggest that not everything is right in the Civil Service at the moment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the four Civil Service unions have set up a campaign for a better Civil Service at a cost of £6 million? Should not all members of the Civil Service now declare loyalty and allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and act like true civil servants by being honourable, respectable and responsible?

All the evidence that I see as I travel around the country and meet civil servants is that they do an outstandingly good job and that they are loyal, dedicated and professional. When individuals are not, disciplinary procedures can be taken.

Given the fact that, in the face of rising crime, extra police officers have been appointed, why does the Minister resist calls, in the face of rising VAT fiddles, for an increase of 1,000 officers to deal with VAT frauds? Does the right Gentleman understand that, for about £20 million a year, they could recoup about £122 million in what is now fiddled VAT money?

The fact that, with the DHSS, VAT and in certain other areas, we have shown flexibility about the size of the Civil Service and are prepared to make modest increases when that would lead to an improvement of the service shows that we are anxious to ensure that there is a proper service.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offer that the Government have made to civil servants is sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate civil servants of high quality?

That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but my hon. Friend may have noticed that there is now a provisional pay agreement with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants to provide much more flexibility in the pay scheme to acknowledge retention and recruitment needs. I hope that that will be progress in the right direction.

Did the Minister take the opportunity to explain to the Civil Service unions whether the policy on decentralised pay bargaining was that proposed by the Paymaster General or that followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

There is common agreement among us that there is a need for more flexibility in the pay system. The provisional pay agreement that has been reached with the IPCS is a step in that direction and has the suppport of the whole Government.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many official forms have been scrapped since 1979.

Since the Government's review of forms began in 1982, at least 17,500 forms have been abolished and 25,000 have been improved.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that achievement. Can a price be put on it? Can he say how much has been saved by scrapping those forms? Is there not a case for simplifying the forms that must remain to ensure that they are understood even by the most simpleminded of us?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The saving made so far is £9 million of taxpayers' money. I hope that, as a result of the more recent reductions in the number of forms, further savings will be made. I welcome the fact that there is a campaign, led by Chrissie Maher, that is designed to improve plain English in this country. Her campaign has helped to improve and simplify many of the forms that the Government produce for taxpayers.

Could my right hon. Friend state why it is necessary for the Ministry of Defence to circulate a form asking about ethnic origin, when the Secretary of State for Defence has refused to do that for the armed forces? What is the difference?

Principally, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Despite that welcome reduction, is my right hon. Friend aware that the tax assessment regulation forms now total more than 600 pages, compared with half that figure in 1950? Will he discuss that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether it can be reduced in the forthcoming Finance Bill?

I shall certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend. For my part, I will do anything that I can to try to simplify the forms and make sure that they are better understood and more easily interpreted by the citizens of this country.

Is the Minister aware that the simplest of all the forms recently issed in the Civil Service was the one that asked civil servants whether they wanted to set up a political fund in the Civil and Public Services Association? As a result of all the attacks by the Government on civil liberties of one kind or another, the CPSA decided by a majority of 2:1, on this very official form, that they would set up a political fund. Does he agree that that shows that civil servants realise they have been badly treated by the Tory Government?

The vast majority of civil servants wish to do what has always been their duty—remain impartial. The Government believe that trade unions need political funds only if they propose to participate in party political activities or to campaign for or against political parties or candidates.