To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the adequacy of existing energy conservation schemes.

I have received a number of representations. On 22 January I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) that there would be continuing role for the energy efficiency office, with no change in its budget for 1988–89. I have asked the EEO to target its work at the most economically attractive sectors and to examine how the contribution from industry and commerce can be increased. I am not committed to extending the present level of funding beyond 1988–89.

What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the potential for further energy savings? Is he satisfied that the existing schemes will enable us to achieve those savings?

What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip did when they were Secretary of State and Minister with responsibility for this Department was a remarkable success story. They heightened awareness enormously in industry and commerce about the efficient use of energy. Doubtless some firms and managements need to learn a thing or two, and we shall direct our efforts to that matter.

I am sure the Minister will agree that British Aerospace has done very well with regard to energy conservation. May I tell him of one of its worries—the mooted increase in electricity prices? The local factory at Broughton, which is adjacent to his constituency—

Order. Does this have anything to do with energy conservation?

Yes, Sir, it is directly related to the matter. British Aerospace at Broughton spends £1 million or more a year on electricity. If the Government increase the price of electricity, the profits of and jobs at British Aerospace in Broughton, which is a factory that the Minister knows well, will be affected. Will the Minister reconsider electricity prices for industry?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have the honour to be his next door neighbour, with the Broughton factory lying on his side of the constituency. I am particularly well aware of the point that he has made, and I agree that the management and labour force have proved to be outstandingly successful. I have no doubt that the company will continue to make commercial and industrial decisions that will ensure that it remains competitive, which is the best way of ensuring the continuation of the labour force.

Nothing that I have heard leads me to believe that all this has anything to do with energy conservation.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, 2 million lofts remain uninsulated and there are 11 million houses without cavity wall insulation. If we were to press ahead with home insulation schemes, would that not, to some degree, save the need for expensive electricity generating capacity?

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, about 300,000 community insulation projects are carried out per year. Some 3 million houses have benefited from the home insulation scheme since the Government came to power, which is an outstandingly good record.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to review the code of practice for domestic customers issued by the electrity and gas industries.

No, Sir. It is for the Gas and Electricity Consumer Councils to keep the operation of the code of practice under review and, if appropriate, to recommend any changes.

The Minister will be aware that I am returning to a matter that I raised last month. He accepted the figures that I gave that gas disconnections increased by 40 per cent. last year, whereas electricity disconnections decreased slightly. We have had one cold snap— I am not talking politically — and there may be a severe winter. Will he be less complacent and say that the number of disconnections this winter will be reduced, to prevent thousands dying from or being affected by hypothermia?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to his particular political cold snap. I know that he is concerned about this matter, and I think that at the last Energy Question Time I explained that this is a matter for the Gas Consumer Council. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, under the present code, a commitment not to cut off the supply between October and March to pensioner households is something that is abided by, and I am sure he will agree with that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as both gas and electricity boards have gained experience of working with the current codes of practice it has been possible for them to look more advantageously at the consumer, as long as the consumer is prepared to contact the gas or electricity boards as early as possible? Indeed, the experience of many of us in our constituency work has been that, provided such negotiations start early enough, many of the problems that the codes of practice were brought into being to prevent are avoidable.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The arrangements in place for both gas and electricity are very welcome to many of his constituents as well as to the constituents of all hon. Members. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, there has been an increase, and the Gas Consumer Council is looking carefully into this at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that gas disconnections increased by 25 per cent. in 1986 and by 35 per cent. in the first nine months of 1987? Has not privatisation been a massive and major cause of fuel poverty? What level of disconnections will there be after next April, when the 2.5 million households receiving help for heating through social security will cease to receive it? Is it not a case of putting profit before people?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have noticed what has happened to the price of gas since privatisation. In relative terms the price has gone down, and presumably that will lead to a better situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people are currently eligible for British Coal's redundant mineworkers payments scheme.

By 15 January 7,350 men had accepted redundancy under British Coal's industrial redundancy scheme. There have been no compulsory redundancies.

Is the Minister aware that despite the general welcome to extend RMPS to the Tredomen engineering works in my constituency, there is considerable anger at the decision announced a fortnight ago to close the works? Is the Minister further aware that considerable sacrifices were made by the employees at those works over very many years, including the acceptance of voluntary redundancies? In the light of the present closure, will he reconsider his decision not to extend retrospective payments under the RMPS to those former employees?

There will be no change of policy on that matter. The work force at Tredomen has accepted that redundancy closure proposition.

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, would he like to bring a little joy into Arthur Scargill's life, since his disastrous election at the weekend, and let the country know that he would still be eligible for the mineworkers redundancy scheme?

Mr. Scargill was elected on the basis of 35 per cent. of the mining work force. If Mr. Scargill pursues his confrontation policies, far from saving jobs, which he professes is his wish, he will threaten jobs.

Is the Minister aware that the figures announced yesterday for the election of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, referred to by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), showed a handsome majority of which any political leader in Britain would be proud? It is time that we stopped this Orwellian fantasy that, because Arthur Scargill has been elected on a reduced majority, just as the Prime Minister was in the last election, somehow or other he has to adopt the policies of his defeated opponent. That is nonsense.

The hon. Gentleman is right, that Mr. Scargill was re-elected as president of the NUM, although that is only one union representing the miners. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would go on to say that if Mr. Scargill's policies are pursued we could end up with more closures in the mining industry, whereas if, for example, the overtime ban were removed, that could lead not only to fewer closures but to the opening up and development of seams and new pits.

May I make a plea for hon. Members to stick to the question. There is a later question about this matter on the Order Paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to enhance the export support role of the offshore supplies office.

The offshore supplies office has recently increased the resources it devotes to supporting the offshore industry in overseas markets. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be doing all we can to support the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry in its bid to win export orders worldwide.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are enormous export opportunities in offshore supplies? Will he say what he is doing to assist the process?

The United Kingdom offshore supplies industry is now a formidable industry employing tens of thousands of people. It supplied nearly £2 billion worth of goods to North sea operators last year. We believe that technology is capable of wide applications in many markets overseas, and my hon. Friend and I will be leading teams of British business men to markets all over the world and supporting them in promoting British exports.

May I ask the Secretary of State an urgent question affecting the offshore supplies industry in Scotland? How, in what form and when do Ministers propose to use the golden share in Britoil?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I have nothing to add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The golden share exists and it is in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor. The parties bidding for Britoil have been warned that the powers will be used to prevent any of them getting control. When that situation arises, they will be used.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the release of information concerning the nuclear industry, in the light of the recent release of documents relating to the 1957 Windscale fire.

I am sorry; I cannot find the answer immediately.

Do not worry. We will talk among ourselves.

Do. It would help.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is justified public and scientific concern to see all the papers—if the Secretary of State can find them, that is —and that there is no justification on national security grounds for withholding them? In view of that tragedy, and the tragedy at Chernobyl, will he ensure, not only that all the papers relating to Windscale are released, but that those relating to the proposed test at Trawsfynydd on 12 February are released now? The safety advice given to the Central Electricity Generating Board by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate should be released and the test called off in the interests of public safety.

None of the limited number of papers retained deal with the causes or consequences of the Windscale fire. All the information made available on I January had been in the public domain—for those who cared to read it—for a very long time.

On the question of dangers from energy generation, can my right hon. Friend say now —or will he drop me a note—how many miners have died or had their health destroyed by pneumoconiosis since 1957?

I do not know the answer to that question, and I am not sure that it is relevant to this question.

If the remaining documents do not deal with the causes or consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman state what they do deal with in terms of a general heading?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, successive Governments have followed a policy of not revealing the details of papers that have been retained. He knows that the procedures for having a retention approved are strict. However, I can assure him that nothing relating to either the causes or the consequences of the fire is contained in the retained documents.

In view of the continuing public concern about the safety of the nuclear industry, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is prepared to review the information procedures of his Department and of the CEGB, especially as applied to the forthcoming test at Trawsfynydd? Does he agree that unless engineers can convince the public, by commonsense arguments, that tests should take place, in a democracy they should not take place?

What has alarmed the public is the comparison between the test of safety mechanism at Trawsfynydd and Chernobyl. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I explained it to him at our meeting on Friday —at Chernobyl the reactor was active, safety systems had been switched off and a deliberate experiment was carried out. This is a controlled test of a safety feature. The reactor will not be operative and the safety equipment will be working. What is being proved is that the natural circulation, built into the system and designed to produce cooling, works. That test will take place only if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate approves of the proposals and it is carried out under its monitoring.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the open information policy of British Nuclear Fuels plc, and does he agree that it will go a long way to allay public fears about nuclear safety?

My hon. Friend is right. Every incident that takes place, whether reportable or minor, is now recorded, and that information is filed in the Library of the House of Commons. It is also supplied to the local liaison committees and to local Members of Parliament. There is no attempt at concealment. In fact, we have the most open system in the world.

Does the Secretary of State not recognise that what causes public concern about the experiments and controls is excessive secrecy and the leaks associated with it? That is what is causing concern at the Welsh plant. Will the Secretary of State confirm the CEGB view that the experiment that is to be conducted there is not necessary to a long-term safety review of the plant? If that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the experiment is being conducted in order not to extend the life of the old Magnox plants, thus reducing the liability of the high decommissioning costs and the effect on the price for the privatisation of electricity?

I am afraid that I find it hard to follow that convoluted logic. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman that the test is taking place because built into the Magnox system there is a safety measure that is designed to ensure that, even if the fans fail, natural circulation will produce cooling. The test is being proposed under the most strict circumstances to prove that that safety factor works. It is a safety mechanism that is being tested.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the plans to remove the debris from the site of the 1957 Windscale fire.

This is a matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Plans for carrying out decommissioning work on the Windscale piles, including the removal of fuel and debris, were announced by the chairman of the authority on 5 October 1987. A copy of his statement is in the Library.

Given that the Government's radioactive waste strategy has had four major setbacks and cancellations since 1981, and knowing the opposition throughout the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland and in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, to nuclear dumping sites, will the Minister explain more clearly the way in which the debris from the 1957 Windscale fire is to be removed, when the work will be completed, how much it will cost and where it is to be stored or disposed of?

It will be an expensive operation—it will cost tens of millions of pounds.

Does the Minister agree that, as with decommissioning nuclear power stations, which the Government have just decided they can leave standing for a hundred years before attempting to decommission them, the safest thing to do with the Windscale reactor is not to touch it, but to keep it under constant monitoring at its present site?

The right hon. Gentleman may be confusing two phases in the decommissioning process. The one that we are considering here is the removal of fuel and debris from the piles. The question to which the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself is the long-term destruction of the plant. That could well take a considerable period, and he may be right that it may be a good idea to leave that for some time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the projected level of demand for oil in the United Kingdom over the next five years; and what proportion of this will be met by output from United Kingdom oifields.

The demand for oil in the United Kingdom is expected to remain fairly constant during the next few years. On current estimates of production, the United Kingdom is likely to remain self-sufficient well into the 1990s.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom is likely to remain self-sufficient in oil well into the 1990s is a considerable tribute to the oil exploration companies operating in the North sea? Does he further agree that it underlines the importance of maintaining a favourable tax regime which provides, and will provide, positive encouragement to oil exploration?

The hon. Gentleman means subsidies.

I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend said. What the oil companies have achieved in the North sea, both in exploration and development, has been outstanding — and, indeed, unsung up and down the land.

Have not Ministers repeatedly praised the role of the British independent oil companies in the development of the North sea, and especially the role of Britoil? If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman now seek an urgent meeting with the chairman of BP to make it clear that the Government do not believe in the destruction of the integrity of Britoil as a company, and that if BP pursues the matter it will forfeit much of the co-operation that it receives from the Department of Energy?

Many companies — including, of course, Britoil — have made a major contribution to North sea development.

Is the Minister aware of the assurances given to the House on 31 March and 1 April 1982 about Britoil's independence by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Gray, then Minister of State, Department of Energy? Does he recognise that those assurances contained the statement that the golden share would be part of

"effective safeguards for Britoil's independence"?—[Official Report, 1 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 450.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House when he was Secretary of State for Energy. My right hon. Friend explained his position, clearly to the Shadow Chancellor — in the present circumstances he reserves the right to use the special share.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to receive an application from the Central Electricity Generating Board to construct a coal-fired power station at Fawley.

The CEGB informs me that it expects to be in a position to submit an application for consent to construct Fawley B shortly.

I am pleased to hear that comment. The sooner this happens, the better. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting opposition to the Fawley B proposal as we manage to squeeze additional information out of the CEGB and learn a bit more about what it proposes, especially its plans for a coal-importing facility for the redistribution of coal inland over a totally inadequate infrastructure? Should there not be two applications—one submitted by the CEGB to my right hon. Friend for the power station, and a separate application to local planning authorities for the proposed coal importing facility?

When the CEGB decides to apply, it has to advertise its proposal to give objectors the right to register their objections. I suspect that that will lead eventually to a public inquiry. If the CEGB wishes to build a jetty into the Solent as part of its plans to import coal, it has to apply under the Harbours Act 1964 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for further permission.

Mr. Barron — but, this question is about Fawley.

Since there has not yet been an application for consent to construct this second power station, and since it will be several years before most of the building starts, why has the Minister forced up the cost of electricity to consumers and industry from April this year, when the CEGB cannot even spend that money on the proposed power station?

There will be a substantial investment programme on generation and transmission in the next financial year. Nearly £1.5 billion will be invested. In the following year an increasing amount of money will be spent on Sizewell B. Some of that additional expenditure will involve Fawley. There is a big investment programme, which will grow every year from now on.

Would it not be much more economic to put a further cable across from France to import nuclear electricity at a very much cheaper price than we could produce it? Is this not a unique and odd place to put a coal-fired power station?

As my hon. Friend knows, we need more generating capacity in the south of England to maintain the stability of the system, for purely technical reasons. The possibility of a further link with France has not been ruled out. We may well need both.

The Secretary of State is closing down generating capacity and mines in the northern part of the United Kingdom, and opening new generating capacity in the south. Does he accept that it would make much more sense, and be a cheaper option, to keep the jobs in the northern area and increase investment in transmission, and not go ahead with the investment in the south? Export power, not jobs, from the north to the south.

Most of the proposals for building power stations centre on the north. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult his advisers. There is a need to maintain the stability of the system by increasing the supply of power, which is inadequate, from stations in the south. It is a matter, not of transferring jobs from the north to the south, but of improving the system's stability.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the future of the coal industry.

I have no plans at present.

If and when my right hon. Friend meets a chastened Mr. Scargill, will he remind him that the main reason for his substantial loss of support in the election was his aggressive and militant opposition to the modernisation of the coal industry? Will my right hon. Friend also point out that the one way of losing more jobs in the mining industry is continued industrial unrest and strikes?

My hon. Friend is right. When Mr. Scargill was elected president he promised members of the National Union of Mineworkers that he would preserve jobs and stop closures. Mr. Scargill was elected by 70 per cent. of an electorate of 200,000 on that promise. Yesterday he was re-elected by 54 per cent. of an electorate of 80,000. That is the measure of the damage that Mr. Scargill has managed to do and the failure of his previous promises.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this question appears to have come from Conservative Central Office as a plant? —[Interruption.] I shall be gentle with the right hon. Gentleman. However, when he meets the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he congratulate him on his prophecy that the present Administration would have a massive pit closure programme? They have brought that programme into operation, and the end result has been that youngsters of 30 have been taking redundancy, never to work again. Moreover, what about the youngsters leaving school in my constituency, who cannot obtain a job at the pit, although they would like to?

Conservative Members would say, as would many people in the industry, that militancy, a refusal to negotiate and a determination to resort to strikes and other forms of industrial action have produced the accelerated closure programme—and, by the way, will do so again if that policy is continued.

If my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Scargill, will he remind him that in Leicestershire only 100 miners voted for him? Will my right hon. Friend also remind Mr. Scargill that Mr. Jack Jones, the leader of the south Leicestershire miners, said that all that Mr. Scargill was trying to do was to continue class warfare—whatever, he said, class warfare could possibly mean in 1988?

I heard Mr. Jones this morning, and I thought that he talked a lot of good sense. I remind the House that, if Mr. Scargill's policies had not driven 26,000 people out of his union and into a rival union, he would have been defeated soundly. He now speaks for a minority of mineworkers, because those 26,000 are 20,000 more than his majority.

May I congratulate Mr. Scargill on his victory, despite the interference of British Coal, the media and members of Her Majesty's Government in the trade union election campaign?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's final point. The Government have no vote in the election, and kept out of it. The mineworkers made up their own minds and, as I said earlier, instead of having the support of 70 per cent. of 200,000 electors, Mr. Scargill now has that of 54 per cent. of 80,000.

The future of the coal industry is, in some ways, very much the reverse side of the coin that we discussed on question 3 concerning redundancy. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that the re-election of Mr. Scargill is likely to increase those pressures of redundancy, rather than decrease them, because, as he puts it, British Coal is the enemy?

Many people believe that Mr. Scargill is as interested in using the union to promote his political views as he is in promoting the welfare of his members. Until he puts the politics second and the industry first, the industry will continue to decline.

The right hon. Gentleman got his job back.

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not keep interrupting. 1 called him on an earlier Question, and he was out of order then.

The Secretary of State cannot bandy figures and percentages across the House in this fashion. He knows perfectly well that many Members of the House would settle for 53 per cent. of the vote at an election, bearing in mind that the Government whom he represents did not even get 50 per cent. at the last election. Why does the Minister not put his money where his mouth is, meet the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, and put on the agenda conciliation and not confrontation?

I understand that in four and a half years my predecessor met Mr. Scargill once. That was not because he did not want to meet him, but because Mr. Scargill did not want a meeting. Mr. Scargill should do his talking to the chairman of British Coal. Coal is an industry, and management and labour should get together to promote the welfare of the industry. It is not a political battleground. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make it one.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the trend in issues of licences for oil exploration for United Kingdom offshore areas since 1979.

There have been four rounds of licensing over this period, at intervals of approximately two years. A total of 285 licences have been issued.

In the light of that reply, will the Minister show us the contrast by giving the comparable figures for the period 1974 to 1979?

The figure for this Government is 285 licences. During 1974 to 1979, 54 licences were issued. The Government have, therefore, issued over five times that number.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of funding in 1988–89 for the area museums councils.

The grants to the English area museums councils are administered by the Museums and Galleries Commission. It is for the commission to decide the level of grants from within its grant-in-aid. I understand that the increase in the basic grant to the councils in 1988–89 is some 4 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that although long-term underfunding of area museums councils has been a serious threat to them, there is an even greater threat to them in clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, which is now being considered in another place? That clause would prevent local authorities from "promoting homosexuality" and could mean that local authority museums and galleries could not, for instance, put on, promote, advertise and catalogue pictures by David Hockney? Does the Minister approve of that form of censorship and that threat? Will he say categorically that the clause is a threat to area museums councils and local authority museums?

First, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the area museums councils are underfunded. The money that goes to local museums and galleries, including through the rate support grant, amounts to a total of £72 million. That is a substantial sum of money.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the amount of money raised through voluntary funding by the Victoria and Albert museum? It is remarkable that that museum, through its own efforts, and separately from public funding, has raised so much money and made such good use of it.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The more money that is raised by joint funding by the public and private sector, the better. There are many examples around the country of museums that have been very successful in raising more resources from the private sector in addition to the state funding that they receive.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the chairman of Greater London Arts to discuss the funding of the arts in London in 1988–89.

I visited the offices of Greater London Arts and met the chairman and director last year. I expect to meet them again from time to time this year, and funding will no doubt feature in our discussions.

Is the Minister satisfied that, whereas every other regional arts association is receiving a cut in its grant in real terms, Greater London Arts is receiving a cut in real terms and in cash? What is his message to the clients of GLA who have been asked to submit plans on the basis of a 10 per cent. reduction in their expenditure on account of a £232,000 shortfall due to abolition cuts, and cuts in the Arts Council grant?

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's question, because I do not know where he got his figures. The simple fact is that the Arts Council has not yet reached an agreement with Greater London Arts about the sums of money that will be allocated. GLA is doing an excellent job. It has nearly £8 million worth of taxpayers' money in this financial year to allocate to arts organisations. Despite all the remarks about the South Bank and its achievements, it deserves enormous credit. For the first time since the Festival of Britain in 1951 it is undertaking a new festival with artistic collaboration from all types of art. There is £1 million of extra sponsorship from British Commonwealth Holdings. That is a good example of the sort of arts activity in London.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of supplementing official funding for the arts in London might be by way of the Government's new payroll giving scheme? How optimistic is he that that scheme will work? Will he consider holding discussions with his Treasury colleagues before the forthcoming Budget to see whether a little more beef can be put into the scheme, which looks at present as if it might be a bit of a damp squib?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the payroll giving scheme. It is another way — a new way — in which individuals can be encouraged, with tax incentives, to give to charitable bodies, including the arts. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the views expressed by my hon. Friend. I believe that the scheme should not be underestimated and that the maximum number of people should be encouraged to join it. The scheme is now available to the Civil Service, and 300,000 civil servants could take part in it.

Let me tell the Minister in response to his inquiry — [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] No, let me tell him that the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney. South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about the cut in the base budget for GLA came from the Arts Council. Is the Minister aware that, because of the cut in the money GLA will be receiving as a result of abolition, there will be a major economic crisis facing the arts in London? Whatever the Minister has done elsewhere in the country, he has clearly failed the arts in London yet again.

Two years ago, when we were debating abolition, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spent his time saying that arts activity on the South Bank would collapse and that arts in London would collapse. The opposite has happened. I have just described to the House the excellent news about the South Bank. It is approaching the matter in an imaginative fashion and the plan for its festival this coming spring is the first since 1951. It is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to visit the Crucible theatre in Sheffield.

I enjoyed my visit to the Crucible theatre in February last year and I admire the work it does.

When the Minister next visits the Crucible theatre in Sheffield, will he take up the difficult financial position in which it finds itself, particularly after the statement by the Arts Council that over the next three to five years the parity of funding should be equal to that of the local authorities? With the restrictions on the local authorities, that is difficult, if not impossible. Will the Minister also take up the matter of clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, which is going through the Lords? Powerful statements were made last night by Ian McKellen at the Olivier awards, supported by the editor of The Observer. The Crucible is a civic theatre and it will be one of those affected by clause 28. In Sheffield it is seen as major censorship of a progressive theatre.

The evidence is that the Crucible is an enterprising theatre. A total of 60 per cent. of its resources is now raised from private sector earnings, and it deserves credit for that. It has 82 per cent. audiences on average, and has had throughout 1986 and 1987. It is a good candidate to negotiate an incentive funding arrangement between itself and the Arts Council and to take advantage of the three-year funding now available so that it can plan a stronger financial base in the next three years.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how much of the grant to the Arts Council may be carried forward to the following fiscal year.

The Council is allowed to carry over at the end of the financial year a working balance of up to 2 per cent, of its grant-in-aid, subject to agreement with my Office.

I welcome the increased flexibility for the Arts Council. However, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether any money that is left over for the Arts Council at the end of the financial year can be carried forward to next year and used to increase the impact of incentive funding even further?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. As I said, a working balance of up to 2 per cent, can be carried over, subject to my agreement. The money allocated for incentive funding will be £3.5 million in the first financial year, and that is an example of the flexibility in the arrangements, which will be of some help to arts organisations.

Is the Minister aware that because of cuts in local authority funding the local authority contribution to the arts will be cut drastically? All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing will not cover that deficiency. Is it not important that any help, even to the extent of carrying forward extra spending, should be specially considered?

The practical evidence from round the country is that local authority support for the arts has been increasing, where local authorities identify arts projects that will be a good investment in their areas. Actual expenditure by local authorities on the arts, including museums and libraries, has been increasing. It is for the local authorities to decide how much to spend. It is their choice.

Will my right hon. Friend, whose achievements are considerable, assure us that he regards 2 per cent, as a precedent, not as a final solution?

The present arrangements allow for a 2 per cent, carryover. It gives some flexibility, especially in incentive funding.

Is it not clear that local authorities need all the assistance that they can get to ensure that the arts are made available to the local communities? The Minister mentioned the South Bank. One of the best exhibitions that has been seen on the South Bank for some time was the Diego Rivera exhibition, which should have been shown in every part of the country. Is it not important to ensure that every area has the opportunity to see such fine exhibitions.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the arts are not only for London but for all parts of the country. For example, we have set aside a special sum from the heritage budget and asked the Museums and Galleries Commission to make it easier to enable exhibitions to be mounted in all areas. I warmly support the idea.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet trade unions representing civil servants to discuss staff morale in Southend-on-Sea; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans at present to meet the Civil Service trade unions.

In view of the serious problems of securing and retaining staff in some of the major Civil Service offices in Southend, solely because of the high cost of housing and other costs, is it not time that the Government and the Civil Service unions began to discuss regional pay which would reflect the cost of living in different areas? Is my right hon. Friend willing to visit Southend, some time reasonably soon, to discuss the problems with those involved and to see for himself the seriousness of the position?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. May I answer his last question first by saying yes, I am prepared to meet the 3,000 or so customs and excise officials in Southend, who are doing an excellent job. Pay and conditions are principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, as my hon. Friend will know, arrangements are being made to offer flexible pay schemes and local pay additions, which would allow up to £600, from additional sources of money, to be spent in the area round London, including my hon. Friend's constituency. Those flexible pay arrangements are the best way to deal with the recruitment and retention problems of the Civil Service.

Does the Minister agree that it might help to retain civil servants in Southend if they were given the same £8,000 housing allowance as the Member of Parliament for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) receives?

I shall not take that point seriously. One sees varying costs of living in the different regions, and the south-east has the highest. A flexible pay scheme that would allow for those variations would be an important move forward.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether there has been any recent increase in the number and range of courses provided by the Civil Service college; and if he will make a statement.

The total volume of college provision remains fairly constant, but an increasing proportion of courses are run in support of recent initiatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which professionalism in the Civil Service could be improved is through the provision of external qualification courses? What opportunities are provided for civil servants at the staff college to receive those external qualifications?

My hon. Friend is right. The college has a high reputation for achieving results in external qualifications. Some 30 per cent. of college training is related to qualifications of professional and specialist bodies. As I have said, the results are very high indeed.

What advice is given at the college to senior civil servants who find that the Cabinet Minister whom they are serving is being constantly undermined by hostile press stories coming from his own Cabinet colleagues, as is happening now with the Secretary of State for Social Services?

1 am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's question, but very often I do not follow him.

Although the courses provided by the Civil Service college are excellent, will my right hon. Friend consider taking en bloc courses for civil servants at other colleges so that they may have the opportunity to broaden their horizons in colleges outside the Civil Service environment?

My hon. Friend has an important point. It is worth noting that the college provides about 5 per cent. of the training of civil servants. About 75 per cent. is internal departmental training, and my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the remaining 20 per cent. comes from external providers. That is an important contribution to the standards of the Civil Service. In addition, many outsiders come in to lecture at the college, and sometimes even to participate.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the regulations governing the political activities of civil servants; and if he will make a statement.

New rules on the political activities of civil servants, which were agreed with the Civil Service unions, were announced in the House on 19 July 1984 and introduced in September 1984. It was agreed then that the rules should be reviewed every three years. A review is consequently now taking place, but it is too early to draw any conclusions.

Is it not a fact that the Government are destroying the political impartiality of the Civil Service by using civil servants as Tory stooges? Bernard Ingham immediately comes to mind. When will the Minister address himself to the serious problem of the way in which the Civil Service is being used in a politically partial fashion by the Government, and particularly by the Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman seems this afternoon to have an even greater capacity than usual to talk absolute nonsense, and that is saying something. My experience over two and a half years as the Minister of State responsible for the Civil Service has led me to believe that we have a service of which we can be highly proud. It is professional and the vast majority of civil servants are utterly impartial, and that is the way that it should be.

Is it not a slander verging on the totally defamatory to call Mr. Bernard Ingham a stooge?

It is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Will the Minister assure the House that the present review will be conducted openly between the Government and the trade unions, and that any results of the review will be mutually acceptable to both sides?

Yes, I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is worth reminding him that the main purpose of the rules is to give maximum freedom to civil servants to take part in political activities, consistent with a need to maintain ministerial and public confidence in the political impartiality of the Civil Service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what initiatives he is taking to encourage part-time or short-term periods of secondment between the Civil Service and industry.

Part-time and short-term secondments can play an important part in interchange between the Civil Service and industrial organisations, as can full-time and longer secondments. As an aid to stimulating interchange generally, we published towards the end of last year a promotional leaflet, "The Ins and Outs of Civil Service Secondments", a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of Parliament.

I appreciate the increase in recent years, and I am aware of the practical difficulties, at least of longterm secondment, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the prospect of short-term or part-time secondment—even if the short-term was only for three to six months — would be benefitial to industry and to the Civil Service? Will he consider particular schemes for short-term secondments?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in this problem. In 1986 there was an increase of 22 per cent. over the previous year in inward and outward secondments, but I am now reviewing the overall targets for inward and outward secondment and I hope to be able to say something about that in a few weeks' time. I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend about short-term attachments. This is something at the senior levels of the service that we are seeking to increase.

Will my right hon. Friend consider what inducements and encouragements he can give to industrial candidates wishing to work in the Foreign Office? He will know that the Foreign Office is able to second its civil servants to industry, but industry cannot reverse the position. Therefore, some incentive is needed.

I shall consider that problem with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and draw his attention to it. Some exchange already lakes place both ways, but, without further notice, I should have to discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to increase the opportunities offered to members of the ethnic communities employed in the Civil Service.

The Civil Service has a comprehensive programme of monitoring to study the progress of ethnic staff and identify areas for further action. Pilot schemes are currently under way in a number of Departments to monitor promotion boards and ensure that blacks and Asians have every chance of reaching the higher grades by selection on merit.

Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to seek to increase representation of blacks and Asians in the senior levels of the Civil Service?

It is worth noting that the surveys make it plain that the proportions of black and Asian people in the Civil Service are similar to those in the population as a whole, but, of course, the weak areas are in the higher grades. Certainly, on the basis of selection on merit and equality of opportunity, we are doing everything possible within the service to ensure that they have the opportunity for promotion.