To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the nation's energy production is provided by the private sector; and what was the proportion in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the nation's energy production is provided by the private sector; and what was the proportion in 1979.

Provisional figures indicate that the private sector currently accounts for 70 per cent. of indigenous production of primary fuels, compared with 55 per cent. in 1979.

In terms of final energy consumption met by the private sector, that represents an increase from 41 per cent. in 1979 to 73 per cent. now. After the privatisation of the electricity supply industry that figure should rise to 87 per cent.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Will he confirm his belief that this process has been good for both the consumer and the country as a whole, and will he say whether he has any immediate or long-term plans to extend that proportion of private provision even further?

The Government have made their position clear. They believe that energy provision, as well as most other industrial and commercial activities, are best carried on by the private sector, and we shall be pursuing that policy with the other industries for which, at present, we have no immediate plans for privatisation.

Although I quite unreservedly welcome and applaud the private sector's increased role in energy production, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to comment on the successful implementation of the Government's wish to see increased competition in energy production?

As my hon. Friend knows, a prime purpose of our electricity privatisation proposals is to create competition in generation. We believe that, in the long term, that offers the best prospects for keeping down prices to the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level of grant he has approved for neighbourhood energy action and energy action Scotland in 1988–89.

My Department's grant to neighbourhood energy action will be £392,000 and to energy action Scotland £68,000.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that those figures represent an increase, and will he tell us what part the private sector plays in those projects?

I confirm that those figures are an increase. Last year we paid £341,000 to neighbourhood energy action and £57,000 to energy action Scotland, so there are increases of about 15 and 19 per cent. respectively. The private sector plays a part, but I have made it clear that I hope that next year the two bodies will be able to encourage the private sector to play a substantially increased part.

The Minister may be aware that, under the new employment training programme, there is worry that funding will not be sufficient for energy projects and that approved training organisations will not be keen to keep them going? Will he liaise with officials at the Department of Employment about that, and has he any helpful advice to offer for those projects?

I appreciate, as does the hon. Gentleman, that negotiations must take place as a result of the change, but I am assured that the Manpower Services Commission is keen to ensure that those projects are able to continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 28 March, Official Report , columns 719–20 , what consideration he has given to the implications for the promptness with which electricity supplies can be called up in an emergency by the grid controllers, of possible differences in interpretation of the contractual obligations to be placed on private generating companies; what assessment he has made of the effects on the cost of operating the grid of changing to a contractual relationship between the grid controllers and private suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

All generators will have a commercial and contractual interest in ensuring that the power supply system does not fail in an emergency. Operating procedures in emergencies will be set out clearly in their contracts, and the ability of the grid controllers to manage emergencies should be unaffected. We believe that any costs will be outweighed by the benefits of competition and diversity.

Why do the Government think that they know better than Lord Marshall?

The Government think that they know better than Lord Marshall because, although he is a learned and powerful figure in the industry, he is only one voice. There are many other people in the industry who know just as much about transmission as he does and who do not agree with him. The president of the Institution of Electrical Engineers does not agree with him. Our professional advisers advised us that what we wished to do was technically possible. Lord Marshall accepts that it is technically possible. He believes that costs will be involved. We believe that those costs are sustainable and will be more than outweighed by the savings from diversity.

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the benefits that will result when area boards are able to use the grid to shop around for competitive contracts from new private producers?

We think that that is precisely the sort of competition and diversity of supply of electricity that will give rise to competition in prices and will benefit the customer. That will compensate for some of the possible additional costs of ensuring that the system remains safe.

The technical argument over whether the Secretary of State or Lord Marshall is right will continue, but can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that it is still his belief that prices will be cheaper under the privatisation system and grid separation? He may have seen a recent report by National Utility Services Ltd.—it was produced two days ago—that electricity prices under privatisation will be far more expensive than hitherto and are likely to be the most expensive in Europe.

The company to which the hon. Gentleman referred is not entirely unbiased in this instance. It makes its living by giving advice on how to reduce power bills. It therefore has a vested interest in pretending that the bills are extremely high. It has an entirely unrepresentative sample of customers and we prefer to believe the CBI and the Electricity Council, which have agreed figures. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on discovering—wrongly in this instance—an enthusiasm for the private sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many flue gas desulphurisation units are being fitted to coal-fired power stations.

The CEGB has announced plans to retrofit FGD equipment to the six generating units at Drax power station and four generating units at Fiddler's Ferry. In addition, FGD equipment will be fitted to the generating units of all new coal-fired power stations.

This equipment is essential to prevent acid rain, but is my hon. Friend aware that each unit consumes 300,000 tonnes of limestone a year? This has to be quarried at places such as the Mendip Hills in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend take this environmental damage into account in deciding which type of power station to order in future?

I can give my hon. Friend a number of assurances. First, there is no question of the Mendip Hills being used for the extraction of limestone for this purpose. Nor is there any question of national parks being used. I understand that less than 0·3 per cent. of the limestone that is nationally produced is used for each power station.

Will my hon. Friend give me advice on the cost of removal of sulphur dioxide and NOx from a 2,000 MW power station? Obviously this will increase the cost considerably.

The best available figure for a 2,000 MW power station is £200 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about statutory obligations and supply regulations in the electricity supply industry following privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

I have received many representations on electricity privatisation, including comments on the proposed revisions to the electricity supply regulations.

In looking ahead to 1992, can my right hon. Friend say whether reciprocal registration agreements will be used with our European partners, most of whom, I understand, require registration now?

This is strictly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is dealing with this aspect of 1992. We have a meeting arranged with the Electrical Contractors Association, and I shall he interested to hear the views of its members.

Does the Secretary of State agree that privatisation and competition involve cost-cutting exercises to increase profits? That is the main motivation of running private concerns rather than services. What guarantee does he have that directors in the privatised sector will not be as incompetent and criminally irresponsible as the directors of Townsend Thoresen?

The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake of assuming that profits can come only from what he describes as cost cutting, which implies sacking employees and behaving anti-socially. Operating efficiently can provide a useful source of profits and a useful source of help for the customer, who enjoys a keener price.

When the supply regulations are introduced after privatisation, will British Coal be allowed to compete fairly and equally with foreign imports, which can be dumped here in the short term to decimate the British industry before prices are increased?

My hon. Friend knows that there is a huge market for coal that will exist way into the foreseeable future. Most of our electricity will come from coal. The Government have invested more than £9 billion in the past nine years to ensure that we have a modern, efficient British coal industry. Therefore, there is a market and the industry has been given the investment. If that is used properly, the British coal industry has nothing to fear.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that his consultative document, in which he promised new rights for consumers, includes provision in the regulations for the duty to supply—which may be prosecuted for at the moment—to be prosecuted only through civil actions agreed by the director general of electricity supply? Will he also confirm that the duty to supply will now be reduced to supply on reasonable terms? Finally, will he confirm that the right to disconnect—which is qualified at the moment—will be unqualified? That is clearly a reduction of consumers' rights and in conflict with the Secretary of State's promise in his White Paper.

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got those findings. No decisions have been taken on those matters. We are in the middle of a process of consultation about the possible supply regulations and no decisions of any kind have been taken. They will be taken after consultation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has in drawing up the regulatory framework for the electricity industry to include energy efficiency as an option for ensuring that electricity is supplied to the consumer at the lowest possible cost.

The details of the regulatory framework, including their effect on energy efficiency are being considered with the Department's advisers. The regulatory system will encourage the industry to meet its customers' requirements at least cost.

While welcoming my hon. Friend's reply confirming that energy efficiency is one of the options under consideration, may I ask whether he accepts that if we are trying to achieve the right balance between low-cost electricity for the consumer and profitability for the utilities, the means of ensuring energy efficiency must be included in the powers given to the regulator and they must be strong enough to ensure efficiency at the generating and distribution ends?

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and we shall bear his remarks closely in mind. Our regulatory framework will be designed to promote energy efficiency through competition, especially among generating companies.

Is the Minister still convinced that the insistence on providing a substantial proportion of electricity generation through the nuclear industry is the best means of providing low-cost electricity, especially in view of the difficulties and unknown costs of decommissioning and in light of this morning's report in The Guardian which suggests that nuclear power stations are running at below their generating capacity because of loading and unloading difficulties?

The Government's position on that is quite clear. We believe that there should be a minimum of nuclear energy in this country, for efficiency reasons. Also, there is no way in which we can tell at the moment what the price of fossil fuels will be in 20 years' time. Therefore, there is a very good reason for nuclear energy on economic grounds. Leaving that aside, we believe that there should be a thriving nuclear industry, to ensure that we have a wide variety of energy sources.

What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that all branches of the Government respond enthusiastically to offers of private sector money to invest in energy-saving measures?

The first step that I can take is to ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are widely read.

Will the Minister agree that for years the Government have claimed that their objective is to make Britain the most energy-efficient nation and that the Prime Minister set us a target of a saving of £7 billion on fuel bills? How will that be achieved unless the regulatory body has very strong powers and a duty to promote energy conservation? Is it not a fact that the present Secretary of State for Energy has much less interest in and commitment to energy efficiency than his predecessor had?

I listend carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and to what the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has just said about the need for efficiency as one of the criteria within the regulatory regime. I must repeat that a prime way of achieving efficiency, at least thermal efficiency, is through competition among generators, and we shall ensure that the regulatory regime includes that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future funding of the fast breeder reactor project at Dounreay, Scotland.

My Department reviews its expenditure on research and development each year, including that on the fast reactor. All options are considered, but no decisions have yet been taken.

I know what the Secretary of State is up to. I can read it like a book, and I can read him like a book, too. There is a cut back on the financing of future projects. The same is true of research and development.

indicated dissent .

The Secretary of State should not look surprised. We know what is going on. The Government are cutting back on expenditure with a view to privatisation, so that they can have a cheap rake-off in other public industries. Here we go again, this time with electricity.

Briefly, please.

I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Secretary of State to come off it and to be honest at the Dispatch Box with the people of this nation.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity and for the quietness with which he asked his question. This matter is in no way connected with the privatisation of electricity. The only connection is that the CEGB has been funding 30 per cent. of the cost of the fast reactor. The fact that it has taken a decision about its expenditure in no way affects the overall decision on the fast reactor. It is a complex issue and one to which we are giving serious consideration. It also has international aspects. Above all, it has enormous implications for the people of Caithness and Sutherland. We recognise our obligations to them, and when I am ready I shall come to the House with a statement about our policy. We are not ready to do so yet, and we are not prepared to be bounced by inaccurate newspaper articles.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I thank the Secretary of State for his robust recognition of his obligations.

Order. I am not able to hear the hon. Member. I shall have to call him on another question, because this matter is to be raised on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent information he has received from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate about the future decommissioning of Magnox nuclear reactors.

The future of the Magnox nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom is a matter for the operators concerned, subject to their meeting the requirements of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

I should like to be able to thank the Minister for that reply, but there is not a great deal for which I can thank him. It was a fairly empty statement. Can the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to require the NII to consider the option, on decommissioning Magnox stations, of strengthening their primary and secondary cladding to improve the integrity of their structure, and perhaps use the redundant, cavernous capacity of disused turbine halls for storing—under managed, monitorable and redeemable circumstances—the nuclear waste that is causing so much trouble? It would not have to be transported all over the country to new sites because we would have on site the expertise to do the job that needs to be done.

The hon. Gentleman is extremely knowledgeable in these matters and has demonstrated his knowledge on this occasion. The Government do not tell the NII what it should do about its inspections, because the NII sets its own standards. We have full confidence in it and have made sure that it is fully staffed. The NII is the Government's expert body for ensuring standards, and we give it every support in maintaining those standards.

Has the Minister received representations from the private sector on electricity generation under the fast breeder reactor programme? Will he place on record the statement that the FBR programme has been, and continues to be, a useful programme?

I believe that that relates to the previous question and not to this one, which is about Magnox stations. They have nothing to do with fast breeder reactors.

No, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Order.

It was absolutely in order.

I call Mr. Alexander Eadie.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has been informed by British Coal of progress made in its meetings with the South of Scotland Electricity Board regarding future coal burn at power stations.

These negotiations are a commercial matter for the two industries concerned, but I have asked to be kept informed.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that, in the midst of the negotiations with British Coal, the South of Scotland Electricity Board is being provocative and threatening? We have learnt that between 20,000 and 30,000 tonnes of foreign coal are now at Rotterdam awaiting delivery to the SSEB in small cargoes, and that 3,000 tonnes have already arrived at the Kincardine power station in Scotland. Did the Secretary of State not endorse the three-month agreement to halt foreign coal imports, to give time for British Coal and the SSEB to reach an agreement on coal burning in this country?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made my position very clear. I cannot force either party to reach an agreement, although I should like them to do so, and I have been doing all that I can to encourage them. The negotiations are in hand, and I hope that they will be successful.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the SSEB is among the generating boards that are impressed not only by coal burn rates but by the burn-up rate of the fast breeder reactor—which is why it has put its weight behind the project for the future?

Yes. I want to make it clear that we wish to retain the fast breeder reactor technology for this country. The question is how we do that in the most economic way possible. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we are looking at all the aspects of the problem very carefully. I look forward to discussions with the hon. Gentleman when he comes to see me tomorrow.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has recently discussed with the Central Electricity Generating Board its proposals for flue gas desulphurisation to reduce acid rain.

We are fully aware that the CEGB plans to fit FGD equipment at a cost of £600 million to 6GW of existing plant as well as on all new coal-fired stations.

In view of the growing concern about acid rain, both in this country and elsewhere in Europe, is the Minister satisfied that the CEGB is proceeding with the work as speedily as possible? Does the Minister not believe that it may be necessary to take action on some of the other power stations?

The United Kingdom now has a 10-year sulphur dioxide emission control programme costing about £1 billion. We accept that that speed is appropriate for controlling emissions. It is not often realised that Britain has reduced its emissions by 40 per cent. since 1970, and by 25 per cent. by 1980. We have done a tremendous amount already to reduce emissions, and we intend to continue the programme.

My constituents will be very grateful for the £200 million investment in Fiddler's Ferry, but when my hon. Friend next meets the CEGB will he suggest that some disruption may be caused to the local community in Cuerdley and ask the CEGB to minimise that disruption?

I am sure that the CEGB will read carefully in Hansard what my hon. Friend has said. The matter is clearly causing some local concern, and I am sure that the CEGB will be aware of that.

With gas desulphurisation in mind, has the Minister discussed the future of the fluidised bed experiment at Grimethorpe, in my constituency? Will he make a statement?

I am afraid that I cannot make a statement now, but the Grimethorpe plant is being considered very carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, how much has been invested in the coal industry since April 1979.

Since 1979 the Government have provided British Coal with £9 billion of grants—together with substantial loan finance—of which £6 billion has been spent on capital investment.

Is not a healthy economy one of the prerequisites of any Government policy of substantial and continuing investment? Should not those who work in the coal mining industry be grateful to the Government, not only for supporting worthwhile investment, but for helping to create an excellent economic outlook for Britain? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to the industry and to jobs within it comes from those who instigate unnecessary strike action, such as Mr. Arthur Scargill, and those who support such action, such as the Leader of the Opposition? [Laughter.]

We shall all be voting for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

It is important that modern working practices go with capital investment and that strikes and waste are eliminated. Provided that we have modern working practices to go with modern machinery, I see a very bright future for British Coal, but every strike and work to rule lessens the prospects for the industry.

Will the Secretary of State concede that a substantial proportion of the investment in Scotland has been in the Longannett complex, and that that investment has been endangered by the cavalier attitude of the South of Scotland Electricity Board in importing foreign coal at dumped prices? I recognise that the Secretary of State has shown an interest in this matter, but what steps is he taking to protect the nation's investment in the Scottish coalfields—an investment that can get a return only if the coal is burnt in SSEB stations?

There are two things in our proposals which I believe will improve the prospects for the Scottish coal industry. First, we are strengthening the inter-connector to England and Wales, which means that there is a big potential market for the electricity produced from Scottish coal. Secondly—and I am pleased to say that Scottish miners have shown great good sense about this—we are encouraging the adoption of modern working practices.

Although the investment has been made, Scottish coal is still relatively expensive. Therefore, we have to find ways of reducing the costs and opening up for Scotland the prospects of a good market. We are also encouraging the two parties to get together. I believe that the Government are doing what they can to ensure a good future for Scottish coal.

Despite my right hon. Friend's legitimate pride in the amount invested in the British coal industry during the past nine years, will he confirm that the whole of that investment could have been made by the private sector? What greater justification is there for retaining the ownership of British Coal in the public sector compared with the Government's conviction that the oil industry should be in the private sector?

We have no plans at present, but it is our ambition that all the energy industries should be returned to the private sector. However, there is a limit to what we can do at any given time. I believe that privatising the electricity supply industry is a big enough job for us at present. I assure my hon. Friend that we have ambitions for the rest of the industries for which we are responsible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the share of the costs of maintaining and decommissioning Magnox reactors to be borne by the privatised electricity supply industry.

After privatisation, nuclear power station operators will continue to be required to make appropriate financial provision for decommissioning and other long-term liabilities.

Given the recent report on the very high cost of maintaining safety at Bradwell for the next four years, the likely costs of maintaining safety and maintenance at the other 10 Magnox stations and decommissioning costs of £250 million to £300 million each, who will be expected to pay for the deteriorating safety standards and decommissioning? As those stations are likely to have to be encased in concrete for 100 years, should not the Department make a statement on this issue as soon as possible?

First, I deny that there is any question of deteriorating safety standards. The British nuclear industry has had a tremendous track record for safety, and we mean to keep it that way.

Secondly, all forms of energy safety have costs in terms of protection of the environment. Noisy and obtrusive windmills, potential radiological hazards from nuclear power, sulphur emissions from coal, which we have been discussing, or, indeed, disruption to bird life from estuarial barrages involve costs in protecting the environment. In that sense, there is nothing special about the nuclear industry. I repeat that, with privatisation, proper provision will be made for those costs in the accounts.

The Minister will be aware that the advisory committee on the safety of nuclear installations has recommended that there should be a 50 per cent. increase in the number of Nuclear Installations Inspectorate personnel working on decommissioning. Will he tell the House how many are currently working on decommissioning and whether he will accept the advice to increase the numbers?

I cannot give the precise number of those within the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate who are working on decommissioning, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if that figure is available. However, we are up to the complement of 120 inspectors, the target that we had set for 1 April, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will ensure that there is an adequate number of inspectors for the future requirements of the NII.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received about the rise in electricity prices.

I have received a number of representations about electricity price rises.

What is the Minister's reaction to the report that was published last week by National Utility Services, which shows that the United Kingdom is well on the way to becoming one of the countries with the most expensive electricity because of the targets that have been imposed on the industry by the Government? What initiatives does he intend to take to help those at the lower end of the income scale who are faced with electricity price rises?

As I told the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), that company draws its statistics from a very narrow range of its own customers. It does not pretend to cover the whole industry. The CBI and the Electricity Council produce the most authoritative figures. They show that Britain is firmly in the middle of the list, for both industrial and domestic prices. The price increase this year is the first since 1985. Under the Labour Government prices increased ahead of the rate of inflation by more than 30 per cent. Under this Government they are 12 per cent. less than the rate of inflation, even after taking the present price increase into account.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best prospects for low-price electricity will come from his proposal to introduce competition into the generation of electricity and also from giving to the generating companies the right to buy their fuel, including coal, at competitive market prices?

Yes. Generation costs cover 80 per cent. of the cost of electricity. Competition in that area of the industry offers the best prospect of keen prices for the customer.

Is the Minister aware that because of the increasing cost of electricity a growing number of poorer people are late in making their payments? In London they are receiving very aggressive and unpleasant letters from the electricity authorities, threatening them with court orders allowing the authorities to break into people's homes and install electricity meters if those poorer people are not prepared to sign a statement to the effect that they are willing voluntarily to have meters. A number of these letters have been received by people who are in hospital—often elderly people—and they have caused great distress. Will the Minister do something about it?

The hon. Lady knows that under the code of conduct the electricity authorities do not disconnect elderly people during the winter months. I should like her to tell her constituents that the electricity authorities are ready to listen to representations on behalf of consumers who have a real problem and who need help in the staging of the payment of their bills. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that people should pay their electricity bills, just as they pay other bills. If they do not do so, the price of electricity for everyone will have to be increased.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met with the electricity area board chairmen; and whether new electricity generation developments were discussed.

I have meetings from time to time with the area board chairmen, at which we discuss a number of issues of common interest.

In the course of those discussions, how supportive is my right hon. Friend of the idea of emphasis being placed on the future of renewable sources of energy?

We have a substantial programme of support for investigations into various sources of renewable energy. We are supporting about 218 individual programmes into sources of renewable energy, but most of the area board chairmen and other members of the industry recognise that the main source of electricity will be coal, atomic, gas and oil and that, although renewables will be a valuable peripheral supply, the prospect at present is that they will be a peripheral supply only.

Has fast breeder reactor electricity generation been discussed? Will the Secretary of State place on record the fact that the fast breeder reactor programme has been, and continues to be, a useful and effective programme?

There is no question but that the fast breeder reactor offers a useful future source of energy. One of the problems is that, commercially, we are not likely to develop the technology for another 30 years. The debate is not whether we abandon the technology, but how we preserve it until we need it. I am pleased to confirm that we regard the fast breeder reactor as a potential source of electricity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made in considering the setting up of the regulatory authority for the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.

All aspects of the regulatory regime are being actively considered with our advisers. We have also had helpful discussions with the electricity supply industry and other interested bodies. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he endorse the conclusions of a recent study of energy utilities in the United States, which showed that the companies with the best credit rating and whose bonds were most popular on the market incorporated energy-efficiency responsibilities into their regulatory framework?

As my hon. Friend said, we intend that the regulators should be responsible for the promotion of the advantages of energy efficiency. We are not prepared to go as far as some critics would wish. We do not seek to impose on people the obligation to save electricity in their homes and to impose on companies an obligation to make energy-saving arrangements. We are in the business, as will be the regulator, of encouraging the efficient use of energy.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what have been the administrative costs of admission charges at the Natural History museum in 1987–88.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the level of admission to the Natural History museum in 1987–88.

The administration and monitoring of admission charges at the Natural History museum are matters for the museum's trustees. On 9 April the trustees announced that the number of visitors to the public galleries, including the geological and zoological museums, during 1987–88 was 1,633,000, and that the net receipts from admission charges were £1,352,000.

Does the Minister put in the debit or credit column the amount being charged to the 50 Third world countries which use the Natural History museum for research into a variety of matters, such as mosquitoes, blood worms and various parasitic diseases? As the Overseas Development Administration uses that museum for research, will he say what discussions he has had with his hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development about the effect that that will have on the ODA's budget?

There are a number of sectors in which it is sensible for the Natural History museum to collaborate on research projects with people in other countries. It is for the trustees to decide what priority should be given to projects, but it is only reasonable that the essential costs of that service should be covered.

Do not the figures that the Minister has given hide the fact that attendances at the Natural History museum are at least 40 per cent. down? Does that not mean that many people who get much pleasure and education from visiting the museum are, because of charges, being denied access to it? As the figures show that the numbers of visitors are dropping, will that not inevitably lead to redundancies and low morale among the staff? Should not the Minister withdraw these charges immediately?

The trustees must decide whether to accept voluntary donations or make admission charges. It is absolutely right that they should decide whether to introduce charges. The Natural History museum introduced charges just over a year ago. It has increased its overall resources by £1,300,000 and announced that it will improve its facilities as a result. The public, therefore, will get a better service. We find that although in the initial stages of the introduction of admission charges there is a drop in attendances, it does pick up. Attendances at the National Maritime museum increased by 16 per cent. last year compared with the previous year. That museum has introduced admission charges. It is only right that we should leave such decisions to the museums. And they should use that money to increase overall services and facilities for the public.

Have the Government upheld their grant to the Natural History museum, regardless of any charges?

I can confirm that without any shadow of doubt. The amount given to the Natural History museum has gone up in real terms by 37 per cent. during the past nine years. Moreover, it has had its funding earmarked for the next three years so that it knows what money it will have. In no way has punitive action been taken on account of the introduction of charges.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why museums and galleries are sacrosanct? Why should trustees not be able to raise extra revenue to supplement Government grants if that is what they want, just as their counterparts do in practically every other country?

My hon. Friend is right. As he says, it is for the trustees to decide. Western and Communist countries have museum charges in addition to basic Government funding. The choice should be open to museums and galleries. If they make charges, however, what matters is that they show the public how facilities will be improved to their benefit.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the figures that he gave the House should be compared with the 3·3 million admissions the year before? Is he aware that his figures show a drop of 40 per cent. on the previous year? The trustees have not been anxious to introduce charges, but they have been forced to do so because the Government are under-funding and neglecting their service. That neglect is documented in the National Audit Office report, which shows under-funding in conservation, research, display, cataloguing, building maintenance and the rest. Is it not time that the Minister faced the time bomb ticking away under our national museums, recognised his responsibilities, and funded museums and galleries properly?

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He is fishing around for a crisis when there is none. He says that funding has been diminished, but since 1979 it has increased by 26·5 per cent. in real terms. That is not a crisis. Funding has increased. Moreover, in the next three years we shall increase funding for museums and galleries by just under 16 per cent., and this year we shall increase by 20 per cent. the money available for building and maintenance. The Government are earmarking £11 million for increased storage. We can be proud of our record.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how much income is generated by public museums and galleries through providing shops and refreshment facilities on their premises.

In the present financial year the national museums and galleries that I sponsor expect their income from non-grant sources, including catering and trading, to exceed £20 million. I have taken a number of measures to encourage and facilitate their efforts to increase such income.

I have given the Museums and Galleries Commission a special allocation for the next three years to help non-national museums and galleries improve their performance in this area.

Can my right hon. Friend assure those galleries and museums that respond to public demand for these services and generate extra income from them that they will not have their grant cut pro rata?

I can confirm without any doubt that there will be no reduction whatever; nor will there be any adjustment to grants for any of the national museums and galleries on account of extra income from the private sector.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any contribution made by shops and cafes is no substitute for proper public funding of museums and galleries? Does he also agree that this generation has an obligation to pass on the nation's heritage in at least as good a condition as we inherited it? Is he satisfied that sufficient money is being provided for storage, maintenance and restoration of the many objects in musums that are in sad need of proper care?

My sole interest is to see an overall increase in the resources of museums and galleries. It would be absolute folly to say that if private sector income increases we should reduce the private sector income accordingly. That would not be an incentive to increase the overall resources. That is my objective, and that is what we are doing, to such an extent that today the national museums and galleries raise at least £20 million from private sector resources.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage cultural exchanges with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The majority of cultural exchanges with the USSR take place within the framework of the Anglo-Soviet cultural agreement. The memorandum of understanding signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the time of her visit to Moscow last year has helped to provide a further impetus for such activity. I shall be making an official visit to the Soviet Union next month and shall do what I can to encourage further exchanges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such exchanges and visits help the cause of world peace and detente? Can he give any details of likely exchanges over the next few months?

There is no doubt that arts and culture help to break down national barriers, because in so many areas culture does not know or understand those barriers—it goes beyond that. Therefore, exchanges between the Soviet Union and this country in the performing arts and heritage should be warmly welcomed. The National Theatre is about to tour the Soviet Union, and arrangements are being made for the exchange of exhibitions between museums in this country and the Soviet Union.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what new initiatives have been introduced to encourage recruitment to the Civil Service.

Examples of a number of initiatives aimed at attracting as wide a field of qualified candidates as possible are given in the Civil Service Commissioners' annual report for 1987, which was placed in the Library of the House on 20 April.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What efforts are being made to recruit people into the Civil Service at a later stage who have already benefited from careers outside the Civil Service? Will he say what experience they can offer if they are recruited into the Civil Service at that age?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that question. It is important to encourage into the Civil Service people who have experience in other areas. A recent direct entry competition for grade seven in the service has led to the recruitment of a number of people in their late 30s and early 40s. Many of those people have had experience in local government or education, and at least 50 per cent. of them have had experience in commerce and industry. That is something that I welcome.

What will be the effect on recruitment to the Civil Service of the recently announced 40 per cent. drop in attendance figures for the Natural History museum?

That is a good try. I am now wearing a different hat and it is that of the Civil Service. Recruitment and retention in the Civil Service are broadly satisfactory, but there are areas in which it is difficult to recruit people with specific skills and in specialist areas and, of course, we have a regional problem. It is true that in the south-east, in particular, we have acute recruiting difficulties. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking to contain that by the introduction of more flexible pay and allowances for the London area.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals for reorganisation in his Department he is making following the recommendations of the Efficiency Unit report, "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps."

Like other Ministers, I am reviewing the functions of my Department to see what areas might be appropriate for agency status. I have already identified the Civil Service college and the occupational Health Service as promising candidates for closer examination.

I welcome that positive lead. May I ask my right hon. Friend to stir his ministerial colleagues to share his sense of urgency in making those much needed reforms?

In fairness to some of my colleagues, as my hon. Friend will know, we have already identified 12 possible candidates for the creation of agencies in other Government Departments. Some of my right hon. Friends are looking urgently at the practical implications of that, and I hope to have something further to say before the summer is over.

Have any steps been taken to reorganise the post of chief press officer to the Prime Minister and to change the manner in which he goes out of his way to give warnings to the press and the media generally on what they should or should not publish and broadcast? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Ingham is increasingly seen as the Deputy Prime Minister?

That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but there is no shadow of doubt about the outstanding calibre of Mr. Ingham and the job that he does.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of improving management in government is that for some vital skills industry can pay far higher salaries than the Government—for example, computer and tax experts? Are the Government urgently considering the fact that, to be efficient, they must be able to compete with private enterprise, or they will not get the best people whom they so urgently need?

My hon. Friend puts a finger on a problem that we face. As he rightly says, there is a disparity in certain specialist skills between what the Government can pay and what can be achieved in the private sector. It is partly for that reason that we are losing a number of people. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has judged it right to introduce more flexible allowances and pay to deal with that problem. Pay additions are now available for certain jobs, and that is one way in which we can help to contain the problem.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from Civil Service or civil servant unions about the proposals for the privatisation and creation of new agencies to assume the work of some sections of Government Departments.

I have received two representations about the creation of agencies.

Is the Minister aware that he needs to state clearly from the Dispatch Box the exact position that the Government are adopting on agencies in relation to trade unions? On 18 February the Minister's Office issued a central guidance note to managers in Departments. The note said:

"the new arrangements for agencies will not undermine national bargaining on terms and conditions of service including pay"

and

"the unions will be fully consulted on the handling of the proposals."

That contradicts many of the Minister's statements in the House. Which view is correct—the Minister's, or the one issued by his Department?

There is a clear commitment that, when final decisions are to be taken on the implementation of certain agency proposals, there will be proper consultation with the unions. Until we have identified which agencies are to have that kind of agreement, we cannot say. The unions will be fully consulted at that stage. As for national bargaining, negotiations on most conditions of service for departmental agencies are conducted centrally, and that will continue.

What percentage of first division civil servants are women? How has that percentage changed since 1984, when the programme for action was introduced—

Order. It would be more appropriate to raise that point on the next question.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many first division grade civil servants have had industrial or commercial experience.

This information is not held centrally. The Government place great value in attracting to the Civil Service at all levels those with industrial or commercial experience.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such commercial and industrial experience is invaluable to the Civil Service? Will he do his utmost to ensure that the Civil Service recruits people with the skills that may not be available to it? May we look forward to the day when a member of the first division is seconded for a short period to industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of doing that. As I said in answer to an earlier question, following the recent direct entry competition for people who are older than the normal recruitment age, at least 50 per cent. of those recruited came from industry and commerce. The Government want to encourage that.

We have a policy on arranging secondments. The number of Civil Service secondments from and to the private sector has doubled in the past nine years. The number increased substantially last year on the previous year. We have a number of other arrangements—for example, the Whitehall and industry scheme, under which civil servants go for short periods to industry—to enable greater contact between the private sector and the Civil Service.

Let me try again. What percentage of those first division grade civil servants are women, and how has that percentage changed since 1984 when the programme for action to increase the percentage of women at the high levels in the Civil Service was introduced?

There has been an increase, and the report shows that, in the proportion of women in grades up to senior positions, although for the very senior positions—grade 3 and above—the proportion of women is still very low. My concern is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity and that any obstacles to that are ironed out. I am pleased that in the recent promotions to very senior positions, 11 per cent. were women. The hon. Lady may think that that is a low figure, but it is much higher than the proportion in the senior grades.

I welcome the improvement in the representation of women, but has my right hon. Friend any further plans for improving matters?

Yes. There is a recommended programme of action and the Government will do their best to implement it. It is noticeable that there is now more scope for part-time jobs in the Civil Service, and a large proportion of women are taking up those opportunities. There is also scope for job sharing in the service, and a large number of women are taking up that opportunity, too. I shall ensure with my colleagues in other Departments that the programme of action is implemented as well as possible.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what action he is taking on issues not covered by his reply to the Adjournment debate on Friday 22 April on the conduct of the Prime Minister's Private Office.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister recollect that in the Adjournment debate that he courteously answered I referred in detail to the statement by Sir Frank Cooper, former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, that Mr. Bernard Ingham ought not to be a civil servant, given the role that he performs? May we refer back to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and ask seriously whether those who talk in the terms in which Mr. Ingham did over the weekend about the hysteria of the press ought to be paid from party rather than taxpayers funds?

I noted in that Adjournment debate, and again today, that the hon. Gentleman seeks to dredge up old issues that have already been dealt with and adequately answered. He does that because he knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been an outstanding success and is a Prime Minister of great integrity. It is because of that that the hon. Gentleman seeks to undermine the whole position.