asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made by British Coal regarding mining subsidence compensation claims.

Since 1984, when British Coal revised its procedures, there has been a significant reduction in the time taken to process the majority of claims, and the number of claims outstanding has fallen by 22 per cent.

May I suggest that the Minister has a look at the cases that British Coal is messing about with? British Coal is walking all over the people who have made claims. It is crushing them like insects. Reviews are in progress and it is now being said that there is no more time. The local hospital is now being messed about with. I warn the Minister that if he does not do something, I will be walking all over him.

That sounds an uncomfortable experience. Of course, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's involvement in a number of cases, particularly as I have just received a letter from him on the subject. I shall certainly take it up with British Coal.

Far from walking all over my hon. Friend the Minister, let me take this opportunity of welcoming him warmly to his position on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring great distinction to his office.

That will certainly be one of the outstanding matters that must be examined. It is the subject of a number of cases now before us which I am taking up with British Coal.

Is the Minister aware that, during the coal strike, Mr. MacGregor met a group of Members of Parliament and said, in answer to a specific question from me, that the charges for subsidence would be held against the collieries that had created it, and would not be a charge upon other collieries or the industry as a whole? I ask the question because of the peculiar geological circumstances extant in the Nottinghamshire coalfield as compared with, say, south Wales. I do not see why the south Wales colliery should bear the subsidence costs of collieries such as Nottinghamshire. Is the Minister aware of that suggestion, or is it just another of MacGregor's lies? He told enough during the strike.

I shall leave aside the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The whole question of funding and, indeed, allocation is one of the matters that we are having to decide in our response to the Waddilove report.

oyd asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the electricity supply industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give an estimate as to the timetable for the proposed privatistion of electricity supply.

The Government are working to secure a very successful future for the electricity supply industry in the private sector. We are urgently tackling the important issues involved, and consulting widely, and will bring forward proposals as soon as this work is complete.

The Secretary of State believes that this question is about privatisation. The privatisation of the industry is very important, but the security andefficiency of electricity supplies are at stake. Those factors are of paramount importance to Labour Members. What guarantee will the Secretary of State give that a privatised electricity supply industry will still look to the British sector for its supplies of switchgear, turbines, generators and all the other important equipment, particularly as the Government have already failed to invest adequately in research and development in the industry?

We cannot force the CEGB to buy British. It chooses to do so because British goods are competitive, because British equipment is good and because it has a long tradition of working closely with the supply industry. If the industry is privatised, there is no reason why that should change, provided that British suppliers continue to perform as well as they do now. I do not believe that the change of ownership need give rise to a change of policy, unless the suppliers fail to perform.

Does not the British Gas experience demonstrate that privatisation is good for the consumer, that it is good for manufacturing industry—in that jobs have been created because manufacturers now pay a lower price for their energy—and that it is also good for the weaker members of the community, such as pensioners, who also now pay less for their energy? Is not the British Gas experience good for the taxpayer, who no longer bears the burdens that face nationalised industries? The sooner the electricity supply industry is privatised the better it will be both for the consumer and the taxpayer.

It was widely predicted that the only way that British Gas would increase its profits was by shoving up prices, but following the first financial results and the pricing formula that we imposed on British Gas it has reduced its prices by 4·5 per cent. That was because the price of its basic supplies had been reduced, but the benefit of those cost reductions was passed on to the customer, which Opposition Members predicted would never happen.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since the privatisation of British Telecom there has been a sharp deterioration in the service, a sharp deterioration in the record of repairs, an increase in profits and an increase in charges——

Order. The question is concerned with the future of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am drawing a comparison with a privatised industry that has already moved into the private sector where none of the Secretary of State's claims turned out to be correct. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this will not occur when a privately owned monopoly in British electricity is brought into being by a Government who claim to believe in competition?

I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. He is making an unjustified assumption. We recognise the need to introduce competition into the electricity supply industry. That is why we are studying the matter with great care. The right hon. Gentleman would be most unwise to assume that there is only one way to privatise an industry.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and wish him every success in a very challenging job. Will he assure the House that privatisation will not be along the lines of British Gas, but that a formula will be devised that will provide genuine competition and give a fair opportunity to private producers?

In approaching the subject of electricity privatisation there are many interests to be balanced: the work force, the customers and the public—the taxpayers—as the owners. It is because we are trying to find a way to introduce competition and at the same time to be fair to all those interests that the matter is receiving deep and detailed attention. We are not rushing towards making decisions that have not been thought out.

Given the Government's enthusiasm for privatising the electricity supply system and nuclear power, particularly the PWR, why do they not put their convictions to the test and see whether they could raise on the market the private capital to build the Sizewell plant?

That is a typically muddled alliance approach to the problem. Until we have settled a structure for the industry and decided on the basis for privatisation such questions are pointless.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming his onerous office, but when considering the future of the electricity supply industry will he consider the potential input of energies that are alternatives to the normal coal or nuclear sources, particularly the amount of value that could be obtained from the many wind generators throughout the British Isles?

I am tempted to make the obvious joke, but I will not. The matter of renewables and power that is generated from wind is under close study. The House will have noticed that we have commissioned a pilot project to consider power that is generated by the sea and tides. We think that this is an important sector and it will receive careful attention.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the question of nuclear power and privatisation will be exceedingly important, particularly the accountability for nuclear power stations? Will parliamentary accountability be removed under any future legislation?

I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the regulations under which the nuclear industry operates could be weakened or in any way lightened. We recognise the very serious point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but there is another point. Chernobyl was a wholly state-owned station and Three Mile Island was wholly privately owned; ownership does not decide safety. What decides safety is the safety regime that is instituted and the rigid enforcement of it, which we are determined to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to hold energy efficiency conferences.

I am currently reviewing my Department's plans as to how best I can promote energy efficiency.

I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, but does he agree that the motive for adopting the energy efficiency programmes lies in the savings that can be made, which enlightened management should be able to understand by now? Does my hon. Friend share my suspicions that too many conferences often obscure issues rather than help people to come to rather more obvious conclusions about the benefits of energy efficiency?

I agree with my hon. Friend that savings, profits, the labour force and the customer best promote energy efficiency. At the same time, as I said in my original answer, the Department has had a startling success in the past in making those points and we are looking at how we might make them again in the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the design of new buildings, as well as the satisfactory insulation of existing ones, is crucial in encouraging energy efficiency? May I have his assurance that his Department is in regular contact with the Royal Institute of British Architects to promote energy efficiency in new buildings?

I agree with my hon. Friend and, as he will hear in answer to the next question, the design of new buildings is of key importance. If at that stage energy effficiency is taken into account, it avoids many subsequent problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to promote energy efficiency in the development of London's docklands.

London's docklands offer a unique opportunity for demonstrating that buildings can be designed and managed in an energy efficient way.

I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's answer, but when considering energy efficiency in design and the appropriate improvement in building design, will he give some indication of the scale of financial savings and quantify some of the savings that may be achieved, for instance, in docklands by these new improvements in building design?

It is estimated that about £3 billion a year can be saved in the heating and lighting of buildings in the country as a whole. It appears that, on the plans to date of office development, some £20 million a year could be saved in the London docklands.

Although we would all applaud these savings, can the Minister give the House the assurance that no public money will be given to property developers in the docklands, and especially no grants to heat those £200,000 flats, and so on?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of production of North sea oil and gas.

North sea oil production in May was 2·6 million barrels per day, the same level as last year. United Kindom gas production has increased over the past few years and in May production was 3·2 billion cu ft per day.

Would the Minister care to comment on how much the 130 million tonnes of oil production exceeds our requirement? Will he take a little look at the future and especially at balancing the needs of the British and especially the Scottish economies to secure employment with the oil and gas reserves available in the North sea? There is considerable well-founded speculation that the Brown Book figures underestimate oil and gas reserves by about 50 per cent. Would the Minister care to comment on that, because these issues are of particular importance to Scotland?

Having looked back, I know that the hon. Gentleman has followed the industry and production on the United Kingdom continental shelf very closely. If I infer correctly from his question, he is asking for a depletion policy. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that, on current prices, that policy is more academic than practical.

What steps, if any, does the Minister's Department propose to take, or to encourage the Treasury to take following the feed-through effect of the welcome, if somewhat overdue, tax changes in this year's Budget? By the time those tax changes work through there is liable to be a gap or sag in the available contracts into 1988 for all the United Kingdom oil industry fabrication yards. Can further steps be taken by either the Department of Energy or the Treasury to ameliorate the effects next year, which will be a very rough year?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my Offshore Supplies Office is closely in touch with the companies to which he referred. I think that we have a good and close working relationship with them. I have made it clear that I shall keep closely in touch on their behalf with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the Minister still believe his predecessor's prediction that we will be self-sufficient in oil until the year 2000?

If the hon. Gentleman had had the misfortune to listen to me in Glasgow two weeks ago at precisely the same hour on the same day, answering the same questions——

Answer the question.

I shall answer the question. I explained then to an audience and an interviewer that to make predictions of that sort, even if one were an oil economist of the highest level, would be dangerous.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure on how many jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest progress of British Coal Enterprise.

Up to the end of June British Coal Enterprise had helped create 18,506 new job opportunities in 1,399 individual projects. The company's investment of £31·5 million has attracted additional finance from other sources of almost £200 million.

I welcome my hon. Friend to this portfolio and wish him every success. The figure that he cited of over 18,000 job opportunities is a considerable increase on the last figure quoted to me. It shows that the Government not only care about unemployment but, more important, are doing something about it. In view of that success, does my hon. Friend have any plans to increase this scheme? Are there any targets for which he will aim under that scheme?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The scheme has shown great potential for the creation of jobs in coal mining areas. In answer to the second part of his question, I understand that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. hopes for an increase this year to an annual rate of 15,000 new job opportunities.

Is it not the case that job opportunities are often different from jobs? is the Minister aware that the figures that British Coal put out were very vague—like the Minister's own figures? Will he give us a breakdown of the figures, constituency by constituency, so that we may establish which are real new jobs and which are duplicated jobs which have merely been shifted from British Coal to private contractors?

I cannot understand why members of the Labour party carp in this way and it has been going on for several months now. The scheme provides great new prospects for jobs in coal mining areas. Why not accept it for what it is? Would the Labour party withdraw the scheme?

Is my hon. Friend aware that many new and very good jobs have been created through British Coal Enterprise in areas of mining decline such as my constituency? Could BCE direct its attention to sites which are becoming disused and which need much work done on them if they are to be brought back into industrial use—sites for factories and so on? BCE could do so much in that area. Could it not take a more vigorous approach to such disused sites?

That is obviously a matter for BCE, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's interesting idea to its attention.

How many of the 18,000 jobs have been filled by the 80,000 mineworkers made redundant since the end of the strike?

That figure is not available.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards support of export initiatives in the offshore supplies industry.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be doing all that I can to promote and support the export initiatives in the offshore supplies industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a secure home base is essential for exporting? Will he assure me, and the rest of the House, that his Department does all that it can to encourage the exporting industry?

On the latter point, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. The offshore supplies industry has been through a difficult time, but in spite of that it received £2·2 billion worth of orders last year. The domestic market is still extremely strong, and that is the basis on which to build the export market.

While the Minister is supporting the offshore supplies industry, will he ensure that the various organisations in the north-east of Scotland, with the experience and knowledge that they can bring to the industry, are given an interest in this matter?

I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that everyone—in the north-east of Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom—will be given a proper hearing. However, at the end of the day, it will be for the oil companies concerned to decide, on sound commercial grounds, how to invest and from whom to buy the equipment that they need.

Is my hon. Friend aware that ample rumours and a large amount of circumstantial evidence are circulating to suggest that foreign companies that supply offshore services and supplies to this country are being heavily subsidised by their Governments? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to support British companies which want to export to other oil-producing areas so that we may have a balance of international trade?

I assure my hon. Friend that as far as possible I shall ensure that there is fair trading between countries. However, I should point out that at present 82 per cent. of North sea orders come from United Kingdom-based companies.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that we have a strong home base so that we can take advantage of export initiatives, and what is his Department doing to ensure that skills that are lying unused can be channelled into export initiatives?

As I have just said, 82 per cent. of current orders for the North sea are from domestically based companies. That is a very high figure and has risen from 40 per cent. over the past years. The Offshore Supplies Office is doing all that it can to ensure that British-based companies have a fair share of North sea orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in placing orders for the Sizewell B nuclear power station.

Orders for the Sizewell B nuclear power station are a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I am advised by the board that as at 1 July contracts had been let to a value approaching £650 million.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his appointment at the Department of Energy, but I hope that he will show a great deal of enthusiasm for the nuclear industry, which is vital to the United Kingdom. Will he give us some figures for the employment that it has provided in various parts of the United Kingdom, thanks to the policy that the Government have pursued and that the nuclear industry has been able to pursue on its own?

As my hon. Friend knows, about 20 per cent. of our electricity is supplied by nuclear power stations, and Sizewell B alone should produce an average of 10,000 jobs for the next seven years, reaching 15,000 when the contract is at its peak. It offers the prospect of many very well paid jobs and long-term security of electricity supply.

Does the Minister accept that in drawing an analogy with Chernobyl he scarcely does service to the standards and safety record of the British nuclear power industry? Does he accept that in my constituency there is deep apprehension about the prospect of privatisation of nuclear power stations? Does he agree that it is bad enough to sell off the family silver, but criminally irresponsible to start flogging off the family plutonium?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully to what I said to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Safety is determined, not by whether a nuclear power station is publicly or privately owned, but by the safety code and the strength with which it is enforced. Britain has a fine record, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that British Nuclear Fuels can take full advantage of the Sizewell project to compete for pressurised water fuel orders?

British Nuclear Fuels is a very successful company, and 80 per cent. of its business is done overseas. That represented nearly £500 million last year. It is an important export earner. It does a good job and it provides important jobs in Copeland, which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who was the Opposition spokesman on the environment during the previous Parliament, recognised and supported.

What proportion of the £650 million is committed to British contractors as against Westinghouse or other American contractors?

The overwhelming proportion of the expenditure is with British companies——

How much?

I cannot give the exact figure, but it is well in excess of £620 million of the £650 million. One order for £17 million has gone to Southern Ireland for some steel fabrication, but, apart from that, orders have been placed overwhelmingly with British companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since March 1984.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are British Coal's latest figures for output per man shift.

For the week ending 20 June, average deep-mined revenue output per man shift was 3·74 tonnes, an impressive increase of about 54 per cent. on the average of 2·43 tonnes for 1983–84.

Is it not a pity that we did not have similar productivity figures in the coal industry in the past? If we had, there would be more jobs in coal today and miners would be even better paid. Is it not a shame that the Labour party supported every restricted practice that the Scargillite dinosaurs in the National Union of Mineworkers wanted to perpetuate? Has my hon. Friend had any representations from Labour Members on extending flexibility in working practices, for example, by supporting the six-day week?

It is true that in the last days of the Labour Administration productivity was falling, and it is also true that the industry now has an impressive record. It results as much from new investment in the industry as from the closure of uneconomic pits. That investment has been £5·5 billion during the lifetime of this Government, and is currently £2 million per working day.

Those figures are impressive, but is it not a fact that they compare unfavourably with some of our foreign competitors? Is not the lesson the need for more investment, more productivity and, above all, support for the introduction of a six-day week?

It is true that many countries produce coal more effectively. Some coal-exporting countries producecoal at over twice our productivity rate. It is also true that it is absolutely essential that we continue to introduce new practices to make the industry more efficient.

Does the Minister realise that output per man shift can be achieved by reducing manpower? Does he agree that the magnificent figures that we have achieved—there is no doubt that they are magnificent—are due to a reduction in manpower, and that, therefore, there is an increase in OMS'? Following his reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), irrespective of whether coal is cheaper abroad, what effect will privatisation of the electricity industry have on the coalmining industry?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that it is the Government's intention and objective that British Coal should be so efficient and competitive that there will be no question of its not being able to take on foreign competition.

Is the Minister aware that the proposed six-day week will affect not only miners? Many thousands of people who live in mining villages and mining areas, often in rural areas, will be badly affected by noise, dirt and dust, lorries and Sunday night processions to the pit. Those matters also have to be taken into account, because six-day working does not affect just miners.

Let me be quite clear about this. The six-day working week will mean that equipment, not men, will be working harder. Men will work the same or fewer days in the year, as is the case at the moment. A more efficient procedure for working mines is proposed and this will benefit those mines and the areas around them.

In welcoming my hon. Friend to the Front Bench, may I say that he will be welcome in my constituency when he is ready to make his first visit to a colliery. When he makes such a visit, will he explain to the people who work in the industry that six-day working means not necessarily longer working time but a higher financial return to the miners who produce the coal?

I look forward at some stage to taking up my hon. Friend's invitation. It will not be my first time down a pit, as I was a candidate in a colliery constituency for 10 years and during that time I visited pits on many occasions. Certainly he is right in saying that a six-day working week will make the pits more effective, and it does not mean that men will be asked to work more during any one year than they are at the moment.

The Minister must realise that while we welcome increased coal production it has to be matched by increased demand. A consequence of increased coal production must not be more pit closures. Does the Minister believe that it is fair competition for coal to be imported from Colombia, where it is mined by nine-year-old children? Does he think that coal imported from South Africa is fair competition? Does he agree that the message to the miners must be increased coal production and increased demand, but fair competition?

I would put it slightly differently from the hon. Gentleman. Increased coal production has to be sold. Coal has to be sold as an economic product. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of coal imports to this country are special coking coals. It is precisely because British Coal understands that that the Margam pit is being proposed. If it works properly, Margam will provide coking coal that will be an import substitute.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of British Coal to discuss industrial relations matters; and if he will make a statement.

I have had an initial meeting with Sir Robert Haslam and intend to meet him regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members want to see better relations between British Coal and the NUM, but that one of the continued obstacles to progress is the victimisation of hundreds of miners and their families more than two years after the strike? Is he aware that some of the miners took the advice of his predecessor, went before an industrial tribunal and won their case, but are still suffering victimisation from British Coal?

Come on, you have got your job back.

And the hon. Gentleman has never had one. Employment is a matter for the directors of British Coal. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (M. Strang) is aware that every case was re-examined after the appointment of Sir Robert Haslam. Representations on behalf of the men by their unions, managers and other parties were considered, and, at the end of the day, the board decided that more than 300 could not be reemployed. That is a matter for the board. However, I am satisfied that careful consideration was given to each case.

asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the Arts Council to discuss the level of future funding for the Royal Shakespeare Company.

I met the chairman on 1 July and the Royal Shakespeare Company featured in our discussion.

Given that the Royal Shakespeare Company now finds itself in critical difficulties and that the Arts Council has suffered a cut in real terms in the funding that the Government have made available, what plans does the Minister have to extricate the Royal Shakespeare Company from its difficulties, or does he intend to abdicate responsibility for this great cultural institution?

There is no doubt about the standard of excellence of the Royal Shakespeare Company. It acquired a deficit of £1 million largely because it had a bad year last year at the Barbican theatre. The Arts Council is negotiating with the RSC about its future funding. There is one point that I should make. The Royal Opera House has reached a three-year funding agreement with the Arts Council, which should give it longer term stability. That could be a good basis upon which the Arts Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company could reach an understanding.

Should we not build on our strengths? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Shakespeare Company is a great national asset which attracts to our shores visitors whose spending generates employment and income in other areas, such as hotels and shops? Does not the RSC deserve our full-hearted support?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution that the Royal Shakespeare Company makes, not least in its tours around the country enabling people who do not usually see Shakespeare performed by the RSC to do so. We give a grant through the Arts Council of £5·2 million. As I said, the RSC acquired a deficit last year arising mainly from losses at the Barbican theatre, and that is a matter for negotiation between the RSC and the Arts Council.

Does the Minister recall that the Government gave the Royal Shakespeare Company financial stability on the recommendations of their own report, the Priestley report, three years ago? The Government having failed to live up to that undertaking, the RSC is more than £500,000 short of the level that was agreed. Do the Government not understand that it is not only a cultural crime to underfund and wash their hands of the RSC, but that it makes no economic sense? Not only did the RSC play to 1·6 million people last year, but it paid back to the Treasury in VAT and national insurance contributions far more than the £5 million that it received in investment from the Arts Council.

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a Dickens character called Mark Tapley who said that it was predicting the worst that kept him so cheerful. That seems to be in line with the hon. Gentleman's character.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not preside over the disintegration of one of our gratest national companies?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the company, and I give such an assurance.

asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Arts Council to discuss the future development of the Arts Council's work in education.

I discuss the council's work regularly with its chairman.

Does the Minister agree that, to build on the excellent arts education in schools, students must be in a position to go on to arts colleges and dance and drama schools? My constituents are currently being denied places in such institutions, despite having appropriate skills and educational standards, because the Government refuse to make such grants mandatory and students cannot afford the fees. Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, meet the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the Government invest in that vital area of arts education?

I am in fairly continual touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Of course, the matter is principally one for him. I take the view that the introduction of the GCSE examination is an important basis upon which arts, in the museums and heritage world and in the performing arts, should be drawn in more closely with teachers' work. It is a fact that the Arts Council gives about £320,000 within its education unit to try to get teachers and pupils more interested in arts and heritage. That is the right contribution to make.

asked the Minister for the Arts if he has any further plans for changing the rules for the acceptance in lieu of tax schemes.

There are no immediate plans for changing the present system for accepting items in liew of tax, although procedures continue to be kept under review.

How does my right hon. Friend or somebody else decide to which gallery a work of art that is accepted in lieu of tax is to go? Will he look carefully to see whether the number of galleries and institutions to which such works can be sent can be extended so that all the regions can have a fair share of that kind of product?

My hon. Friend has made in important point. It is important that our national treasures, from wherever they come, should be accessible and available to people all over the country. It is, of course, for executors to express family wishes. Very often, a family will express a clear request that a particular object of art should go to a particular location. On other occasions they make an express wish, and it is up to me to decide. I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has expressed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present explosion in prices of works of art, which bear little or no relation to the retail prices index, has meant that there is a greater temptation to sell now and that there are fewer funds with which to meet such high prices? Do we not require a fresh examination of the whole basis of retaining works of art in this country?

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis that the prices of pictures and objects of art are going up fast. There is no doubt about that. On balance, our procedures for the preservation of important objects of art in this country and the terms of our acceptance in lieu are working fairly well. As far as acceptance in lieu is concerned, we have a reserve fund of £10 million, upon which we can draw, in addition to a budget of £2 million in my programme for helping in that area. We have not yet used that full budget.

asked the Minister for the Arts when he last visited the Photographers Gallery.

I visited the Photographers Gallery on 23 March for the presentation of the Photographers Trust Fund prizes and bursaries.

On behalf of all hon. Members who have an interest in photography, I hope that the Minister will accept that we are extremely grateful that he has made at least two visits to the Photographers Gallery. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has also visited the gallery. I am absolutely sure that the Minister has been impressed by what he saw in the Leicester Square gallery. Will he give an assurance that he will give a bursary of some sort to a young photographer to work perhaps in the House of Commons or somewhere else? Such action would encourage photography, which, as everyone knows, is a medium in which all people may indulge at low cost.

I know of the hon. Gentleman's intense interest in phtography, so much so that he encouraged me to join in the House of Commons competition.

If bursaries are given to photographers, surely that is exactly the type of area where private industry and enterprise can make a greater contribution. What we want as an encore are more speeches similar to the one that my right hon. Friend made last week regarding funding for the arts. What work is being done in my right hon. Friend's Department to consider how photographers in West Germany, Japan and the United States are supported by private enterprise and, indeed, how the arts in general are supported in that manner in those countries?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more that bursaries can be funded from the private sector, the better. It is happening all the time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my speech. I only wish that the Opposition would acknowledge that the general election has taken place and the people have expressed their views. The arts world must go along with that, and I am sure that it will benefit from the fact that the private sector can offer a great deal of help in the raising of extra funds. The private sector has a great deal to do.

asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will make it his policy to increase the level of funding for the arts in Leicestershire.

Funding for the arts in Leicestershire is a matter for the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Association. I am pleased to say that the Arts Council has been able to make a substantial increase in its grant to East Midlands Arts for activities in the region.

Is the Minister aware of the magnificent work done by both the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester and of the hard time that they have because they do not know from one year to the next how much funding they will receive or from where it will come? Is it not part of the Government's duty to ensure that magnificent organisations, such as these theatres, do not merely survive, but know how they will do so?

I know that for many years the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a close interest in these two theatres. I would have hoped that he would welcome the fact—if he did not perhaps already know it—that the East Midlands Arts Association has now allocated £664,000 to the Leicester Haymarket theatre. I would have thought that that would make a major contribution to the health of the theatre. Now that the Phoenix theatre has begun to fulfil some of the conditions that it was asked to fulfil, the East Midlands Arts Association has started to restore funding. I am glad that the county council has contributed £35,000.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of the top management programme.

Yes, Sir. The top management programme was established in February 1985 for very senior staff from the public and private sectors. The civil servants involved are generally grade 3. The tenth programme is currently taking place. The programme has been very well received by participants and the organisations which send them.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment, but may I ask him to ensure that the top management programme places a great deal of emphasis on interchange with the private sector so that civil servants can learn the lesson of Lord Young and how to solve problems rather than always concentrate on the obstacles?

The private sector participates in top management conferences and, of course, pays for them. I believe that the fact that the private sector is working side by side with civil servants during those conferences does both sides a great deal of good.

Is it correct that no member of any ethnic minority group has taken part in the top management programme? Has a monitoring exercise of any sort been applied to that programme in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality?

Offhand, I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman whether members of ethnic groups have taken part in this management programme, but I can easily find the answer for him. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we attach a great deal of importance to ensuring that there is equal opportunity and that people are promoted into the service on merit. We have undertaken monitoring to see whether we can further the cause of equality of opportunity. However, promotion and entry into the service must be on the basis of merit.

Jones asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to reward initiative on the part of civil servants.

As part of our programme for improving efficiency in the Civil Service we are taking a number of steps to encourage qualities that can help staff perform more effectively in their jobs.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and I should like to encourage him in that direction. There are a variety of different schemes that can be appropriately pursued with cash awards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that payment for initiative is as legitimate in the Civil Service as it is in commerce and industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is well aware that we are moving more and more towards performance-related pay within the service. A number of important decisions have been taken on that in recent months. In addition, there is a staff suggestion scheme, awards for the inventors of technical inventions and group incentive schemes. I believe that all that is moving in the right direction.

On the question of rewards and initiatives in the Civil Service, is it not important to protect the impartiality and integrity of the service? How will that objective be served by combining in one post, against the recommendations of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, the posts of Cabinet Secretary and head of the Home Civil Service?

I have no doubt about the impartiality and loyalty of the present Secretary to the Cabinet. In answer to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service a few months ago—I think it was in the autumn of last year—the Government made plain their reasons for accepting, on certain understandings and conditions, the combining of those two jobs.

On the question of initiatives, incentives, rewards and performance-related pay in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that a higher proportion of engineers and scientists are finding their way into the higher management grades of the Civil Service?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on an extremely important point. Certainly it is our objective to ensure that that happens. It is also our objective to recruit more people from science and engineering, because the Civil Service is short of such people. It is for that reason that we are introducing a flexible pay scheme that is designed to help the recruitment and training of those people.

I wonder how those initiatives and bonuses will be paid to civil servants. Let us consider, for instance, somebody who works behind the counter at the Department of Health and Social Security, or in the unemployment benefit office. Would that person get more money based on more people being thrown on the dole by this Government, or would that person get more money by reducing the dole queues? Would National Health Service civil servants get an added bonus by closing down hospitals? How would incentives and bonuses be calculated?

They would be calculated on the basis of the merit of the civil servants' work and the objectives that they must fulfil. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the hon. Gentleman were to be paid on the basis of merit. However, as far as the Civil Service is concerned, those payments will be based on whether civil servants fulfil their jobs effectively and well. Those who perform their jobs best will be given discretionary awards of one kind or another.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the quality and quantity of training for civil servants.

Yes, Sir. On quality, our new programmes for senior staff and our plans for young people demonstrate that the Government are committed to high-quality training and development which improves operational performance. Quantity depends on need and relevance. In 1985–86 the Civil Service ran 35,000 training courses and provided 1·5 million training days, an average of three days' training for each civil servant.

Is that not yet another example of the way in which the Government are taking the lead? Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to considering the ways in which he could persuade industry and commerce, which are far behind our competitors in the quality and quantity of training provided to follow the Government's lead and, possibly, to share some of the resources?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One important part of our broad range of training schemes is that we are trying to convey to the Civil Service the importance of carrying managerial responsibility, and we are more and more delegating responsibility through the financial management initiative. Our training schemes are designed to assist in that. Certainly the link with the private sector is of extreme importance.

Are civil servants to be trained to decide which British residents arriving back from America or which American visitors coming to this country have a copy of Wright's book? As the book will be openly on sale in the United States within 24 hours, does the Minister agree that an interesting situation will arise when people can bring that book, openly and legally, into Britain?

We have more important things to discuss in relation to training.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strike by civil servants in Bolton over the introduction of YTS trainees? Will he consider ways in which the Civil Service could introduce more YTS trainees, as has the private sector?

My hon. Friend is right. The YTS is as important for the Civil Service as for anywhere else. Today, only 300 people are involved with the YTS in the Civil Service. However, the Department of Employment is taking a lead in extending the scheme. I am glad that there is an understanding between the Civil Service management and the unions on this matter.