To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the extent of oil deposits in Poole bay and the Solent; and what special measures he expects to be taken to protect this coast line when these fields are developed.

There are no proven oil deposits in the Solent.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the close interest that he has taken in this matter and I especially thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his visit to the area last Friday together with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Does my right hon. Friend agree that Poole harbour is one of this country's most popular and attractive leisure and recreational areas on which tens of thousand of jobs in tourism depend? Notwithstanding British Petroleum's expertise and excellent record on environmental protection, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to protect our beaches from any oil spillages that may take place?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the area which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) represent is attractive and brings in a lot of money due to its tourist value. With regard to oil spillages, the normal considerations apply in terms of any approval given for exploration and development.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are some misgivings about solfire and aerial spraying to deal with oil spill problems? Will my right hon. Friend consider two excellent products manufactured in my constituency—the frogmat boom and the vikona skimmer—which have proved to be considerably more effective in dealing with oil spills?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the excellent products manufactured in his constituency. I assure him that the best type of equipment would be used in what I hope is the unlikely event of any oil spillage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many low-income households have been insulated under programmes initiated by the Energy Efficiency Office; and how many more are expected to be insulated in the current year.

Some 480,000 low-income homes had been insulated under the community insulation programme up to the end of March 1988. Around a further 125,000 homes will have been insulated by the end of the current financial year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. It is good to know that progress has been made. The Government should be congratulated on this programme on two counts as it both helps people on low income and assists in saving energy.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. My hon. Friend will recall, not least because he represents the city where the headquarters of the former Manpower Services Commission were located, that the programme was introduced by the Government through the Manpower Services Commission. As a result, the people to whom my hon. Friend referred have been helped.

Is the Minister aware of the organisation in Aberdeen known as SCARF—"Save Costs and Reduce Fuel"—which has done an excellent job in assisting low-income families to insulate their houses? Is he further aware that that organisation is facing some difficulties in getting its funding renewed? Will he therefore speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland and do all that he can to ensure that SCARF is able to continue its excellent, first-class work?

To be honest I am not totally aware of the particular organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that when I had principal responsibility for the programme I was in contact with all the voluntary organisations involved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has recently changed the upper limit to £40, which I believe will improve the potential of the programme.

First, I endorse what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said because SCARF also operates in my constituency and I believe that its work should continue. Does the Minister accept that self-congratulation is not in order when in reality the programme has been cut by the Government and the budget of the energy efficiency office has not just been cut but is to be further cut within the next two or three years? Does the Minister agree that if the Government are serious about energy efficiency it is time that they brought in a comprehensive programme to ensure that the targets that they claim to support can be met?

The hon. Gentleman uses the word "target", and that is exactly what the Government have done for the whole range of efficiency measures. We have targeted them on the areas where they will be most productive and the people who are most in need.

Does the Minister agree that if the Government are to make a reasonable contribution to reducing raw energy demand without affecting people's comfort he will need to do something rather more dramatic in consultation with his colleagues at the Department of Employment to see that the rules are sufficiently relaxed to facilitate the programmes in England and Wales covered by Neighbourhood Energy Action? The NEA is based in Newcastle but covers major cities where, up until Christmas, it was expected that in 1989 the number of people employed on draught proofing and neighbourhood insulation schemes for low-income households would fall to one eighth of the level in 1988.

If the hon. Gentleman talked to Neighbourhood Energy Action he would find that it has welcomed the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but principally by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to cover the very point raised by the hon. Gentleman. We must now see whether that initiative works through the system in the ways that both the hon. Gentleman and I would like to see.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the cost for the Central Electricity Generating Board to comply with the European Community directives on emissions of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.

The CEGB has estimated that the cost of meeting its obligations under the EC directive on the reductions of sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from large combustion plant will be about £2 billion at 1988 prices. There is at present no EC directive governing emissions of carbon dioxide.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the excellent report in the Spectator recently orating that human casualties from direct and indirect coal pollution in the United Kingdom are probably about 1,700 per year and that in terms of its devastating environmental effect coal power is much more harmful and expensive than nuclear power?

There is no known way of making electricity which does not have a considerable environmental impact. My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to some of the environmentally harmful and in some cases disastrous impacts of coal production. For that reason, we are engaged in a massive cleaning up of coal-fired production to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) told us last week that a dose of germs was good for for us. Why has she changed her mind about sulphur emissions?

My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is right on this issue as she is on so many others—especially in terms of the last part of her question, to which I did not address myself. It is true, of course, that nuclear power contributes considerably towards a cleaner environment.

Whatever the cost in money terms, is my hon. Friend aware of the cost in terms of despoiling the countryside by taking limestone to use as the active ingredient in the FGD process? Is that not, therefore, another instance of nuclear energy being cleaner, safer and environmentally more attractive?

About 2 per cent. of limestone production will be used for the entire retrofit programme. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are great benefits to be had from nuclear power. That is one of the reasons why we are determined to include it in the range of options for the production of electricity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 5, if he will now indicate what measures he will take to resolve the problems for redundant mineworkers created by the restart programme; and if the will make a statement.

We intend to make an announcement about this problem shortly.

At the last Energy Question Time we had the same sort of reply from the Secretary of State for Energy. I hope that the Minister will be more helpful and that the harassment of redundant miners will cease as soon as possible. When my hon. Friends recently met Ministers such as the Secretary of State for Energy, they were given answers such as, "I would love to do it but I cannot find a way." It is time that a way was found, that it was communicated to the Department of Employment and that miners were treated like mine managers who were made redundant and who finished up with £100,000-plus in golden handshakes. When we try to find out the facts the Department of Energy and Hobart house will not tell us. Let us have everybody treated in the same way.

One or two legal and administrative complications remain outstanding. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment are agreed that these must be resolved urgently.

My hon. Friend knows that Sherwood has more miners than any other constituency, and that more than 5,000 miners in Sherwood took advantage of the generous redundancy scheme. Those people have been treated fairly and courteously, and have had no complaints, but will my hon. Friend ensure that they are exempt from certain provisions of the Social Security Bill, and will he agree on that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment? Will my hon. Friend also ensure that it is recognised that they are officially retired, and that they are removed from the unemployment register?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that this was one of the most generous redundancy schemes ever known. Many other industries would have welcomed a similar scheme. My hon. Friend will have to wait for the final decision and the announcement that we shall make as to what will be done in the future.

The Under-Secretary of State must be aware that when the miners' parliamentary group met the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State, Department of Employment, they specifically said, and the group accepted, that they wish to resolve the problem. I do not know how long it will take to do that, but as they have said that they wish to resolve the problem, will the Minister consider issuing an edict to the Department of Employment and others saying that they should stop harassing ex-miners?

We are certainly considering whether some administrative arrangements can be made along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many miners who were made redundant would have been able to obtain jobs if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not reneged on his promise to free the private sector and to allow private sector investment to compete with British Coal, which would have resulted in many more jobs being available?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced in the autumn that it its our intention, after the next general election, to privatise the coal industry. We think that that is the best way to handle the future of the industry.

Restart interviews are not for everybody but for a group of people made redundant between 1983 and 1986 and aged between 50 and 60. The Minister says that this problem will be resolved. The Minister of State, Department of Employment, had this brought to his attention in July of last year but we are still waiting for a decision to be taken and for the harassment of this small group of ex-miners to stop, allowing them to go on with what they were led to believe was a retirement from the coal industry. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that this was even stated in written evidence given to the Secretary of State for Employment?

The hon. Gentleman will know that it was always made clear that the terms of the redundancy agreement, rather than being as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, included availability for work. Now the question whether any special consideration should be given to them arises. There has never been any doubt about the availability for work conditions being applied—

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but the question now is whether we should make special exemptions on top of that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the protection of low-income consumers' rights in the light of privatisation of the electricity industry.

I have received some representations on the need for measures to protect the low-income consumer of electricity.

Would not a more extensive energy-saving programme be more helpful to low-income households, as it would ensure that less heat is wasted?

As the hon. Gentleman may have heard us say, we have put a considerable push behind the community insulation programme. We have a technical difficulty because of the change in the training scheme, but we want to see the scheme renewed and taken up again as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best protection for the low-income consumer will be competition? Should not the Opposition be reminded at every possible opportunity that under this Government, even taking into account the April increases, electricity prices will have fallen in real terms by 8·1 per cent., whereas under the Labour Government they increased by the equivalent of two percentage points every six weeks? The Opposition should never be allowed to forget that or to get away with it.

My hon. Friend is right. In considering the Electricity Bill in Committee, we find it difficult to reconcile the Labour party's posture as the friend of the consumer with its record when in Government. The Labour Government presided over record price increases week after week.

Surely it is high time that the electricity, gas and water industries had a common policy to avoid disconnections, especially those involving low-income families and pensioners, so that those vulnerable groups and others are not left without heat, light or water for months or, in some instances, years on end, as has happened?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a common code for electricity and gas. The code has been modified and has been shown to work. Disconnections of gas supply fell by 21 per cent. last year. [Interruption.] Questions about water supply disconnections should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Is not one of the great benefits of privatisation the fact that it clarifies, not least in administrative form, the rights of consumers, which is to the benefit of all consumers, including those on low incomes?

Yes, Sir. Several new rights are given to consumers under the Electricity Bill. As I announced to the Committee, the changes proposed for gas by the director general of Ofgas will be extended to the electricity supply industry. That will put the low-income user of both sources of power in the best position ever.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency 60 per cent. of households have incomes of £4,000 per year, or less and that it is an area of especially high unemployment? Does he appreciate that paying energy supply bills is a special problem for those who are unemployed? Will he consider the particular problems of the town of Mountain Ash, where gas and electricity supply disconnections have increased fourfold in the past nine years? Will he consider also the implications of the present policy for low-income consumers?

Under this Government, help to pay heating bills is a consumer's right. That was not the position under the Labour Government. Under this Government, there has been an increase from £90 million to more than £417 million in the support given through the heating allowance, which is now built into income support. The voluntary code and the introduction of prepayment meters has had a dramatic effect on disconnections throughout the rest of the country. I shall be meeting representatives of the South Wales Electricity Board tomorrow evening and I shall bring the matter to their attention.

As fuel costs to the electricity industry have fallen by more than 7 per cent. in real terms in the past two years, will the Secretary of State strike a blow against inflation and help the consumer by cancelling the 6 per cent. proposed price increase in April?

In arriving at the proposed price increase, the industry has taken into account the reduction in its coal bill. The proposed increase might otherwise have been higher. Whatever the increase is, it will be below the rate of inflation. Once again, it will be this Government who are keeping price increases below the rate of inflation. It was the Labour Government who increased them ahead of the rate of inflation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the current policy of British Gas on debt and disconnections.

The Director General of Gas Supply recently announced agreement with British Gas on new methods of debt collection with a view to reducing the number of disconnections.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome news. A reduction of 21 per cent. in disconnections in 1988 is significant and demonstrates that the structures that were put in place are working. I am sure that the new procedures which my right hon. Friend has just announced will help to get the number of disconnections down even lower. However, is it not the case that British Gas in the private sector is showing a flexibility and compassion which it could not show in the public sector? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the same arrangements about disconnections will apply to electricity and that no one should be cut off simply because they have difficulty paying a bill immediately?

I think that in this case the electricity industry can claim to have set the pace for the gas industry. The electricity industry has substantially improved the position, principally as a result of the introduction of pre-payment meters. Their introduction in the gas industry will produce a similar and welcome improvement.

Will the Secretary of State examine the reason why cut-offs are so frequent among lower-paid people who use gas? In my constituency there are elderly people who use gas only for a gas poker. Yet their accounts show that two units plus standing charge works out at more than £3 per unit. Such crippling and cruel incidents are happening. Will the Secretary of State consider the crippling effect of standing charges on low-income families who use a minimum amount of gas?

This matter has been examined by both Labour and Conservative Governments, who concluded that the standing charge is the fairest way to recover the fixed overheads accompanying the supply of electricity and gas. They concluded that the people who would suffer from the abolition of standing charges would be those on low incomes, whose bills would rise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a direct link between the very helpful downward trend in disconnections and the fact that gas prices have dropped by 9 per cent. since gas privatisation? Is that not an indicator for the future of the electricity supply industry, in which there will also be downward pressure on prices?

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition predicted all sorts of huge escalations in gas prices as a result of privatisation, but in fact gas prices have fallen since privatisation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many jobs are supported directly or indirectly by the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom.

I understand that the total number of jobs directly dependent on the United Kingdom nuclear industry is estimated at about 120,000. The number of jobs indirectly dependent on the nuclear industry is estimated at around 60,000.

Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show what a significant contribution nuclear power makes to the United Kingdom economy? Does it not also show how important it is in providing jobs, particularly in the north-west?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The nuclear industry is a very important source of well-paid jobs. It also makes a substantial contribution to the improvement of the environment.

Why have the Government been so callous in their approach to the fast breeder reactor programme, which is supported by many of the Secretary of State's colleagues, if the nuclear industry is so important? Why have the French now decided to proceed with the full-scale development of such a programme? What do they see in the fast breeder reactor programme that the Secretary of State fails to see? Are they just brighter?

I explained to the House that, first of all, we have not been callous about the fast breeder reactor. We are giving Dounreay five years more for the operation of the reactor and approximately nine years more for the reprocessing plant. Dounreay will continue to be a very substantial contributor to the Caithness and Sutherland economy for years to come.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that not only jobs are at stake, but technology? The United Kingdom's pressurised water reactor programme is far too small, and the amount of nuclear-generated electricity is small by comparison with France, Sweden and a number of other major states.

That is true, but we believe that we have at present just about the right level of electricity coming from nuclear power. We have a diversity of supply—with coal, oil, gas and nuclear power—that gives us the security that is a vital part of the industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the value of the overseas earnings of British Nuclear Fuels plc for the last year for which figures are available.

British Nuclear Fuels' overseas earnings in the financial year 1987–88 were £134 million. Reprocessing contracts have been signed totalling £2·77 billion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not only excellent news for the industry but makes a substantial contribution to our balance of payments?

Yes, BNF's overseas earnings make a substantial contribution, and will increasingly do so. BNF will be one of Britain's biggest yen earners, having already contracted business worth more than 500 billion yen or £2·5 billion.

Will the Minister give an assurance that, when contracts are finalised with the Japanese Government and other Governments, they will include a provision that waste will always be returned to the country of origin, and that it will not in future be buried in the so-called offshore dump for nuclear waste that is to be built off the west coast of Cumbria when Nirex has managed to fix the inquiry? We support the nuclear industry, but do not accept that we should take everybody's nuclear waste in the future.

No decision has yet been made about where nuclear waste will be buried, if it is buried. I gibe the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks; since 1976 all contracts for overseas earnings include an option providing for the repatriation of the waste, and those options will be exercised.

Will my hon. Friend join in congratulating the workers of British Nuclear Fuels' Springfields division in my constituency on their contribution to improved productivity, which contributed to our nuclear industry's remarkable export perfonnance?

Yes, gladly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary.

The latest annual report of the chief constable of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary was published in August 1988. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the constabulary is armed? If he can confirm that that is the case, will he indicate which Secretary of State of the time first authorised the arming of the authority's constabulary?

Yes, I confirm that the constabulary does carry arms when required. The Secretary of State who, in 1976, took the decision to arm the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) or, as he then was, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.

Will the Minister acknowledge that Liberal Members at the time voted against the arming of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary? Will he also say whether he is prepared to give an assurance to the House that when either the authority on the nuclear industry is privatised, there will not be an upsurge of private armed police forces in this country?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we have no plans to privatise the Atomic Energy Authority. As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the Liberal party was ill-advised, as usual, in taking that particular decision—as in so many others that it takes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Central Electricity Generating Board persists in sending spent nuclear fuel to Morecambe, the authority will have to increase its constabulary? In view of British Nuclear Fuels' vast profits that my hon. Friend has just referred to, will he consider asking BNF to spend some of those profits on enabling each advanced gas-cooled reactor station to build stores for its own spent nuclear fuel, so that the CEGB will not try to send it all to Morecambe?

That is a matter for the CEGB, and for planning procedures.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the committee of United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association.

I meet UKOOA often, but have no plans to do so currently.

When does the Minister expect to conclude his discussions with UKOOA and other operators about the installation of sub-sea emergency shutdown valves, and precisely when does he expect to publish the regulations?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date. Negotiations are continuing, and I am as concerned about the matter as he is.

I understand that the vessel that broke adrift in the North sea is soon to be replaced, and that that field will be back on stream. When he meets the association, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the field's operators on getting it back on stream in record time and in a very hostile environment?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will do that, but I will also ensure that safety regulations are properly implemented in that and all other fields.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the future of Aberthaw A power station.

None. I would expect Aberthaw A power station to play a useful role in the future plans of the National Power Company.

Is the Minister aware of proposals that low-grade coal should be used in a new process that also has considerable environmental benefits for the production of electricity at Aberthaw? Is he in favour of that development, and is he encouraging it? Has he received representations from the Secretary of State for Wales about the proposal, and will he tell us about it?

I am certainly not aware of any representations sent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that we are extremely interested in anything that improves the efficiency and lessens the environmental impact of Aberthaw and, indeed, of coal-fired stations throughout the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on recent initiatives taken by his Department in order to ensure that suitable arrangements are made between British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the continued use by the South of Scotland Electricity Board of deep-mined Scottish coal.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have made it clear to both sides in the negotiations that the Government would welcome their reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement.

That is a fairly interesting reply. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the national interest in this country, in relation to the continuation of deep-mined coal production in Scotland, will not be determined by the courts? Will he assure us that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland will use their persuasive powers with British Coal and the SSEB to ensure that contractual relationships are upheld and that deep-mined coal from Longannet and Cockenzie is used in power stations, so that we do not find ourselves in the farcical position of a Longannet project being written off the books because of a failure to reach agreement?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the negotiations are to be carried out by the two concerns, not by the Government. I have, however, made sure—as I said that I would when I met the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—that the negotiations are now being carried forward at the highest level in both companies, as a matter of urgency.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Coal's operating profits all come from the Nottinghamshire coal field? Why should my constituents suffer job losses when we are subsidising other areas in the United Kingdom?

I think that what the House wants is a sizeable, economic, successful coal industry, and the Government have been making substantial investments of taxpayers' money to give the industry every chance to be successful.

I shall welcome any intervention that the Secretary of State may make in the matter. May I impress on him that the future of the Scottish coal industry is clearly at stake in efforts to ensure that the dispute is resolved? Does he agree that it would be absurd if the industry's future were determined in the courtroom rather than the boardroom?

I would not regard it as satisfactory if the courts were to make a final decision. Let me make it clear on behalf of the Government that I want both sides to get together and to reach a sensible agreement.

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

My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Gas plc in November when a range of issues were discussed.

While I note that reply, will the Minister assure the House when he next meets the chairman he will raise the issue of the charges that gas boards impose on people who report a possible gas leak in their home? The Minister is no doubt aware of the urgency of checking possible leaks quickly, but often the cost of doing that is £30, £40 or £50. Does the Minister accept that that cost puts enormous numbers of people off reporting such leaks? Does he agree that there should be no charge on something so important?

The hon. Gentleman has referred to a matter that is part of our ongoing discussions with British Gas. I know that British Gas shares the hon. Gentleman's concern on this matter, but ultimately somebody—the customer—must pay.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has met the chairman of the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum to discuss the restructuring of staff.

The organisation and management of the Victoria and Albert museum are matters for the director and trustees of the museum. I have every confidence in them.

Has the Minister seen the critical remarks of professor Martin Kemp, who has just resigned as a trustee of the V and A because he says that the Government are increasingly appointing to museum boards people who mirror their policies? Why does the Minister not admit that he wants more people who can be economical with the truth, such as the present chairman of the V and A, and not trustees who genuinely protect the country's heritage?

I deplore the way in which the hon. Lady phrased that question. The V and A has an outstanding chairman, outstanding trustees and an outstanding director. If the hon. Lady looks at the list of trustees, she will see a broad balance of interests, concerns and backgrounds, including three professors who concentrate on areas of scholarship, business men and people from public service. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes such appointments, it is important to ensure that there is a broad range of interests, which is what we have at the V and A.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that even those who believe that he is right to have confidence in the trustees and the director, and even those who feel that the hon. Lady's slur was quite unwarranted and unworthy, feel that this incident has not been handled as well or as sensibly as it might have been, especially bearing in mind the long and distinguished service given to the museum by those who have been declared redundant? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of thanking them for their services?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. I, too, attach the highest importance to good staff management and good personal relations. I must reinforce the fact that I fully support the overall objectives that are designed to maintain and enhance the standards of scholarship and research, to improve the standards of maintenance and management of the objects in the collections, as well as increasing the museum's contribution to education while attracting the public. All those are important objectives. I am grateful to all the staff, many of whom have served the Victoria and Albert museum for many years.

Will the Minister explain the nature of the Government's interference, which was quoted by professor Martin Kemp as one of the reasons for his resignation from the trustees? Does he accept that, with so many of the staff voicing their concern and lack of support for the restructuring plan, all is far from well at the Victoria and Albert museum and that he could best fulfil his responsibilities by setting up a committee of inquiry into the running, the curatorial and administrative structuring and the funding of the museum?

I must reconfirm that there is no question of any Government interference in the management of the Victoria and Albert museum. I believe—I have made this clear repeatedly—that the Government should delegate responsibility for the management of the museums to the director, trustees and the chairman of the trustees. I am sure that that principle of devolution of authority is right.

How has management restructuring worked out in other museums such as the national maritime museum at Greenwich, the natural history museum and the science museum? Have they been able to retain the services of their top experts and scholars? Can my right hon. Friend throw any light on what differences there may be between what happened at those museums and what happened at the Victoria and Albert museum?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that over the months and years there have been a number of management changes to modernise the administration of our great institutions. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the science museum and the natural history museum have experienced changes. The national maritime museum has experienced changes broadly in line with the concept behind the changes at the Victoria and Albert museum. They have relieved the scholars—to whose research work I attach the highest importance—of day-to-day management. The concept has been successfully implemented at the national maritime museum, from which we should learn a lesson.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what further representations he has received over the funding of the British Theatre Association library.

I have received many representations from organisations and individuals. I am hopeful that a solution will now be found to enable the continuation of the main services offered by the British Theatre Association in a suitable location.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous loss that would result if the association and the library were forced to close? How optimistic is the Minister that a solution will be found in the very near future? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that tremendous anxiety is felt, not only in the theatre world—where, as he must be aware, it certainly exists—but more widely? Scholarship is at stake, and one hopes that a solution will be found in the next few weeks.

To my surprise, I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. I certainly accept that the library and information services provided by the British Theatre Association library have been valuable, not only to professionals in the theatre, but to amateur dramatic societies around the country, for which they provide an important information service. I have instructed the British library to work intensively with the British Theatre Association library and other organisations with a view to seeking a viable solution. I have recently had meetings with the director, chairman and president of the British Theatre Association library, as well as British library officials, and I am confident that a viable solution will be found from one of the options that are being considered.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the results of the Arts Council symposium on ethnic minority arts.

I was able to attend this particular symposium with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). The council reaffirmed its determination to pursue equality of opportunity across all areas of the arts.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I am sure that he and the rest of the Treasury team are doing all they can to promote opportunities in ethnic minority arts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one purpose of promoting opportunities in ethnic minority art is to achieve a greater understanding and tolerance of each other's cultures? If we do not learn to understand, tolerate and live with each other's cultures, we shall return to the dark ages.

I must agree with my hon. Friend. There is no shadow of doubt that Chinese, Asian and Afro-Caribbean cultures all have contributions to make to the culture of this country. The Arts Council is right to promote these policies, provided that they are based on the principle of equality of opportunity, which they are, and provided that any funds directed towards artistic organisations are based on the artistic merits of those organisations.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment the Office of Arts and Libraries has recently made of the health and well-being of live theatre in the United Kingdom.

Evidence from the public and private sectors shows that the theatre is in a healthy state. There are more than 600 venues in Great Britain, and about 350 separate drama companies. Attendance is around 50 million a year. The variety and quality of Britain's theatre make it the best in the world.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer; he knows that I fully support all that he has just said. Will he take this opportunity to reassure those who work in the theatre that he recognises now, as he has done in the past, the continuing role of Government through other Departments—the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry—in encouraging private investment by so-called angels in future productions of the theatre?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who plays a prominent role as adviser to the Society of West End Theatres. I have repeatedly made clear my—willingness past and future—to hear the society's views on the health of the theatre in the West End. I am certainly keen to follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion.

To aks the Minister for the Arts whether he has discussed the redevelopment of the Royal Opera House with the chairmen of English Heritage and the Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.

The redevelopment of the Royal Opera House is, at this stage, a matter for the Royal Opera House development board to discuss with interested parties.

How much truth is there in The Guardian allegation that there will be a major departure from the plans originally put to English Heritage? Will the Government ensure that there are sufficient funds for redevelopment in the interests of Covent Garden, so that the board of the opera house does not have to turn to short-term commercialism to achieve a lasting monument in London?

To answer the hon. Gentleman's first point—if this is what he was referring to—the suggestion of a wholly new concept known as opera in Disneyland is quite false, and the Royal Opera House has no such concept in mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has for some time been working on redevelopment proposals for the longer term—proposals devised for the 1990s—to modernise the institution, to bring it up to date and to ensure that it matches other great opera houses around the world. That will be done entirely with private sector development, and I wholly support the Royal Opera House's objectives in that direction.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet with officials of the Civil Service trade unions; and what topics are on the agenda.

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

What pre-testing of coastguards' eyesight and hearing takes place, and what continuous assessment is there of their eyesight and hearing, given that more of them work at VDUs and listening stations, often, I am told, for 12 hours at a stretch? What breaks do they have during the clay and throughout the year, so that their eyes and ears can recover? I know that that is a detailed question, but I should appreciate it if the Minister were to write to me with his thoughts and some accurate information.

I shall, of course, draw that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for coastguards. If the hon. Gentleman expects me to answer his question off the cuff, he thereby ensures that I am the Minister for everything.

My right hon. Friend usually trots out the answer that four fifths of civil servants work outside the south-east triangle when I ask questions about the movement of civil servants to the north of England. His answer earlier was disappointing: he does not appear to have plans to talk to the Association of First Division Civil Servants to ask why none of its members want to go to the north of England, and why so few are there. What is his Department doing to encourage other Departments to see that senior civil servants take their Departments with them to the north of England?

I am entirely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's views. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is responsible for the overall policy of relocation of civil servants. I have repeatedly made it plain that four out of five civil servants work outside Greater London, that in the past nine years another 12,000 have moved outside Greater London through dispersal and relocation and that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has identified a review of 34,000 civil servants who could possibly be moved. It is not certain whether they will be, but the review is under way. I hope that that encourages my hon. Friend.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met Civil Service unions; and what matters 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.

Has the Minister given further consideration to the demands of the Civil Service trade unions that interviewers for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys should be included in the principal Civil Service pension scheme, as contributions towards that scheme are already deducted from their salaries?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that discussions are continuing. This is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall make a point of ensuring that the hon. Gentleman receives a specific reply on that issue.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great disappointment shown by many members of the Civil Service trade unions when his Department had to transfer to the Treasury my question on Civil Service relocations to the Fylde coast. Will he take this opportunity to endorse the Fylde coast as a suitable place for civil servants to work, and will he provide such information as is necessary to show that the Fylde coast is suitable to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General when he makes his decisions on the matter?

I understand my hon. Friend's sense of frustration, but there is a clearly laid-out division of responsibility between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and myself on Civil Service matters. Where I can, I try to give a broad Government reply on Civil Service matters, even if they do not directly concern me. As for my hon. Friend's specific point, I shall draw my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the importance of attracting more civil servants to the Fylde area and ensure that he takes that point on board.

To revert to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. (Mr. Barnes) about OPCS interviewers, has the Minister seen the leaflet issued by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants entitled, "Would you do this job?" Is the Minister aware that those 500 interviewers, who are mainly women, are badly paid and have no holiday or sick pay, no job security and no promotion prospects? They have been struggling for 10 years for a pension. Is it not high time that that injustice was remedied by the Minister and that those women, who often work irregular hours alone, at night and in dangerous circumstances, were given justice and a proper pension?

Although it is not my direct responsibility, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the hon. Gentleman's points.

Is it not the case that the Paymaster General's office is in Crawley? Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Paymaster General considers that to be the best place to deploy his resources rather than the north-east or the north-west?

It is only fair that I do not give a direct answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend. But he made it plain in a recent statement that we are reviewing the position of 34,000 civil servants to see whether it is possible to relocate them. I hope that my hon. Friend realises the importance that the Government attach to relocation.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans to alter the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants in those units of administration and Government work that may be proposed for privatisation.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm or deny the rumoured existence of a proposed Privatisation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which would remove the pension rights of civil servants?

I know of no such Bill. But let me make it plain that the policy on privatisation remains clear and consistent, as it has for the past 10 years. It is for each Government Department to review whether any of its operations could be more efficiently managed by means of privatisation. Failing that, there are other ways of dealing with the matter. If privatisation is an option, it is of course important to treat civil servants fairly and properly. Each case must be reviewed, and the Secretary of State for the Department involved will be accountable to the House.

If my right hon. Friend has no plans to alter the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants before privatisation, does he plan to introduce alterations to allow for regional pay, thereby saving the British taxpayer a considerable amount of money?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point in terms of not only the location but the recruitment and retention of civil servants. Recent agreements reached with the Civil Service unions have led to greater flexibility in the arrangements, allowing for flexible pay to take into account people's skills and the area in which they work. That is the direction in which we are going, and I think it makes entire sense in terms of proper recruitment and retention policies.

The Opposition welcome the Minister's statement that he has not heard of the Privatisation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1990, and that at present he has no plans to change the existing pension entitlements of civil servants prior to privatisation in any area for which the Government may have such proposals. May I ask him to go a little further and say that is his view, and that in future he will oppose any changes in, for example, the pension entitlements of civil servants before any privatisation?

Each case has to be treated on its merits according to the circumstances. If we are talking about the Civil Service and our proposals for privatisation, clearly the options available to the civil servants who are involved will have to be set out—whether they stay in the Civil Service, or whether they have an option to transfer, in which case they will probably have the option to transfer their pension as well. Clearly, it is important to ensure that, so far as terms and conditions are concerned, civil servants are treated as fairly as possible.