To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on Statutory Instrument (S.I., 1987, 2182) on the "Rules of Guidance for Public Inquiries into new Power Stations and Overhead Lines", since it was laid before the House on 18 December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

In addition to the report by the Select Committee on Energy, I have received two representations from the public on this matter.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if nuclear power deserved even half the affection lavished on it by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, proposed new power stations, such as Hinkley Point C—which will probably be the first subject of the public inquiry rules which are being promulgated under the statutory instrument — would be able to withstand a comprehensive and proper public inquiry, not one whose rules are rigged in favour of the CEGB?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It was the Select Committee on the Environment that suggested that the rules should be modernised, and that was in 1985–86, long before Hinkley Point was first thought of.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the object of changing the rules is to speed up public inquiries, and that the Sizewell B inquiry took far too long? Will he also confirm that the public inquiry into Hinkley Point C should take less than half as long as the Sizewell B inquiry, in which three quarters of the time was spent on discussing the PWR? Those arguments are already concluded, and the only question that arises from the Hinkley Point C application is the environmental one.

My hon. Friend is right. The inquiry at Hinkley Point will, in theory, reconsider some of the ground that was gone over during the Sizewell B inquiry. I stress, however, that the Government have no intention of shortening the inquiry or preventing objectors from having a say. We want a more orderly and comprehensive form of inquiry, which is what the Select Committee said was needed.

How does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the charge that the rules were slipped through two days before the Christmas recess and that no press release was issued — which was very mysterious, because the Department of Energy works through press releases? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make clear to the people and Parliament that all this is not contrary to the public interest and that rights have not been taken away?

I repeat that a Select Committee of the House has said that public inquiries were too long and complex and were unfair to the objectors. It was because of the wishes of objectors, among others, that the new rules were introduced. The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on a wholly fallacious point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who want a public inquiry to be a genuine inquiry, rather than a restatement of entrenched positions, will welcome the rules of guidance? Will he confirm that the provision against irrelevant or repetitious statements should enable the Hinkley Point inquiry, which will take place in my county of Somerset, to concentrate on aspects that are relevant to Somerset and to that site, rather than allow a four-year re-run of the Layfield inquiry into a similar power station in Suffolk?

I believe that the Hinkley Point C inquiry should be comprehensive. I am afraid that, post-Chernobyl, there will be a re-run of some of the Sizewell arguments, but I do not think anyone stands to gain if the appeal procedure is used as a way of preventing decisions. That was never the intention of inquiries. We want a full inquiry, but we do not want a tedious, repetitious inquiry, in which people use the inquiry procedure to prevent a decision being made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the pricing of coal agreed between the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Coal.

The price of coal purchased by the Central Electricity Generating Board from British Coal is governed by an understanding between the two industries agreed in 1986. In accordance with this understanding, pricing terms were reviewed on 1 November last year for the 12 months to October 1988.

Will the review create a position in which considerably more imported coal will enter this country? Will the Minister consider the effects of this great importation on the closure of collieries, particularly in the Principality? Will he also consider whether it would be wise to try to expand the mining industry by opening the Margam mine?

The review has nothing to say about imports of coal. British Coal is making its prices more competitive under the terms of the present agreement. However, we have always said that when the electricity industry is privatised it will be able to buy coal in the best market. We say that because we know that British Coal is quite capable of being the best market.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of increased productivity in the past two years British Coal has reduced the price of coal by £4 per tonne —costing British Coal £400 million—and that the way to beat foreign competition is through productivity?

That is absolutely right. British Coal has reduced prices, and that reduction has benefited consumers by £500 million since April 1986.

If the Minister is happy with the present pit-closure policy, what analysis has he made of the future price of coal on world markets?

The future of coal will be determined by those markets. We have made no particular analysis because, unlike the Opposition, we do not plan on these things. However, British Coal will have to compete in world markets according to how the markets are determined.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a limit to how much longer consumers, including the elderly, should be expected to pay inflated prices for electricity so that British Coal can continue to sell at nearly twice the world market price?

The coal industry will have to bear that strongly in mind as it faces increasing competition. That is why we want to see new practices introduced into the coal industry and why each working day we are putting £2 million of taxpayers' money behind the coal industry.

I am not surprised at the kind of replies that we are receiving from the Minister today. Is he aware that, unlike him, I fight for Britain? What about the British coalmining industry and British mineworkers? I object to the South African imports, which are produced with cheap, slave labour. It is time that the Minister said, as we are saying, "Let us fight for Britain".

I have already said that the British coal industry should be backed. There is no question about that. However, it should be backed only if it can provide coal at competitive prices. Otherwise the electricity consumers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) has said—will be the loser.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the electricity produced by coal-fired power stations comes from stations on coastal sites.

I am advised by the CEGB that, in the financial year 1986–87, 15 per cent. of electricity produced by coal-fired power stations came from stations on coastal sites.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole and in the interests of whatever company or companies are generating electricity that more coastal sites should be encouraged so that the electricity generation industry can take maximum advantage of acquiring coal at world prices, whether that coal comes from this country or abroad?

As my hon. Friend has just said, when the industry is privatised we will not force it to buy British coal. Equally, we believe that if British Coal continues to be productive and to improve its performance it will become the supplier of choice. We cannot make it the supplier of necessity. We are not prepared to do that. We believe that it is capable of being the supplier of choice.

Will the Secretary of State tell us why he so emphatically believes that the coal industry, after privatisation of the electricity industry, should be dictated by market conditions and choice and that he should not force a decision upon it, when he is prepared to force a decision on the nuclear industry at higher cost to the CEGB? Why this inconsistency? Will the Secretary of State stop dithering and tell us that he will produce a White Paper before the privatisation of the electricity industry?

The Government believe that there is an important security element in electricity supply which comes from diversity. We want to see diverse sources of supply—nuclear, coal, gas, oil and renewables. There is nothing inconsistent about that.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the power stations located on the east coast, the Government will do their best to ensure that sulphur emissions are minimal, because of the effects on other countries?

Yes. An investment programme of about £800 million is planned to introduce emission controls into some of our coal-fired power stations. All new power stations will have those controls built into them. My hon. Friend is on to an important point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase support for wind power development in Wales.

My Department is discussing future plans for wind energy research and development with major wind turbine manufacturers and the generating boards.

I have received many complaints from those in favour of wind power that the Government are not willing to support them, financially or otherwise. If this is true, why?

It is not true, so I should not have to answer the second part of the question. However, I can say that the current rate of expenditure on wind power development is £4 million. I hope to make an announcement about our plans for wind farms within the next month or so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the energy suggestion of the Liberal party is wind power? Does he agree that such stations would have great difficulty if the wind blew in opposite directions, as it would do under any alliance?

My hon. Friend makes his own point. It is interesting that the Liberal party does not appear to take into account the fact that there are great environmental costs as well as benefits from wind power.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of levels of exploration and activity in the North sea in 1988.

I have been encouraged by the general increase in offshore activity in 1987 compared with 1986, and the figures will be published shortly in the 1988 Brown Book. I am cautiously optimistic that the recovery will continue in 1988.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how those levels compare with earlier levels stretching back to 1964, when exploration began? Will he confirm that the main area of activity is concentrated on the northern and central sectors of the North sea? Will he also confirm that the southern sector suffers a much less favourable tax regime, and will he tell the House what steps he proposes to take to encourage development of oil and gas reserves in the southern sector of the North sea?

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is the third highest level of activity ever. Given the price of oil, which is below $20 a barrel, that is satisfactory.

Against a general and welcome background of increased activity in the North sea, will the Minister give some indication of what possibility there is for security of employment in the oil fabrication yards, particularly those in Highland regions, which are major employers and, obviously, would be expecting some spin-off effects from increased activity?

I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the increased activity. She will appreciate, representing Moray, that the time between exploration and development and orders from the fabrication yards is somewhat of a lead situation. One hopes that the activity will improve.

Now that Britoil is on the point of being taken over by BP, which is one fifth owned by Kuwaiti interests, what steps is the Minister taking to safeguard the national interests in the North sea by the use of the golden share; a share insisted on by his predecessor to ensure the independence of Britoil? What does the Minister judge the national situation to be in terms of jobs in Britoil and the exploitation of Britoil assets in the North sea?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. He has said that he will retain the special share so long as it is in the national interest. Talks are going on between Britoil, BP and the Treasury and they will ensure that Scottish and North sea interests are very much to the fore.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received regarding the proposed increase in electricity prices.

I have received a number of representations.

Has not the Secretary of State said that the rate of increases is faster than that which the chairman of the CEGB would have wished? Does the Minister recognise that this is of serious concern to many industries, which believe that this will put them at a disadvantage in the face of European competition? If the Government do not change their policy, they are likely to put more jobs in jeopardy.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be interested in the facts about this. The United Kingdom's domestic electricity prices are among the lowest in Europe and will continue to be so after April. For typical industrial consumers electricity prices will remain at about the average for Europe after the increase in April. After the April increase, United Kingdom industrial electricity prices will continue to be lower than the average prices in the United States and Japan.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the South Western electricity board is proposing a 12 per cent. increase in prices next year? In an area of below average incomes, will this not be damaging? Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the electricity board to try to prevent such a large increase?

We have been enjoying such low electricity prices largely because the industry has been earning an exceptionally low rate of return on investments. As the industry now requires considerable new investment—

It is being fattened up.

Whatever the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may say about fattening up, whether the industry was in the public or the private sector, it would have to increase its rate of return.

When the Government announced the price increase, it was suggested that it was done to provide the CEGB with an adequate capacity to invest. When the figures were examined, it appeared that the CEGB had already budgeted for £1 billion of investment before the price increase. Is the Minister sure that this increase is necessary, or are he and his colleagues determined that the price increase will go ahead to provide a sweetener for privatisation and reduce the competitive edge of British industry?

Between now and the year 2000 there will have to be investment of £45 billion—in outturn prices— so that the industry can meet demand. To achieve that rate of investment, the industry—whether it is in the private or public sector—has to start to gear itself up to the approximate 5 per cent. rate of return that the Labour party agreed was an appropriate rate of return in the public sector.

Should not electricity prices be competitive to the user industry but commercial from the supply industry in order that the massive investment can be properly serviced? Do not some companies, such as chemical companies, use large amounts of electricity, particularly if they have to heat their products first before electrolysing them? Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider a special form of tariff for those high users of electricity in the chemical industry?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There are arrangements whereby heavy users have a 6 per cent. discount.

Does the Minister accept that the rise in electricity prices is the third heavy blow that the Government have dealt to pensioners this winter? Already £3·5 million has been cut from the Government's allocation for home insulation grants, pensioners on supplementary benefit have been expected to meet 10 per cent. of the costs of insulation materials and now the cost of electricity is to increase at more than twice the rate of inflation. Does the Minister not have on his conscience the report from Winter Action on Cold Homes, which is in The Independent today? That shows that more than 5 million pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes properly and that up to 30,000 pensioners die every year from cold-related causes. Why is he making them pay the price of privatisation?

First, there will be no rises until April. Secondly, when those rises take place domestic consumers will be 6 per cent. better off in real terms than they were five years ago. Thirdly, pensions have kept pace with inflation over the past five years and domestic electricity prices have fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms.

Does my hon. Friend accept that most of us are anxious to believe the story that he tells us, but that we find ourselves with a certain complexity? Lord Marshall said that what the Minister now says is not exactitude and the Confederation of British Industry, which is involved in trying to make industry prosperous, also thinks that what the Minister said is an inexactitude. Who should we believe—them or the Minister?

Me, Sir.

The Minister speaks of the need to increase the rate of return for the industry. Does he not accept the CBI figures, which suggest that a 4·75 per cent. rate of return on Treasury figures is equivalent to a 16 to 18 per cent. rate of return on the normal, non-inflation adjusted figures that business uses and that that rate of return exceeds that of many high-risk, let alone low-risk, industries? Does he accept that many pensioners, industrialists and others are bitter and angry about the increases that are being imposed by the Government, not for a rate of return, but to make the industry privatisable and to increase the money going to those people who can afford to buy it?

The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that if we are taking a historic cost basis of 16 per cent., the average historic cost basis for industry is 18 per cent. We are not even going to reach that level after this rise.

Is not the main justification for demanding a slightly higher rate of return now the prospect of cheaper electricity in the future? It will surely stimulate investment in new technology, particularly by the private sector generators, which would allow more competition and lower prices in the future.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on two grounds. First, it will encourage new and modern investment in the industry. Secondly, as we privatise the industry, there will be increased pressures on the cost efficiency of the industry, which in the long term will bring down the relative prices.

Does the Minister accept that his answers will not be acceptable to the House? Can he confirm that he is to meet the CBI to hear its representations on a study that has just been concluded by the London Business School, looking into whether the claims of the Government that the rate of return on capital and profits are necessary for investment in the industry? The conclusion of that report, which is quoted in the press, is that the rise in electricity prices is unnecessary and inappropriate and does not stand critical examination. In reality, the increase is totally unjustified. The Government are simply fattening up the industry for privatisation, and the cost is being paid by the misery and deaths of pensioners who are paying price increases of twice the rate of inflation.

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be meeting the CBI in the near future. At that meeting we shall be putting forward precisely the same points as I have been putting to the House this afternoon.

Is my hon. Friend surprised at the reaction to the increase from, for example, the CBI, which is conceding up to 8 per cent. average wage increases when labour costs represent over two thirds of its total costs whereas electricity represents only a small percentage of those costs? Does my hon. Friend share my surprise at that?

I share my hon. Friend's surprise because electricity prices represent 2 per cent. of manufacturing costs whereas 46 per cent. of the average firm's costs are represented by labour costs, which have been rising in cash terms by 50 per cent. over the past five years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what issues were discussed.

I meet the chairman of British Coal at regular intervals to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

At his next meeting with the chairman of British Coal, will the Secretary of State raise the question of the abysmal industrial relations that exist in the coal industry at present? At the moment the major miners' union, the National Union of Mineworkers, has no consultations with British Coal; the deputies union, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers is in dispute with British Coal; the British Association of Colliery Management, the management union in the industry, has no confidence in British Coal, and the only union that consults British Coal is the Government-sponsored Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Does the Secretary of State not feel that there is a necessity for a full discussion of the industrial relations in that industry?

I am sure that we all deplore the industrial relations record of the British coal industry, which is doing it enormous harm. The present NACODS' overtime ban is a totally mindless and senseless waste of time and money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell NACODS that, in addition to putting at risk the jobs of its members, it is putting at risk the jobs of thousands of miners, and that the sooner it accepts the offer of binding arbitration, which is on the table, the sooner peace will return to the coal industry.

When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman of British Coal, will he pass on his congratulations to the Nottinghamshire mineworkers, who have exceeded their previous figure for productivity per man shift three times this year? The figures is now 428 tonnes per man shift. Will he reflect that that figure would have continued to increase had it not been for the unfortunate disruption caused by NACODS in the coalfields?

The way forward for British Coal must be through greater productivity and improved performance. If it continues to achieve that its prospects are good, but if there is industrial strife it will get the reputation being an unreliable and expensive supplier, and the future will be grim.

When the Secretary of State has discussions with the chairman of British Coal, will he find out why the South of Scotland Electricity Board decided to go for open tender for its coal supplies; in short, to invite foreign coal to come in and decimate the Scottish coal industry? Is that because the right hon. Gentleman gave the green light: that in the privatisation of the electricity industry foreign coal could be used in Britain by choice, which would mean jobs for foreign coalminers and unemployment for British coalminers? Is that his policy?

There has been no change of policy. There has always been freedom to import. I hope that British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board will reach an agreement and that it will be British coal, or Scottish coal if the hon. Gentleman prefers it, that is burnt, but that is a matter for British Coal, not for me.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry, since 1983–84.

For the week ending 12 December 1987, average deep mined revenue output per man shift was a record 4–11 tonnes. This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent. on the average of 2·43 tonnes for 1983–84.

The figures show a very satisfactory improvement in recent years. Does my hon. Friend agree that Staffordshire miners have made a particular contribution towards that improvement?

Yes, I accept what my hon. Friend said. They certainly have. Indeed, as I understand it, they have been working full-time during the NACODS' dispute.

Will the Minister say what possible use increased productivity in the coal industry will be in Scotland if there is no deep-mined coal as a result of the impasse between the SSEB and British Coal? Should not the Secretary of State now accept his responsibility to intervene in these negotiations? Given that the relationship between the two public sector bodies has been destabilised by the privatisation policy, will the Secretary of State accept his responsibility and intervene to save the Scottish coalfield?

That has nothing to do with the privatisation policy. As my right hon. Friend said, the policy of the electricity industry in buying coal where it wants has been in place for some time. It is up to the coal industry throughout the country to respond to that. Although it may not be palatable to Opposition Members, there is a thriving opencast industry in Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one way to encourage greater productivity is to improve the facilities for the importation of foreign coal into the United Kingdom? Rather than building a new coal-handling facility at Fawley, which the Central Electricity Generating Board wants to do, would it not be better for Parliament to abolish the national dock labour scheme, as I am sure the House would do if the Government only gave us the opportunity?

The second part of my hon. Friend's question is not a matter for me or for my right hon. Friend, and nor is Fawley at the moment, because we cannot prejudge the results of the various appeal procedures in the planning process that might be forthcoming.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the industrial relations director of British Coal to discuss the reinstatement of the miners sacked during the 1984–85 coal strike; and if he will make a statement.

The dismissal and re-employment of mineworkers is a matter for the management of the British Coal Corporation.

Is the Minister aware that it is now nearly three years since the end of the strike and that more than 200 miners are still victimised—sacked—because of the fight that they put up in the 1984–85 strike? Is he aware of the famous quotation from Shakepeare's "The Merchant of Venice":

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven"?

As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, this is a matter for British Coal. He should also recognise that out of the more than 1,000 miners who were initially dismissed the vast majority have their jobs back. Only 62 could claim to have been unfairly dismissed, and they have been fully compensated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to meet the general secretary of NACODS to discuss the pay levels of colliery deputies; and if he will make a statement.

The pay of colliery officials is a matter for the management of the British Coal Corporation.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent productivity increase in the coal industry? Does he share my disgust at the totally irresponsible action and behaviour of the NACODS deputies, who are putting jobs seriously at risk?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a negotiating procedure between British Coal and NACODS, and, at the end of it, binding arbitration. British Coal has referred the matter to the tribunal, and I hope that NACODS will do the same and that we can find an answer to this damaging and totally unnecessary waste of time.

I express my gratitude to the felicitous approach of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). However, the Secretary of State's criticism of NACODS illustrates a serious lack of awareness of the fact that this strike, the first in the association's history, is related to a very much wider range of problems than simply salary. It involves the whole question of British Coal's aggressive approach. For the past fortnight I have been urging the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues to meet NACODS and discuss these serious matters.

NACODS had a very strong position in the industry. It had an agreement with British Coal that it alone would supply overseers. The pay structure was adapted at its request, but it has not worked out as it had hoped. British Coal offered to return to the original structure and offered NACODS arbitration. If the hon. Gentleman has influence with NACODS, I urge him to urge it to go to the tribunal and accept binding arbitration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that industrial action outside the Nottinghamshire coalfield area does little to boost confidence in the minds of customers for coal, and thus undermines the long-term future of the industry?

My hon. Friend is right. Apart from price, people want to feel that the supplier from whom they are buying is reliable. British Coal is earning a reputation as an unreliable supplier because it has a continuing stream of industrial action. I hope that that will stop and that British Coal will get on with the job of producing lower cost coal at a competitive price.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the chairman of British Coal has discussed with him the effect the decline in the dollar has had on the price of coal.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal at regular intervals to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

These are very uncertain times for the home industry. What plans does the Minister have to assist and protect the United Kingdom coal industry? May I remind him of the announcement last week of two pit closures in south Wales, in areas of very high unemployment where male unemployment is 1 in 4? We are saying to him that enough is enough. What will he do to protect the home industry?

The hon. Gentleman does not care.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that I do not care. I remind him that in the last 20 years 70 per cent. of pit closures have taken place under Labour Governments. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself about that when he talks about people who care. On the question of caring, perhaps I should tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that the Government have spent £6 billion in assisting this industry —that is £2 million every working day. We have nothing to learn from the Opposition about caring for the coal industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our opencast coal has nothing to fear from the decline in the dollar? In the private sector at least, firms are anxious to open up new sites and expand the production of coal mined in Britain, at the expense of imported coal, but they are prevented from doing so by British Coal, which is unreasonably delaying the consideration of licence applications.

My hon. Friend is right to say that opencast coal is able to compete with world prices. What my hon. Friend also implies in his question is that the considerable sums of money that British Coal makes — over £200 million a year — from opencast coal go straight back into the development of deep mines. That is often forgotten by the Opposition.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council about the role of the arts in the proposed national curriculum.

I last discussed this matter with the chairman at our meeting in January.

I thank the Minister for that answer. No doubt he is aware of the widespread concern that all arts subjects, not simply art and music, should be taught to all children in all schools. Will he ensure that that is now a part of the Education Reform Bill, and will he assure us that parents will not have to pay extra for these subjects in schools?

I know that the hon. Lady has played a prominent role in the past in connection with the Arts Council. As she may know, education is not my direct responsibility. Nevertheless, I am glad to say that art, music and English, are all core subjects. That shows the importance that the Government attach to this matter.

As my right hon. Friend has just said, it is extremely important that, for the first time ever, music and the arts are to be made compulsory subjects in schools. No Labour Government ever did that, thus proving that Conservatives are much more civilised in government than is the Labour party.

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to acknowledge that this is the first time ever that both art and music have been part of compulsory education throughout school life.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had regarding the effect on the arts of the United Kingdom's non-menbership of UNESCO.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister not agree that the continued self-exclusion of the United Kingdom from UNESCO is damaging to the arts in Britain? Does he not also agree that if we wish to see changes in UNESCO we would be better involved now, rather than standing on the sidelines, especially as UNESCO is now under different direction?

As the House knows, I am not responsible for decisions on UNESCO. That is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Having said that, I must tell the House that in the past when we have been a member of UNESCO there has been no particular benefit for the arts in Britain.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has about the effects of Government policies on the level of confidence among those involved in the arts.

I think it fair to say that my recent three-year grant settlement and provision for incentive funding have been widely welcomed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the three-year funding for the Arts Council has been widely welcomed, and would be even more widely welcomed if that was fed through to the client groups sponsored by the Arts Council? Will he talk to the Arts Council to see whether this could be achieved?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for three-year funding. I started by allocating this money to the Arts Council, and it is now up to the council to negotiate three-year funding agreements with its clients. As I understand the position, the council has decided to allocate next year's grants to a number of its clients. The next stage is to negotiate three-year funding agreements with as many of its clients as can convince the council that it is right to have such agreements. The sooner that that takes place the better.

In terms of confidence among the arts, what has the Minister been able to do to assure the arts world about the implications of the notorious clause 28 in the Local Government Bill, which was shamefully passed by the House? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that there will he no imposition on artistic freedom by clause 28 being used by highly irresponsible homophobic individuals?

I am happy, once again, to give reassurances. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I am advised that local authorities seeking simply to provide the public with access to a comprehensive range of artistic and literary material will not be put at risk by this provision. Indeed, recent Government amendments will strengthen that reassurance.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how many black artists and companies received financial support from the Arts Council in each of the past five years.

The arts present an opportunity for multiracial activities. Records held by the Arts Council do not differentiate between grants given to black and to Asian artists and companies. Records are incomplete, but suggest a substantial increase from about 10 in 1983–84 to 64 in 1987–88.

I am much obliged to the Minister for his answer. He will be well aware of the good work done by organisations such as the Minority Arts Advisory Service and theatres such as Temba and Tara. Does he share with me a concern to ensure that the Arts Council's target figure of 4 per cent. of total funding is met by some of our great national institutions and by the regional art associations? Will the right hon. Gentleman accordingly agree to publish in the Library the results of the survey being conducted by the Arts Council?

If the hon. Gentleman will take this in good heart, I should just say, before I answer his question more fully, that I observed his artistic performances at the weekend, and I think that there is plenty of room for artistic improvement in his work.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. May I encourage him to keep records and to award money merely on the basis of merit, and on no other basis?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a great variety of culture to be encouraged. The more it is encouraged, the more it enriches cultural life.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to take powers to fund directly major national art institutions including the Royal Opera House, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre.

No, I think it better that funding arrangements should be made by the Arts Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the institutions are making very good progress as it is? Will he assure me that things will not change?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his alertness. It is important to maintain the arm's length principle in the disbursement of all the sums of money to the performing arts. It is right that the allocation to the four flagships should be maintained by the Arts Council, and not directly by me.

Will the Minister confirm that the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House are not only contributing in a fine way to our arts life, but are doing an enormous amount for the economy by attracting tourists? Why, then, is the success of the National Theatre being penalised by a standstill budget this year? If the Minister is serious about his Government backing success in the arts, why is the Arts Council not investing more money in the National Theatre?

I have no doubt of the important role of the four organisations, not just the National Theatre. It is for the Arts Council to decide how it should disburse its money, but it is worth pointing out that £30 million of taxpayers' money goes to the four national companies, which constituted about 20 per cent. of the Arts Council's total budget. It is perfectly open to organisations, such as the National Theatre, to bid for three-year funding, which I assume it will do shortly, and to bid for incentive funding over the next few months. I believe that if they can prove themselves they will be entitled to additional money. It is up to them to negotiate it with the Arts Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of Peter Hall's productions, good as they always are, are extremely lavish and even unduly expensive? Does he also agree that Peter Hall is directing his target at the right base, which is the Arts Council, which has made its decision on the future funding of the National Theatre, not the Government?

Yes, generally speaking the standard of artistic performance at the National Theatre is outstanding. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is for the Arts Council, the National Theatre and other big organisations to decide on the level of budgets. It is for them to negotiate direct with the Arts Council.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent senior civil servants are trained in personal communication skills.

The Government place a high priority on training in oral and written communication skills for senior civil servants. Effective communications play a vital role within all Departments.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that these skills are increasingly important for civil servants who deal with the public, for those seeking to give good customer care and, in particular, for those who have to deal with the media?

My right hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt about the importance of customer care and the relationship between the Civil Service and the public, especially when one considers the number of Government Departments providing services direct to the public. Individual Departments, such as the DTI, now run several courses which are designed to give special attention to training on customer care.

One of the civil servants most acquainted with communications with the press is Bernard Ingham, the No. 10 press officer. By virtue of the fact that he tends to go out of his way to stab Cabinet Ministers in the back, no doubt on the orders of the Prime Minister, is there a course on the back stabbing of Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers? If there is, may we on this side have a go so that we can get ready for it?

In view of the number of diaries that have been published by ex-Labour Leaders, I would not have thought that the Labour party needed that sort of course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that DHSS office managers in constituencies are good at writing letters that are both sympathetic and prompt, and that this is a good example of communicative skills in the Civil Service? Will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment instructs office managers controlling unemployment benefit offices to take an equal interest in this important skill?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has made a positive reference to the contribution of civil servants in dealing with the public and in the service that they provide. He is absolutely right. Sometimes they do this in quite difficult circumstances.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he is taking to improve morale in the Civil Service.

I am always looking for ways to improve morale in the Civil Service.

Does the Minister accept that there are serious grounds for concern when 42 per cent.of the Inland Revenue staff vote against accepting wage increases of up to 16 per cent. simply because they do not trust their employer, the Government? Is it surprising that they do not trust the Government, when the Government decided arbitrarily and without consultation to give to charity the money that is due to retired civil servants because of the Government's error in calculating the retail prices index?

Civil Service pay is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that we are moving increasingly to a position where we have flexible pay schemes and additions to cater, in particular, for recruitment and retention problems which arise either in specialist skills or in particular areas. That is the best way to deal with the special problems in parts of the Civil Service.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is low morale in the Civil Service in the London area it is because of staff shortages? Many civil servants are having to work undue and unnecessary overtime. Much of this could be eliminated if the Civil Service were moved to other parts of the country, such as my constituency in the north-east of England, where there are many who could fill those jobs, and therefore the morale of the people in the north and in the south would be improved.

I take my hon. Friend's point. It is worth noting that four out of five civil servants are already working outside London, in various parts of the country, and that is a sizeable proportion. If, on cost grounds, it is justified to move other civil servants out of London, this continues to happen under the relocation process. In addition, Government Departments have been flexible on staffing and there is some room for manoeuvre in Customs and Excise and in the Department of Health and Social Security.

It is difficult to improve morale in the Civil Service when there is all this talk about breaking up the Departments and hiving off successive parts of their responsibilities. Does the Minister recall the words of the Fulton committee, which stated that any complete separation of policy-making from execution could be harmful? Is the Minister aware that the only way to settle this problem is to publish the Robin Ibbs report as soon as possible?

One of the points to stress to the right hon. Gentleman is that all the evidence suggests that civil servants want to enjoy greater responsibility. In the past few years they have, increasingly, been given that responsibility under the financial management initiative, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware. It is evident from all our discussions with the Civil Service that it would welcome greater responsibility. I believe that that will make for even more professional management in the Civil Service.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a lot of nonsense is talked about morale in the Civil Service? By and large morale is extremely high because civil servants know that most of them do an excellent job. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that there is great scope for civil servants to exchange more with industry and the private sector, and will he now seek to make substantial progress in that matter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly the case that in the last few years the Civil Service has achieved a number of great things. It is certainly more professional and much more efficient than it was about 10 years ago. As a result of efficiency scrutinies and the achievements of the Civil Service, more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money has been saved.

Does the Minister accept that arbitrary or high-handed decisions, without consultation, do nothing whatsoever to increase morale in the Civil Service? Did he listen to the "Today" programme on Radio 4 this morning? If so, he would have heard that the agreement of Mr. Keith Mack, the controller of the national air traffic services, to go to meet the IPCS to talk about safety had to be literally dragged out of him. Can the Minister tell us precisely why he did not talk to the trade unions and the employees—the civil servants— before giving their money away to charity because of the recent RPI error?

The hon. Gentleman is aiming some of his questions at other Departments and it is for the relevant Ministers to answer them. I believe that we can say without any doubt that the Government's objective is always to take the interests of civil servants and the unions into account. That is what we seek to do, and that is what we shall continue to do.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how the performance of civil servants is assessed.

A new staff appraisal system was introduced in 1985, which assesses the achievement of results by staff against agreed objectives. All Departments have introduced, or are now introducing, the system.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. To what extent is self-appraisal a major reason why my right hon. Friend's reforms have been S3 widely welcomed in the Civil Service, by both staff and managers?

My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on this matter. The new system of staff-appraisal, which applies to all non-industrial staff, has, on the whole, been widely welcomed by the Civil Service. It means that there is much greater employee involvement in their own affairs and in the affairs of the area in which they work. It enables them to set themselves clear objectives, which I think is in the interests of the Civil Service.

Will the Minister reassess the position of civil servants who will be in the firing line on 1 April when the social security changes come into being? Those are the people who will have to take the flak over the counter for the Government's policies. They are in the front line. Will the Minister reassess the terms and conditions of those whom the Government are putting in that exposed position?

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to that point.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to visit the Civil Service college to discuss the future of the college.

I discussed the future of the college with its management last week, and I shall be following that up when I visit the London site on 2 March.

My right hon. Friend has informed me before of the beneficial close connections that the Civil Service college has with the private sector. Is it not time that the college moved into the private sector?

It is right that my hon. Friend should draw attention to the fact that there is already close cooperation between the college and the private sector. Some 60 per cent. of all the speakers who come to the college are from the outside world, and a large number are from the business world. We want to develop that still further. The college provides about 5 per cent. of the total training of the Civil Service, its emphasis is upon general management, and some 20 per cent. of all the training is already done through outside organisations in the private sector.