To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he has made with his plans to denationalise British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to allow more private sector involvement in United Kingdom coal production.

We intend to privatise the coal industry after the next general election. We are currently considering the options; no decisions have yet been made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong support for his proposals, not only among Conservative Members, but among those who work in the mining industry, and notably among a growing number of members of the National Union of Mineworkers? Will he confirm that the Bill to privatise the British coal industry will be introduced in the first Session of the new Parliament?

I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall come forward with a Bill as soon as possible in the new Parliament. Whether that will be in the first Session depends on a number of factors, but it will be very early in the new Parliament and the industry will be privatised in the first half of the new Parliament.

If privatisation has to wait until after the next election, can we at least have confirmation of assurances that there will be some liberalisation of the rather tight coal monopoly in the immediate future by amending the nationalisation Act to allow the private sector at least to become involved in competition with the nationalised industry as a first step to full privatisation?

I know that a number of people have been promoting that idea. I should prefer to tackle the problems of the industry as a whole and to come forward with proposals in the next Parliament for the ultimate liberalisation, which is the privatisation of the whole industry.

Will the Secretary of State comment on recent reports that there is keen interest in a management board buy-out of British Coal? Even if he were to confirm that interest, would he maintain the position that he has just stated, which is that there will be no privatisation before the next election and no attempts to prepare the way so that, if the country is unfortunate enough to have a Conservative Administration after the next election, the work will not have been largely done?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. There will be no attempt at partial or back-door privatisation in this Parliament. The issue will be placed firmly before the British people and we look forward to the Leader of the Opposition, accompanied by Mr. Scargill, touring the country opposing the proposal at the next election.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is completely out of touch with the views of miners if he thinks that they support privatisation? Is he aware that miners in this country are familiar with the accident rate in the private sector of American mines, which gives a ratio of four to one compared with British mines, and that, in view of the previous safety record of privatised British mines, they fear a return to privatisation which will see a deterioration in the safety record of the mines compared with that of British Coal? Will he give us an assurance that that will not happen?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be no lessening of the regulations governing mine safety. I hope that he draws the pleasure that I do from noting that, in recent years, the increase in productivity has been accompanied by a fall in the number of accidents, giving the lie to the argument that one can achieve improved performance only by putting people's lives at risk.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, despite the scare stories often put about by the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers that productivity has a trade off with safety, nationalisation does not mean safer mines, and has nothing to do with safer mines, and there is no need for any fears about the safety of the British coalmining industry, whether in the nationalised or the private sector?

Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). There will be no lessening of the regulations governing safety, regardless of ownership. The coal industry has been giving the lie to one of the favourite truisms pushed about by the Labour party, which is that we can improve performance only by risking lives. We have been achieving better performance and fewer injuries, and that is the proof that the Labour party is wrong.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Opencast Executive will not be privatised as a single unit before denationalisation of the whole industry? Does he intend to wait until that time and then have it denationalised either as a single unit or part of a regional denationalisation?

I have already told the House that we have no detailed plans. We have looked carefully at a range of options and shall be working out those options still further. The management buy-out mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is one of the very interesting possibilities. That is not ruled out, but we are looking at the whole range of options.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters he expects to discuss.

I regularly meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss a variety of issues.

Will my right hon. Friend note the case of the Roosecote power station at Barrow-in-Furness, which was decommissioned by the CEGB in November 1986 and for which private sector tenders were invited in February with an April deadline for decision by September? Will my right hon. Friend inquire which September the chairman had in mind and whether it is to be before or after privatisation of the industry? Will my right hon. Friend also inform the chairman that failure to maintain a station, as well as being neglect of a public asset, is a highly effective means of frustrating private sector competition?

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the tenders have been reviewed, the group which is to take the station has been identified and final negotiations about terms of the contract are now under way.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the CEGB, will he discuss the need to avoid over-reliance on coal imports, especially in view of the worsening balance of payments?

Yes. I believe that British Coal has a very good opportunity to secure the overwhelming proportion of our coal market. That is why the Government have provided more than £9 billion for the industry since we took office and why more than £6 billion has been invested in modernisation so that our industry can produce competitive coal and hold its own in the market place.

In view of the concern about acid rain and pollution from coal-fired power stations, will my right hon. Friend discuss the matter with the chairman of the CEGB, particularly with regard to measures being carried out for the control of emissions? Can he give us any idea of the level of carbon dioxide emission from coal-fired power stations and how much expenditure on control is planned for the next few years?

In 1985, the last year for which records are available, 235 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted into the atmosphere from our fossil fuel stations. We believe that a substantial programme is needed to clean up emissions. That is why the CEGB has already embarked on a very substantial programme, and more will follow.

No doubt the Secretary of State will be discussing electricity privatisation with the chairman of the CEGB. Is he aware of reports suggesting that the Government plan a special tax after privatisation to make nuclear energy attractive to private investors? Will he deny unequivocally that any such plans exist? If not, will he explain why the demands of privatisation rank above the interests of the 22 million captive consumers of electricity?

I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his election to the shadow Cabinet and expressing the traditional hope that he will spend many happy years on the Opposition Front Bench.

During my right hon. Friend's meeting with the chairman of the CEGB, did he discuss the future closure of Dounreay? Were any plans put forward for job creation schemes in that part of Scotland, bearing in mind that many people will be made redundant? Did he also discuss the continuation of the high-technology research for which Dounreay is famous?

As my hon. Friend knows, I announced the Government's policy on the fast reactor a few months ago. We have recognised our obligation to Caithness and Sutherland by ensuring that Dounreay will be phased out over a long period. Indeed, there will still be substantial employment at Dounreay for the next eight or nine years and, after that, continuing employment for about one quarter of the labour force.

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

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

Has the Minister discussed with British Coal the delay in the announcement of any further opening of pits in the Vale of Belvoir in Leicestershire, other than the Asfordby pit? As the Secretary of State said earlier that British Coal has a good opportunity to secure a major proportion of our coal market, what are the Government's plans for making use of the cheap and excellent coal available in the Vale of Belvoir? How will they ensure that the skilled and devoted miners will not continue to be slowly put out of work?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will have been pleased to note the agreement on six-day working between the UDM and British Coal at the Asfordby pit, which was one of the major sticking points in its development. Work is now proceeding at some rate. As for other pits in the area, Hawkhurst Moor is not far away, and I understand that a planning inquiry for that pit is due in January 1989.

Did my hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the early introduction of a Bill on mining subsidence? If he did not, did he discuss the introduction by British Coal of a method of practice in line with the White Paper on mining subsidence? Is British Coal anticipating a Bill and doing now what it will have to do later?

We have discussed both those questions with the chairman and his officials. There are a number of ways in which British Coal can improve its present practices on subsidence. The Waddilove report has been published and at an early opportunity we shall introduce legislation to comply with its recommendations.

When do the Minister and the Secretary of State intend to get off their backsides and stop behaving like Pontius Pilate? When will they ensure that retired miners who produced coal for this country throughout two world wars have sufficient fuel for themselves? Will he talk to the chairman of British Coal and ensure that those lads and lasses have the fuel that they require to keep warm during the coming winter?

This matter has been discussed. In fact, the hon. Gentleman took part in an Adjournment debate on it. There are restrictions on how far back such concessions can go. They are a matter for British Coal. I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the situation is as it stands, and as he knows it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the percentage of United Kingdom energy supplies met by renewable sources; and if he will make a statement about the potential for raising this figure.

Our research and development programme indicates that fuel from waste and energy from wind and tidal sources are the most promising renewable technologies for the future. Each could provide up to 3 per cent. of our total energy requirements by the year 2025.

As my hon. Friend's reply seems to show that the potential for renewable sources to meet part of Britain's energy needs is greater than was thought a few years ago, does he agree that it is essential to continue Government funding for research? Will he confirm that, under this Government, such funds for research have more than quadrupled?

I confirm that there has been a substantial increase in research into renewable energies, as my hon. Friend has said. I confirm also that it is planned to rise in the near future. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government believe that those varied energy sources are of enormous importance, and the Government are putting a tremendous amount of effort into research into them.

In the light of the Secretary of State's claim that he is concerned about workers in the Dounreay area and their future employment prospects, has the Department looked seriously at the possibility of Dounreay being turned into a wind and wave research centre? It would undoubtedly provide employment opportunities for the people who live there. Dounreay is ideally situated because of prevailing weather conditions.

Parts of Scotland are attractive from the point of view of wind power, and the Orkneys are an example. That is why wind power development has taken place in that part of the country. Further plans and developments may be possible, but developments are a matter for power generating companies. We have every reason to believe that more and more private power companies will come forward with projects based upon renewable sources, and they may take place in Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what his Department is doing to reduce harm to the environment by promoting the increased use of nuclear energy in relation to fossil fuels.

The Governments's commitment to continued diversity of fuel supply, including a suitable nuclear component, will help reduce potentially harmful emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Surely we are far behind the rest of the world, particularly France, which has a nuclear component of over 70 per cent., and America and Japan have much higher nuclear components than Britain. Those nations are doing far more than we are to cut down emissions from fossil fuels. Should we not do far more to encourage all future power stations to be nuclear power stations?

Unlike the French and the Japanese, we have substantial reserves of coal, and it would be a mistake for the nation to turn its back on them. We have coal, oil, gas, and nuclear, too. It is right to maintain our nuclear component at its present level. Many of my hon. Friend's constituents work in the nuclear industry. I am sure that he will not fail to point out to them that no other party in the House supports nuclear power.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the equation is not quite as simple as that which was put to the House by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)? The Government have not yet begun to come to terms with the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste, but, at the same time, we have the technology and the knowledge to control emissions from coal-fired power stations so that they are not an environmental hazard.

It is not true that the technology for dealing with nuclear waste has not been identified. The reprocessing of spent fuel is now firmly in hand, and the search for a final disposal site is also nearing completion.

When promoting nuclear energy, will my right hon. Friend—who knows my part of the world so well—call to the attention of the Central Electricity Generating Board that, in all proposals to store spent nuclear fuel, safety and not the capital programme or the cash flow of the CEGB should be paramount?

The answer is yes. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the proposals for a dry store at Heysham, and I can tell her that safety will be a prime consideration there.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the Rocky Mountain Institute report, which says that even a sixfold increase in nuclear power would not have a significant impact on the greenhouse effect? In view of his comment that all forms of energy generation have a cost associated with the environment, why has the right hon. Gentleman continued to cut the budget of the energy efficiency office?

I am aware of the report, although I have only read about it and have not seen it. I believe that it addresses the wrong question. It asks whether nuclear power or energy efficiency can contribute most to the removal of the greenhouse effect. I believe that the greenhouse effect will be alleviated by a combination of factors nuclear power, more emphasis on the control of emissions from coal-fired power stations and energy efficiency. The Government are promoting the lot.

Will the Secretary of State elaborate on his reported speech to the Mid-Norfolk Conservative Association a couple of weeks ago—the newspaper report is headed "Cecil's Energy Jigsaw"—in which he is quoted as saying that electricity production will be less nuclear dominated after privatisation because of his opposition to gigantic nuclear stations?

I do not hold myself answerable to the Mid-Norfolk News, or whatever it is. I formed the impression from talking to the young man who was there that it was almost the first time that he had ever heard of nuclear power, and he found great difficulty in spelling it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made on the appointment of board members and the formation of the management team for Tranco.

I announced the chairman and chief executive designate appointments to the new national grid company which will control the national grid after privatisation on 9 June. Further designate appointments to the board were announced on 8 October. A copy of the press notice announcing these, and designate appointments to the boards of "Big and Little G", is being placed in the Library of the House. Good progress is being made in allocating senior management and staff between the successor companies.

Will my right hon. Friend explain what role he envisages for the board of Tranco and the two generating companies in the period prior to full privatisation?

The designate boards will be making arrangements to take over the running of the companies after vesting day on 1 January 1990. There are a great many interim preparations to be made and they are being made now; for example, the sub-division of the assets and arrangements to continue research programmes. Work is going on to ensure that there is an easy transition on vesting day.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to ensure that no import quotas are imposed on foreign coal following the privatisation of the domestic coal industry.

The Government place no restrictions on imports of coal and have no intention of introducing any. As British Coal continues to improve its efficiency we believe that it will remain the supplier of choice for most purchases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that more than 300 jobs in my constituency will be lost by an intensive energy user called Capper Pass? It attributes many reasons to that, including the fact that electricity prices are too high. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should not recur with the privatisation of coal and electricity because of the downward effect on prices which those events will have?

I certainly agree that under a privatised electricity industry the pressure on costs through competition will make prices lower than under a nationalised industry. It has always been the Government's position that a privatised electricity industry could buy its coal in the best market. As I have said, we are confident that with the continued efficiency improvements in British Coal it will be the supplier of first choice.

If coal imports increase and threaten indigenous production, will the Government take action to ensure that our national interests are always looked after?

What are the national interests? The hon. Gentleman will surely know that a reason why there has been a marginal increase in coal imports—to nearly 10 per cent.—is that under this Government we have had a successful steel industry which has been importing large amounts of coking coal, which this country cannot supply. Therefore, let us consider exactly what is the national interest.

Is it not about time that British Coal lost its virtual monopoly of coal reserves? Surely it is not healthy for a big centralised organisation to have a monopoly, as British Coal does, especially when it comes to the opencast sector, where British Coal insists on operating only large, environmentally damaging, opencast sites rather than smaller, more environmentally sensitive ones?

As my right hon. Friend said, the whole question of licensing rights and the ownership of reserves is a central matter to be addressed when we come to privatise the industry.

To ask the. Secretary of State for Energy what conclusions he has drawn from the energy conservation schemes in Leicester; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the Leicester local energy action campaign has achieved a number of successes. My right hon. Friend looks forward to receiving the final report on the campaign, which I understand is due to be issued by the end of the year.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Leicester city council and the energy consortium there on the success of the scheme? Will he assure the House that his plans for privatisation will not in any way affect the success of the scheme? In particular, will he confirm that area boards will be entitled to have the freedom to conclude contracts with the consortia, irrespective of the privatisation plans?

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the local initiative in Leicester and to say that such initiatives have also been taken in other cities. On the second part of his question, I can confirm that that will be the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the total annual cost of his Department's new offices.

The total annual cost to be charged to my Department by the Property Services Agency under the property repayment service is currently estimated at £9·45 million, although the rent paid by the PSA, and hence the actual annual cost to the taxpayer, will be substantially less.

Has the Department of Energy not been so successful with its policies, first by privatising gas, now by privatising electricity and soon by privatising coal, that it has effectively done itself out of a job? In those circumstances, would it not be better advised, rather than hiring expensive new offices, to set a time when no offices will be needed?

I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations on the Department's success. We still have to get through the Bill to privatise electricity and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, coal is for the next Parliament, too. We shall need the odd office from which to organise that. In case my hon. Friend has not seen the figures, may I tell him that in 1986 we had 300,000 sq feet. Today we have 245,000 sq feet, and when we move to our new premises next year the figure will be reduced to 184,000 sq feet. It will have been nearly halved in four years.

What measures will be taken in the new offices to conserve energy? Does the Minister agree that if the Government spent more money on conserving energy instead of on promoting power stations such as Hinkley C we would need no more new power stations for a decade?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken measures to improve the conservation and use of lighting and heating. Initiatives in that direction have been taken across Whitehall.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many kilojoules per man hour were produced by British Coal in (a) 1979 and (b) the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will express the latter as a percentage of the former.

Productivity rose from 2·24 tonnes per manshift in 1978–79 to 3·62 tonnes in 1987–88, an increase of 62 per cent. Productivity figures based on heat content are not available.

The House will wish to congratulate the miners and British Coal on achieving those remarkable productivity figures under a Conservative Government. Can my hon. Friend give comparable figures for productivity when the Labour party had control of the coal industry?

I could give the House those figures, but it would be rather boring if I did. During the Labour Government productivity in the coal industry fell every year that they were in office.

What does the Minister believe will be the effect on coal consumption of today's news of the collapse of the first serious bid to generate electricity privately under the Energy Act 1983? Will he investigate why his Department encouraged the doomed plan to reopen Rogerstone power station by backing Mr. Angelo Casfikis when there was abundant evidence then, as now, that he is a man of straw? Will the Department promise not to support dotty schemes to reopen clapped-out power stations in the face of the united opposition of local people and councils?

The Government's policy is to encourage as much competition in the generation of electricity as possible, and the thrust of the proposals that we shall place before Parliament during the next few months will be precisely to that effect. The Government have no control over who makes applications; nor do we wish to have any. But we do wish to encourage all-corners to apply on their merits for rights to produce electricity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many proposed private schemes he is aware of in connection with the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry; and what percentage of the present electricity output these represent.

I am aware of some 15 private generation proposals. If all came to fruition, they would amount to 8 per cent. of the total electricity needs of England and Wales.

As the White Paper was published barely six months ago, is my right hon. Friend encouraged by such interest at this early stage? Does that not represent a serious input of competition? More important, will he give the House every assurance that the new private generation schemes will have easy access to the national grid?

Yes. Private generators will have access as of right to the grid, although they will have to pay a fee to use the service. I hear some sniggering remarks from the Opposition, but may I tell them that those 15 proposals come from some of the finest companies in Britain and in the world.

How many of those proposals involve the use of gas to generate electricity? I notice that the Fawley B application has been withdrawn, and there is increasing talk of gas being used to generate electricity in many small schemes after privatisation. Does the Minister agree that that would be an absurd use of gas? Using gas to generate electricity is less than 50 per cent. efficient, whereas using it for heating in homes and industry is almost 100 per cent. efficient. Does the Minister agree that it is absurd in relation to the greenhouse effect?

Three or four of those applications involve the use of gas. Gas-fired stations can be produced quickly—within two years—they are extremely flexible and many people believe that the shortage of those facilities has been a disadvantage to the electricity supply industry in the past. That will be remedied.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about his plans for privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

I continue to receive representations on electricity privatisation. It is clear from my discussions with many interest groups that there is a large body of support for our proposals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that after privatisation decision-making should be better than it has sometimes been? Was it not the last Labour Government who ordered the Drax power station without gas scrubbers because they could not face telling Arthur Scargill the true cost of burning coal?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is no question but that this Government have led the field in insisting that the electricity supply industry starts to clean up emissions. There are now plans for £1·5 billion worth of pollution control plant that would not have been conceived of by the Labour Government.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next proposes to visit the city of Leicester to discuss the effects of Government arts policy there.

I have no immediate plans to visit Leicester, which I last visited on 8 September this year.

Is the Minister aware that Leicester city council applied for additional funding for five workers for its arts action project in accordance with the Minister's own pronouncements that arts are important for inner city regeneration? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment saw fit to turn down that application and would not allow one additional person? He said that he did not consider the funding of arts promotion activities to be a priority for regeneration resources. Is the Secretary of State trying to sabotage the Arts Minister's efforts to help?

The hon. Gentleman should pursue that point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In the past few weeks there has been a great deal of interest in the role that arts and heritage can play in the regeneration of inner cities. It is because of that that three useful seminars have been held, in Glasgow, Kent and Halifax. All those were based on practical evidence on the ground that arts and heritage play a leading part in the regeneration process, but it must be up to the local authorities and the Government to decide whether certain projects fall within the required criteria.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make it his policy to move towards selective endowment funding of arts and heritage bodies.

I am very much in favour of arts bodies building up endowment funds. Apart from the special case of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, however, such funds should be drawn from private sector resources.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider this and, perhaps, experiment with launching out on endowment some of the smaller museums currently funded by his Office?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. There is no doubt that the establishment of endowment funds in the arts helps to strengthen the security and independence of arts bodies. I am very much in favour of the expansion of those endowment funds. They have tended to happen with the larger bodies. The most recent example is the National Theatre, which has established a £1·5 million endowment fund, under the leadership of the outstanding retiring chairman, Lord Rayne. With the range of tax concessions already available, people should be encouraged to establish endowment funds.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how many representations from (a) library authorities and (b) members of the general public he received on the Green Paper on "Libraries".

I have received representations from 103 library authorities and about 7,000 from organisations and individuals.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he tell us how many in each of those two categories are in favour of, or are against, the proposals in the Green Paper? Judging from the response in my constituency, many members of the public, professional organisations and county councils are against proposals to put those services out to private contractors. In the light of that, is the Minister carrying out proper consultation?

I do not think that there could have been a more extensive consultation than the one we have had on the Green Paper on Libraries. For that reason I welcome the large number of representations that have been made to me, which we are presently studying. In due course I shall make a statement on them. Varied views have been expressed and I found that, as time went on, there was a greater understanding of what I was trying to achieve—to help the library services to improve themselves still further and to get better value for money. Sub-contracting is worthwhile only if one gets better value for money or an improved service. I believe that that makes absolute sense.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how many of the people who sent in representations on the Green Paper had read that paper rather than having a simple interpretation of it given to them by a union or other vested party? Those of my constituents to whom I sent a copy of the Green Paper and who wrote to the Department had different views about it after they had studied the proposals in context.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It often happens that when a Government publish a Green Paper it is misinterpreted, sometimes deliberately. I believe that that partly happened in this case, and I believe also that a large number of people—not everyone—have misinterpreted it. Those people have done themselves, as well as the library service, a disservice.

Will the Minister answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and say how many people who submitted answers to the Green Paper rejected the Government's proposals in that document? Is it not the case that the vast majority of people who replied to that Green Paper said no to the premium book scheme, no to privatising branch libraries, no to privatising the loan of education videos and no to privatising the library services to old people's homes? Does the Minister not understand that such proposals undermine the public service aspect of public libraries and must be rejected?

The majority of those who replied were more sensible than that. They did not give a yes or no to the Green Paper, but they saw that it contained a range of sensible suggestions. Those people put forward their constructive ideas about the proposals, some of which they were in favour of and some of which they had doubts about. That is what a Green Paper discussion should be all about.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last saw a performance of the Joint Stock Theatre Company.

I have not been able to see a performance by the Joint Stock Theatre Company.

Oh. Will the Minister confirm that anyone who has not seen a performance by this company is an appalling philistine? Will he also confirm that the switch in Arts Council funding for this company from revenue to project status is based on nothing more than ideological spite and dislike for the radical, cutting edge of the superb performances of this wonderful company, about which nothing bad could ever be said?

It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman showing such enthusiasm for Joint Stock Theatre Company, and I welcome that. At the end of the day it is for the Arts Council to make a judgment on the grounds of artistic merit as to whether an arts organisation should be supported. As I understand it, the Joint Stock Theatre Company is eligible for project funding, and it is open to it to make an application to the Arts Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good record, which compares favourably with that of previous Governments, on supporting touring companies? That support is right because those companies bring the arts closer to people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is worth noting that I have earmarked additional sums to the tune of £1·5 million this year for the additional touring activities of major arts bodies. As a result, we have had the evidence of increased touring by theatres, orchestras and opera companies. That is to the benefit of all our people.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the current level of attendance at museums and galleries.

The number of visitors to museums and galleries has increased strongly in recent years, rising from 68 million visitors in 1985 to 73 million in 1986. The Museums Association estimates that visitor numbers could top 100 million during Museums Year 1989, when the association will celebrate its centenary.

Will my right hon. Friend convey my congratulations and the congratulations of all hon. Members to those concerned with those figures? The much improved attendances at museums and galleries are further evidenced by the enormous growth in private, municipal and independent museums and galleries. Is that not a tribute to the improvement in and provision of education that we have had under this Government?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said—the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the number of people attending those museums all over the country represents a remarkable expansion. We are still seeing the opening of a new museum on average once every fortnight, which is testimony to the public interest in and increasing demand for museums and galleries.

Does not that interest make all the more serious what happens when charges are imposed in our museums? The Minister is ignoring the point that, on average, there has been a drop in attendance of around 40 per cent. in the first year, which sometimes continues, in all the institutions that he has allowed or encouraged to charge. Is that not more reactionary than the position before Victorian philanthropy?

It is entirely up to the trustees of bodies to decide whether to make charges and, if so, in what way. When they make charges, one of the most noticeable things is that they have a range of concessions for certain people, whether schools, residents and so on, to enable them to have access to the museum at concessionary prices. It is also interesting that a number of them are ensuring that their museum remains open without charge at certain hours, although there are charges for the rest of the day. That is another concession. Above all else, the biggest test is whether charging leads to improvements of the museum's services which, in turn, benefit the public, and there is plenty of evidence of that.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what guidance is given to civil servants with regard to their duties and responsibilities relating to attendance on official business at party conferences.

It is an established principle that civil servants should not engage in activities likely to call into question their political impartiality.

May I tell the Minister that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory and complacent reply, given the way in which the Government have blurred the distinction between Civil Service and party political activity, the most blatant example being the party political use of press officers? Will the Minister assure the House either that he will give instructions to Ministers not to use civil servants in the party political way that they do, particularly in respect of attendance at the Conservative party conference, or that he will come to the House and make proposals for a politicised Civil Service, honestly done, on a spoils system, because that is what we are going towards?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at when he refers to attendance at the Conservative party conference. If he has an allegation to make against a particular Department or Secretary of State, he should make it directly and substantiate such charges. There are clearly laid down rules and a copy of the establishments officer's guide is available in the Library and can be referred to. It is up to my right hon. Friends to stick to those rules.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the instructions and guidelines to civil servants include the fact that they should not steal documents and send them to the Labour party?

My hon. Friend makes a point. It is remarkable for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to suggest that rules are being transgressed, for example, at the Conservative party conference, without substantiating his allegations.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in the last four months in the establishment of Government agencies under the Civil Service reforms.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many executive agencies have beeen established.

Two executive agencies, the Vehicle Inspectorate and Companies House, have been established so far. A further 30 candidates are under consideration.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he now have more activities to add to the list that he announced on 25 July? What specific arrangements are being made for each agency to ensure that there is strong public accountability and a business management ethos?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. I have undertaken to give a progress report to the House every six months or so on the establishment of agencies. As I said, we now have the two first agencies—the Vehicle Inspectorate and Companies House. I expect the Department of Health and Social Security resettlement units and the employment service to be early candidates for the creation of agencies. Since I last spoke in the House, there are three new candidates—the Land Registry, the Building Research Establishment and the Crown Suppliers' fuel business.

On that last point, may I reinforce what the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service said about accountability. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we give the chief executive of an agency the responsibility of running it, he, not a permanent secretary at the Department, should be the accounting officer? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to respond positively to the recommendations made by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.

I take careful note of my hon. Friend's comments. As he says, that was one of the points made by the Select Committee and I assure him that we shall take that aspect on board.

I believe that the Minister's answers today are of some historic importance, and only time will tell why. Will he give an absolute assurance that the creation of the agencies will in no way undermine the accountability of Departments or Ministers to Members of Parliament and to Parliament?

I give an absolute assurance to the hon. Gentleman that it will not, in any way. I believe that it will actually strengthen the system of accountability. At the end of the day Ministers are directly accountable to the House.

Is not experience with the establishment of private agencies that Ministers who seek to evade responsibility will always be able to refer questions to that particular agency? That happens now with organisations in the public sector, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board. All the assurances are so much hollow nonsense, because hiving off means that the Table Office will not accept parliamentary questions, the Minister can evade them and there is a severe diminution in public accountability to the House.

I disagree. The principle of delegated authority to civil servants to carry on their responsibilities and have some budget control will lead to better management and to decision-making within the Civil Service of an even higher standard than at present. The principle is right. At the same time, the principle of ministerial accountability to the House remains absolutely firm. At the end of the day the Minister in charge, the political head of the Department, will be accountable to the House of Commons.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what targets he has set for secondments into and out of the Civil Service.

I no longer set central targets for secondments. That is now a matter for individual Departments, which will be implementing new programmes for interchange with business over the next few years. I hope that their effect will be to enhance significantly the overall number of secondments between the Civil Service and other organisations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that civil servants would benefit from some experience of the problems of small businesses? Will he encourage secondments to small businesses for civil servants?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. Without any shadow of a doubt, I can say yes, we shall try to encourage greater secondment to small businesses. I am also trying to encourage secondment from regional and local offices, aimed particularly at smaller businesses. In that way we can help. The recent White Paper, "Releasing Enterprise" gives particular emphasis to that.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the leaders of Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters are raised.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's statement in Poland about basic human rights means that trade unionists at GCHQ will no longer be victimised because they want to exercise their basic human rights in this country? As the word "hypocrisy" is not allowed here, how else can the Minister explain the difference between what the Prime Minister says in Poland and what the Government do in this country?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman can seek to draw a parallel between what is happening in Poland today and what is happening in this country. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid a highly successful visit to Poland and the hon. Gentleman should be proud of the fact that my right hon. Friend carries such authority abroad. As for the hon. Gentleman's comparison, does he not understand the difference between Poland and true democracy, with freedom under the law and a freely elected Parliament? If he does not understand that, he does not understand anything.

In his discussions with Civil Service trade unions about executive agencies, will my right hon. Friend consider locating many of these new executive agencies in the provinces in areas of high unemployment? Will he also pursuade the trade unions to agree to that course of action?

My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has answered questions on this subject in the House. The Government are actively setting the right environment in which it is possible for Departments to take decisions about whether to be inside London or in another part of the country. Four out of five civil servants are now outside London, but they need to consider carefully, sensibly and ruthlessly, whether there are advantages in moving to another part of the country.

Does the Minister accept that on more than one occasion trade unions in GCHQ offered a no-strike deal to the Government? Will he confirm that the Government did not respond to those offers and decided to ban the right of free association? What explanation can there be for today's action by many thousands of trade unionists other than a firm rebuttal of the Prime Minister's pathological hatred of British trade unionists and her belief that trade unionists throughout the country are the enemy within?

It surprises me that the hon. Gentleman has not yet accepted that national security has to come first and that GCHQ needs to operate continuously if it is to be effective. Between 1979 and 1981, 10,000 working days were lost. As a result of that, the effectiveness of GCHQ was jeopardised. That is the heart of the matter.