To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the level of employment in the offshore oil and gas industry in each of the years from 1983 to 1989.

Employment in the offshore oil and gas industry has ranged from 31,300 to 22,300 during the past seven years. It is currently over 30,700—the highest level since 1984.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him of not only offshore investment, but inshore investment in the oil industry—in valves, heavy engineering equipment and highly technological equipment, in which British engineers lead the world? Will he do all he can to encourage inshore investment, as well as offshore investment?

My hon. Friend is right. Literally tens of thousands of people are employed onshore in the services and capital goods industries. I am delighted that the numbers employed onshore have increased substantially in the past year.

Will the Minister explain why his Department today issued such a pathetically weak response to the report of the Select Committee on Energy on Britoil and BP job losses and assets sales? Why was not his Department able at least to agree with the Select Committee that to sack 1,000 people a mere 18 months after apparently promising them job security represented a substantial breach of the spirit of that assurance? Has not the Department of Energy, under Tory control, once again demonstrated that it is not fit to police oil companies independently in the North sea and has no intention of protecting Scottish interests?

The hon. Member will understand that it was not a weak response in any sense. It responded to the points that he and others made in the Select Committee report, which we welcomed and, by and large, agreed with. Unlike him, I am no interventionist.

Now that offshore employment is at its highest level for six years, thanks to the massive investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is good news for jobs in Scotland?

It is certainly good news for jobs in Scotland. My hon. Friend points out what some Opposition Members apparently do not want as much as we do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of Greenpeace; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend and I have not met Greenpeace.

Does the Minister agree that, in that case, more regular meetings are needed with Greenpeace and that, at those metings, the decommissioning of nuclear plants should be discussed, especially those of Sellafield and Springfield which discharge into the River Ribble and the coastline of my constituency at Southport? Does he also agree that the three-mile safety limit should be extended to 15 miles around the nuclear power stations where 3 million people live?

I am always happy to meet Greenpeace and any other organisations to discuss matters of energy policy. We have made our intentions on nuclear policy perfectly clear. There will be a full review of nuclear policy in 1994. We all look forward with interest to discovering the energy policies of the party that the hon. Gentleman represents. There seems to be some confusion between those in his party who were once members of the alliance.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he shares Greenpeace's concern for the environment? When he meets Greenpeace, will he find out whether it will acknowledge the cost of the measures it advocates and recognise that those costs have to be passed on to the consumer?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. The comparison does not involve merely economic costs but environmental costs. One of the concerns, which I suspect Greenpeace and many of us have, is what to do about sulphur emissions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in an excellent speech to the Royal Society last week, the Government, as part of their policy, are fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment at the most modern of our coal-fired power stations, Drax in Yorkshire, at a cost of about £600 million for one single site. My right hon. Friend said:

"retrofitting desulphurisation equipment is not the only way to achieve reductions. Indeed it can create wider environmental damage because it involves mining limestone (sometimes from some of the most beautiful areas of our countryside), the disposing of gypsum waste, and adding something to carbon dioxide emissions and thus to the greenhouse effect. As so often, solving one problem can create or exacerbate others."

Can the Minister explain the present position, because he appears to be switching the arguments weekly? Can he tell us why the Government have allowed the two new generators to slide backwards on the £2 billion programme to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to 12,000 GW of electricity generation capacity?

The Government are committed to meeting the European Community large plant combustion directive in full and we will do that. I commend the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the most recent edition of the magazine "Power in Europe", which I suspect he reads with interest. It states:

"In Brussels, European Community officials say the decision does not place the United Kingdom in contravention of Community environmental rules. 'We're concerned with the amount of sulphur in the air and not with how it does —or does not—get there,' said a source close to the European Community Commissioner for the Environment."

If my hon. Friend would like to keep one step ahead of Greenpeace, would he raise as a matter of urgency the fear expressed about the safety of French nuclear installations? Is he aware that there is a real fear among my constituents who live along the channel coast of a French Chernobyl, because the inspector of French nuclear safety has published a most damning report which states that, within the next 20 years, there is a one in 20 chance of a major nuclear accident in some of France's unsatisfactory nuclear stations, 14 of which are within 30 miles of the English coast? Will he raise that as a matter of urgency?

If those reports are continuing to cause concern to my hon. Friend and others who have constituencies near his, I will ensure that they have a full explanation of the situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current estimate, coal equivalent, of electricity that will be imported from France in 1990; and how much has been imported since the first months of 1990.

Future imports and exports of electricity will largely depend on commercial decisions by Electricitéde France and on market conditions in England and Wales. I understand that there were virtually no imports in January and February.

Further to the Minister's answer, does he agree that it is a foolish policy for the Government to depend on energy supplies for this country from a foreign source? If we are so full of the idea that we should have electricity by cable or wire, why do not the Government pursue a policy of using the existing connector between Scotland and England, which has a capacity equivalent to 1·5 million tonnes of coal and, if strengthened, would have a capacity of 3 million tonnes? Why does not the Minister pursue that, as a more sensible energy policy?

Electricité de France will provide an important source of competition in the United Kingdom electricity market. However, so will Scotland. I understand that, just as there are discussions between the area boards and the French, so too are there discussions between the area boards and the Scottish boards for the import of electricity from Scotland into England and Wales.

My hon. Friend has underlined the importance of our nuclear industry. What preparations are being made for the vesting of our nuclear stations in Nuclear Electric plc?

I am glad to be able to tell the House that full drafts of Nuclear Electric's licences have been prepared, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will place copies of them in the Vote Office and in the Library this afternoon.

Given the feasibility of the linkage with France, is there any real technical difficulty in providing a similar link between Scotland and Northern Ireland?

I am happy to look at that matter and hear the right hon. Gentleman's views on it in greater detail.

Does the Minister agree that section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 provides for electricity from France to be part of the non-fossil fuel quota? Does my hon. Friend agree also that, when electricity from France is available, it will be the cheapest in Europe? Does he agree further that, in future, it might be an excellent idea to build a second line across, carrying 2,000 MW?

The arrangement for French electricity will be outside the non-fossil fuel obligation. However, sales of French imports will not have to pay the levy. Clearly, with electricity supplies to and from Scotland and to and from France, we are anxious to ensure the greatest possible competition for the electricity industry in this country, which must be of benefit to the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make it his policy to publish his exchange of correspondence with the member of the European Commission responsible for competition policy regarding the coal contracts agreed between British Coal and National Power and PowerGen.

It has been the policy of successive Governments to treat correspondence with the Commission as confidential.

What is the Secretary of State doing swanning around in Europe, fixing up contracts for imports of foreign coal, when he stood at the Dispatch Box and promised miners in this country a fair deal? The miners of Nottinghamshire will not be very pleased with him; nor will the pensioner nor the consumer. Let us have the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box and let us have the information that we require about what he has been doing.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that I have been swanning round Europe fixing up coal contracts. Rather the opposite: I have been to Brussels on two occasions to obtain appropriate clearance for the contracts that have been negotiated between British Coal and the generators. I am pleased to inform the House that I do not see any difficulties in that clearance. The size of British Coal's market in the United Kingdom will be limited only by its capacity to supply coal of the required quality and price.

But does not my right hon. Friend agree that, when the electricity supply industry is privatised, it will at long last be in the interests of the generators to buy cheap rather than dearer coal?

It has always been in the interests of generators to buy cheap coal, but they must buy cheap coal that is of the appropriate quality. British Coal is in the best position to supply the bulk of the requirements for British generators.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has made an estimate of the effect that announced changes in domestic gas and electricity prices in April 1990 will have on the retail prices index.

It is estimated that the changes in gas and electricity prices will add about 0·4 per cent. to the retail prices index once the tariffs have been fully implemented.

How does the Secretary of State's recent decision to allow electricity prices to rise by more than the rate of inflation square with the Government's long-playing record, which we hear every Tuesday and Thursday at 3.15 pm, by the female lead singer of the "Mid-Staffs Blues Band", called "Bearing Down on Inflation"?

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's well-rehearsed supplementary question. The increase in the price of electricity which has recently been announced means that, on average, all prices will be increased by less than 6 per cent., which is less than the rate of inflation. Average domestic prices will rise by about 9 per cent., and, on average, customers over 1 MW will get a reduction in price.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since privatisation, the real price of gas to the consumer has fallen and that during the last five years of the Labour Government the price of electricity rose by 155 per cent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that suggests that privatisation rather than nationalisation is the key to consumer satisfaction?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Government, prices have fallen, whereas they rose substantially under the last Government.

Nevertheless, does the Secretary of State agree that the price rises that will take effect from next week have emerged as the most extraordinary unprotected rip-off ever to face the British consumer? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the letter that I received last weekend from Professor Stephen Littlechild, the regulator of the industry, who stated:

"I shall have no power to suspend the recent price increases or to impose temporary price increases at a different level."?

That is not correct. There is nothing that I can do to stop anybody commenting on the price of electricity. If I wanted to do something about it, I should not be able to achieve it. Although the price increase for domestic consumers is slightly above the rate of inflation this year, it will be followed by two years of price stability, which is good for the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the rate of productivity growth in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

Productivity in the Nottinghamshire coalfield rose from 2·9 tonnes per manshift in 1985–86 to 4·64 tonnes in the first 11 months of 1989–90, an increase of 60 per cent.

The Nottinghamshire mineworkers' productivity record is second to none. Never a week passes without one or another colliery breaking a previous record. All that is due to the skilful negotiations of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, which has not only increased take-home pay for all miners, but secured the future of the British coal industry into the next century. Therefore, will my hon. Friend accept from me an invitation for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to visit Nottinghamshire and to thank our miners personally?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, it must be noted that output per man shift has to increase by 10 per cent. across the country if British Coal is to become profitable. From what I have seen of the Nottinghamshire coalfield, I am confident of the spirit and the will, and the skills and the co-operation of the UDM work force there to achieve increases such as my hon. Friend has identified. I know that my right hon. Friend hopes to visit Nottinghamshire, as soon as that can be arranged, to thank the Nottinghamshire work force for what it has achieved.

When the right hon. Gentleman visits Nottingham, will he also tell the UDM and the miners the number of pits that will close over the next five years as a result of the Government's policy and the number that will close because of the new 20 per cent. non-fossil fuel obligation on the electricity generating industry? No witness who has recently given evidence to the Select Committee on Energy has been able to give an estimate of the true cost of nuclear fuel, so can the Minister give us the true cost this afternoon?

One depressing thing about having energy questions on a Monday is having to face the serried ranks of the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the recent statement by the chairman of British Coal, that he does not agree with such gloomy forecasts and that British Coal is determined to ensure that it remains

"the supplier-of-choice to the new generators".

"a firm rebuff for the Jeremiahs and their gloomy forecasts for the future of the coal industry."

"scare stories of a further massive contraction of the industry have been seriously over-stated."

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the productivity from all the other miners to keep up with that of the Nottinghamshire miners, so that the CEGB and its successors can be kept to the commitment to keep electricity prices down, because coal prices will be set at a steady rate? Might not we then be able to export electricity to France and use British coal in so doing?

The Government have demonstrated their commitment to our coal industry, not least by the passing last week of the Coal Industry Act, which gives British Coal between £5 billion and £7 billion of taxpayers' money to help to clear its overhang of past debts. We wish to see a competitive and profitable coal industry, and that will require all the technology, investment and skills of those working in the coal industry. They have those skills, and with them can achieve further productivity gains.

If what the Minister says about improved productivity in the Nottinghamshire coalfield is true, why are the Government proposing to stab the Nottinghamshire miners in the back by pushing for the Associated British Ports coal-importing installation at Immingham and supporting both PowerGen and National Power in building not one but two gas-fired power stations at Killingholme, so that even The Daily Telegraph says that, if these imports of coal continue, they will spell the end of the Nottinghamshire coalfield? Is not that a poor way to reward this increased productivity?

I find it difficult to see as a stab in the back the £2 million every working day that the Government have invested in the coal industry and the between £5 billion and £7 billion that the Government gave to the coal industry at only the end of the last financial year towards its overhang and clearing past debts. It may have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that British Coal has succeeded in securing with the generators coal contracts that will guarantee a stable market and income stream over the next three years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives his Department is taking to develop commercially viable and environmentally acceptable forms of renewable technology.

The Government are supporting a major research and development programme aimed at developing commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable energy technologies to contribute to future energy supply.

How many such projects are there and to what extent are private sector companies involved in them?

There are some 300 or so such projects. We hope to see another 60 or 70 come on stream this year. They are very much joint ventures between the public and private sectors.

Does the Minister recognise that, with the privatisation of gas and electricity, measures on renewable sources of energy and environmentally positive moves will always come second to the profit motive and market forces? If we are to have positive moves in such a direction, will the Government do much more?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the non-fossil fuel obligation. We have had 339 applications under that obligation, which are to be reviewed; that shows that, with the privatisation of electricity, renewables will be encouraged.

What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that our beautiful coastline will not be littered with great big windmill generators under this programme? Having recently refused to endorse such a programme for Tennyson Down, I should not like to see my right hon. Friend become a modern-day Don Quixote.

That is a blandishment which I find it difficult to resist. The normal planning application procedure will apply, but my hon. Friend makes a fair and reasonable point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the possible future application of nuclear fusion technology.

If successfully developed, fusion would he a new source of electric power. It is too soon to speculate about its prospects.

Does the Minister agree that the development of nuclear fusion technology could bring many benefits to the people if pursued with urgency by the Government?

It is important to make it clear that the Government already spend about £27 million a year on fusion research with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and a further £28 million, through the European Commission, on the Euratom fusion programme.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no truth in the story put out two weeks ago by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that a nuclear power station will be built at Pembroke?

The four successor companies have been allocated the properties they need for operational reasons. Other properties, such as that at Pembroke, which are not required for current operations, have been divided up to ensure an equitable distribution of assets among the companies. Nuclear Electric has no development plans for Pembroke. The house knows that we have decided that no new stations should be built anywhere by Nuclear Electric until a complete review of nuclear power has been carried out in 1994.

How much money has been spent on fusion technology since the days of Zeta back in the 1950s? Does the Minister accept that it will be the year 2025 at least before benefits come from this technology, and that the millions of pounds that have been spent on research would have been much better spent on alternative technology, which could now be bringing real benefits?

It is important to get these matters into context. A proper balance has to be struck, and I believe that the Government have arrived at that balance. Even if fusion were shown to be economic and reliable, it is unlikely that a commercial fusion reactor could be running before the middle of the next century.

Does my hon. Friend accept the advice of the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats that the nuclear industry should be wound up?

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I am completely confused—as I suspect many hon. Members are—about the nuclear energy policies of the SLD and its associates in this place. I would welcome their making clear to the House exactly what their policies are for nuclear energy.

Will the Minister tell the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that he should not be too swift in ruling out a nuclear power station at Pembroke? I received a letter from the Secretary of State today stating that Nuclear Electric intends to keep the land at Pembroke until the review of nuclear policy is completed. It would not do that if it were not contemplating building it there.

As I have made clear, Nuclear Electric has no development plans for Pembroke. We have decided that no new station can be built anywhere by the company until a review has been completed in 1994, and that is how matters stand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many of the wells drilled on the United Kingdom continental shelf have been drilled (a) since 1964 and (b) since 1979.

Up to 12 February this year a total of 4,190 exploration, appraisal and development wells had been drilled on the United Kingdom continental shelf since 1964, of which 2,886 had been drilled since the beginning of 1979.

I thank my right hon. Friend for supplying those figures, which demonstrate the success of the Government's energy policy and the climate that has been created for investment and enterprise with these drillings. Do the drillings show that there has been an overall increase in the resources available beyond that which was expected and estimated earlier?

Due to the considerable number of discoveries made last year, the remaining reserves recoverable—proven plus probable—will have increased by about 10 million tonnes to 1,200 million tonnes.

Despite what the Minister said and the bright prospects for the North sea, will he confirm what last year's Brown Book figures show—that we are still producing more oil than we are finding in the North sea and that our reserves are depleting rapidly?

I think that I would be right in saying that last year we produced a little less than we discovered. The figures will be announced formally in the Brown Book, which will be published in April.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Director General of Ofgas to discuss British Gas tariffs.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the Director General of Gas Supply from time to time to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

I congratulate British Gas on its more competitive tariffs for industrial and commercial consumers in response to complaints from them. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with Ofgas the remaining serious problem for users of fewer than 25,000 therms? There is an incentive to waste gas because it benefits a user burning 22,000 therms to burn 25,000 or more as he would then pay less. Is not that a breach of the Gas Act 1986 and the licence? Should not there be a smoother banding and a lower threshold so that that ridiculous anomaly can be ended?

I do not believe that it is a breach of the Gas Act. We have discussed the matter with the Director General of Ofgas who is having further discussions with British Gas. My hon. Friend's point is perfectly fair.

Should not British Gas be warmly commended for its sponsorship of the arts, such as the concert at Hampton Court palace last September for charity—which you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to attend?

Yes, and I hope that you enjoyed the concert, Mr. Speaker. It would be only fair to say that the entire energy industry should be commended for its sponsorship of the arts.

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

I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

During the right hon. Gentleman's latest discussions, did the chairman of British Coal outline the concern of people working in the mining industry and those in the mining communities about the 30 per cent. increase in electricity prices between April 1988 and 1990, with further increases to come? Those increases have occurred despite the fact that coal prices have remained the same or, in some cases, even been reduced. Is not the only purpose of such increases to fatten the bottom line of the CEGB's accounts? Is not that screwing the miners, the old people and the domestic customers? When will the Secretary of State ensure that customers, including the miners who produce the coal, obtain a fair deal?

I did not discuss that matter with the chairman of British Coal, but I did discuss the advantages for the coal industry of the passing of the Coal Industry Act 1990, which provides £5 billion to £7 billion of grant that will enable the coal industry accounts to be cleared of the hangover of past debts and will provide a good basis for the future. In addition, British Coal has secured a three-year contract with the generating industry at prices which, I hope, will enable it to be the supplier of first choice in the long term.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contracts between the electricity industry and British Coal are an extremely good deal for British Coal? Will he convey that view to its chairman? Does he—

Order. One question please—that is only fair.

It is a good contract for British Coal and for the generators. The important matter is that it is still a tough contract for British Coal. Although it has made great strides—productivity is up by more than 75 per cent. on pre-strike levels—further productivity gains are essential. I believe that the industry has the technology, investment and skills to achieve that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the chairman of British Coal should have told him that the pursuit of international supplies of low-sulphur coal could be a wild goose chase? Will he explain to the chairman of British Coal the precise nature of the mathematical formula which The Daily Telegraph told the world the right hon. Gentleman was capable of explaining to the House and the public?

The answer to the mathematical formula is 10·6 per cent.—the fossil fuel levy.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the chairman's recent remark that the north-east area is the jewel in the crown of British Coal? In view of that, does he agree that it is time to embark on a massive programme to fit flue gas desulpurisation equipment to make the importation of low-sulphur coal unnecessary?

I will not discuss which area of British Coal's activities is the jewel. There are many hardworking and highly skilful miners all over the country. I have nothing further to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said recently about FGD. We are committed to the European directive. It is clearly laid down and we shall ensure that it is achieved. British generating companies are considering their plans for how best to implement it. My view is that they will implement it partly by fitting FGD, partly by switching to some new stations for gas burn and partly by importing low-sulphur coal.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to improve the fabric of buildings under his control by the year 2000.

As I announced at the Museums Association centenary conference in September 1989, one of the major challenges that I have set is to get the national museums and gallery buildings for which I am responsible into good shape by the end of the 1990s.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement about museums and galleries, may I ask him to consider the plight of other great public buildings, cathedrals? Although they are not within his precise remit, they are often beyond the scope and resources of their deans and chapters. Would not it be a good idea to put them in order to face the next 1,000 years?

As my hon. Friend says, cathedrals are not my direct responsibility. I have noticed throughout the country several appeals for cathedrals which are meeting considerable success. With regard to my direct responsibilites, we should do our best to get our national institutions, galleries and museums into good shape. I am glad that, on top of the Government's additional £180 million in the next three years, Lord Wolfson and his foundation have agreed to provide £12 million over the next three years to help the renovation of our great museums and galleries.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that there are only 35 known paintings by Vermeer of which two have been stolen in the recent past, following last week's Boston art theft? Will he carry out urgent checks on the four buildings in this country where there are paintings by Jan Vermeer so that those incomparble paintings are not put at risk?

I note my right hon. Friend's comments carefully and I shall certainly look seriously at the matter. The restitution of stolen works of art is a serious problem. I am considering it against the background of the review of export controls for works of art in 1992.

I warmly welcome the generosity of Lord Wolfson and the Minister's response to it, but does not Lord Wolfson require that his gift be disbursed within three years? How can local authorities respond to initiatives about local museums when the Government have bound them hand and foot with penalties, the poll tax and this week, if we are to believe it, charge capping? What advice will the Minister give local authorities which want to respond to and participate in Lord Wolfson's generosity but cannot because of the Government's policies?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new improvement fund for the fabric of museums. He is right to suggest that they apply to local museums and galleries as well as to national institutions. That is an important development. Together the Government and Lord Wolfson's foundation have earmarked £12 million for the next three years with an option to continue for a further two years with additional money. That money can be committed over a timespan which is agreed among the institutions, the local authorities and the private sector, which I hope will play a positive role.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his latest assessment of the contribution of private patronage to the arts.

Precise figures are not available for private donations to the arts, although there have been a number of outstanding acts of generosity such as that of Mr. Tsui to the Victoria and Albert and the Sainsbury family to the National gallery.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the announcement about gift aid in the Budget could improve funding to the arts in the future?

My hon. Friend is right. The arts world has been asking for a long time that we provide better tax facilities to encourage more individual and corporate giving to the arts. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming most warmly the decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which will help enormously to encourage the culture of giving and the growing number of individuals and corporations who wish to contribute to the expansion of the arts.

Does the Minister agree that at a time when the export of works of art is increasing, he should have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about persuading the Inland Revenue to be more generous in accepting works of art in settlement of inheritance tax?

That is an important point. There is concern to preserve the most important parts of our heritage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the acceptance-in-lieu arrangements work extremely well. There is a reserve of £million,in addition to my budget of £2 million, which has been drawn on considerably and is working well, and there are the private treaty sale arrangements. All those measures, together with the work of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, provide considerable sums of money to enable us to preserve our heritage.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received since his statement on the Wilding report; and if he will make a statement.

I welcome the general support for my statement on the Wilding report.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement has been widely welcomed in the arts world, because it redefines what everyone knows should have been the case—that the Arts Council lays down the strategy, but most of the work and grant-giving should be done in the regions where people know what is going on and where the excellence is?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that there has been strong support for that decision. As he implies, we should not underestimate the continuing important role of the Arts Council in devising an overall strategy for arts in the United Kingdom and for specific responsibilities, such as innovation, touring and a number of important matters. Its role and its accountability in partnership with regional arts boards will be important.

Does the Minister recognise that the Wilding report has nevertheless generated much worry, especially in craft circles, that the Crafts Council will be merged with the Arts Council in a way that will be detrimental to the specific nature of the pursuits of craftspeople?

When making the announcement about the Wilding report, I made it clear that the Crafts Council will retain its independence. However, to ensure that we do not have duplication of resources, and to benefit craftspeople as much as possible I am asking the regional arts boards and craft units to work closely with the Crafts Council in the years ahead.

To ask the Minister for the Arts (a) what Government grants were made to the arts between February 1974 and June 1979, (b) what grants have been made since June 1979; and what was the average annual increase in real terms in each case; and if he will make a statement.

Grants to the arts have risen from £157 million in 1979–80 to £449 million in the current year—an annual average increase in real terms of 3·6 per cent.

Is not it clear that under this Government, grants to the arts have increased more in real terms than under any previous Government? Does not that show that the Government are paraclete and encourage the arts, and that the Opposition are nothing but a bunch of philistines?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our commitment to the arts on behalf of the taxpayer. The fact that, under the new funding arrangements, the Government have decided to increase overall funding for the arts in the next three years by 24 per cent. demonstrates our commitment to the arts. We believe that the taxpayer should underpin the expansion in the arts funding by the private sector.

What personal representations has the right hon. Gentleman made to people in the private sector? For example, Tate and Lyle has made no contribution to the Tate gallery in Liverpool, although the company made its money in that city. Is not it important that the Government should make representations to that company? I have done so, but without great success. Would not it be a good idea if those who make money in the city of Liverpool made a contribution to the arts there?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am keen —obviously he does not oppose it, either—on an effective partnership being developed between the public and the private sectors and on corporations realising the benefit to them of contributing to the community through sponsorship or through donations. I want them to play their part, but they must decide, because they are accountable to their shareholders. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage giving through the gift aid arrangements that will be introduced next autumn.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to visit the Towngate theatre in Basildon.

I have no present plans to do so. I last visited the Towngate theatre in April 1988.

If my right hon. Friend were again to visit the Towngate theatre he would be shocked to learn of its serious financial circumstances due to the gross irresponsibility of the local Labour council, which has given an additional £600,000 to the theatre to prevent it from going into liquidation? Does he recognise the anger of my constituents who want to support a viable theatre but who do not regard its financing to that degree as being in any way helpful to Basildon's community charge of £478?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. It was he who welcomed my visit to the theatre when I saw the wide range of facilities that it had to offer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The arts world must live within its means. It is for the local authority to decide how much it should give to arts organisations, but at the end of the day it is accountable to the charge payers. It must account for the money that it spends on the arts and other activities.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Civil Service unions about the proposed new code of conduct.

None, Sir.

Surely the Minister is aware of the First Division Association's representations on behalf of senior civil servants? Will he take careful note of its concern about the unqualified assertion in the new code that the duties of civil servants to the Crown are, for all practical purposes, owed to the Government of the day? When a Minister asks to see the papers of a previous Administration and is told by a civil servant that he cannot have those papers, is not the civil servant showing a duty to the integrity of Government as a whole? Is not that one of several instances where the duty extends beyond that to the Government of the day?

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that there was any broad quarrel in the discussions with the union about the fact that civil servants are, broadly speaking, acountable to the elected Government of the day. That must be right, although one point of discussion with the union was that specific categories of civil servants, including lawyers, are more widely accountable under certain statutory provisions. That is understood. However, no one can undermine the concept that civil servants are accountable to the elected Government of the day.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that when Sir Robin Butler appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee I asked him the point blank question whether he thought that the new code made it more difficult for a civil servant to be faithful to his conscience and to the country, and he said, no? The reason for his answer was that a civil servant's duty must be to the Government of the day—not as a slavish follower but because any civil servant must serve the master of the day. If the master changes, his loyalty can change, not because he is a sycophant but because, if he does not carry out the will of the electorate whose will does he carry out?

My hon. Friend is right. It must be constitutionally right that civil servants are responsible to the elected Government. As he implied, if there is a problem of conscience, the procedures are clear. The Armstrong guidelines have made it clear since 1987 that a civil servant can appeal first to his permanent secretary and then, if he is not satisfied, to the professional head of the Civil Service. That is the right course to pursue.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the First Division Association; and what matters were discussed.

I have not done so recently.

Did my right hon. Friend read the report in The Times on 19 March of an interview with Sir Robin Butler? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of the open government that was promised as policy by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Will he confirm that he will consult the First Division Association about the disestablishment of the Church of England now that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has announced his resignation and—

Order. That is a little wide of Civil Service questions.

It is a constitutional reform—

Perhaps, but one question at a time.

It is a constitutional reform, Mr. Speaker, which I think will be very popular.

It may be, but that has little to do with the First Division Association.

I am most flattered that my hon. Friend considers that I have such a wide range of responsibilities. Having taken a keen interest in the establishment of Government agencies, he will know that it gives scope for much more open government, because the chief executives of those agencies can give evidence to Select Committees if they wish. Through that procedure, performance targets and measurements can be assessed by Parliament.

Does the Minister realise that what he has just said about appeals has long been accepted, but was seriously damaged when the head of the Civil Service admitted that, at Ministers' behest, he had been economical with the truth? That statement did an enormous amount to undermine the integrity of the Civil Service. Does he accept that since then civil servants have, understandably, had great misgivings about what they used to consider a reliable appeals system? Many now believe that they need an outside and impartial point of appeal.

The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. However, I should point out that the procedures that allow civil servants to appeal on matters of conscience—ultimately to the professional head of the Civil Service —have been in operation only since late 1987. I do not believe that it is true that confidence in the professional head of the Civil Service, Sir Robin Butler, has been in any way undermined—it is strong. I consider him an outstanding civil servant, and the vast majority, if not all, of the Civil Service feels the same.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to meet Civil Service trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the Civil Service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

Will the Minister confirm that high-ranking civil servants from Oxford and Cambridge have been called upon to change the poll tax regulations about 12 times since the system came into operation? Will he give a guarantee that civil servants will not be called upon to bend the rules in a partisan political fashion to bring about the charge capping of Labour authorities, while finding a method by which to leave out Tory authorities? Will he also guarantee that the complaints procedure will be adequate for people to make the appropriate appeals?

What with questions about the Archbishop of Canterbury and about the poll tax, the assumption seems to be that I am the Minister for everything. On this occasion, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that civil servants —as we said earlier—are accountable to Ministers, and Ministers are accountable to Parliament. That is our constitutional system, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is being asked such a wide variety of questions because the Civil Service has claimed such omniscience for so many years? The famous title given to civil servants—GCMG —was always known as "God calls me God", which seems very appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was recommending me for that as well. Let me make it plain that I believe that we have an outstanding Civil Service, which has a great sense of duty. Civil servants owe that duty to the elected Government of the day, and they serve those Governments with great loyalty and impartiality.

What developments can we expect in the provision of workplace nurseries for civil servants?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly responded to representations asking him to encourage the employment of more women in not only the Civil Service but all employment sectors. With many other people, I welcome that: in the next few years—especially in the 1990s—many more women will be needed in the Civil Service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received regarding the candidatures of passport offices to become next steps agencies.

The Passport Office is one of the 42 announced candidates for agency status. The main aim of the next steps initiative is to deliver Government services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff.

As we approach the season of cherry blossom, Easter holidays and Passport Office strike mayhem, will my hon. Friend consider bringing into the discussion some of the private organisations that are well experienced at making the necessary checks for the credit agencies and the banks, on the grounds that they turn round applications, having made all necessary checks, within a maximum of 10 days and at a cost of less than £2 an inquiry? Will my right hon. Friend give me his opinion on that possibility?

My hon. Friend will be aware that although it is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, plans are well advanced for the establishment of an agency within the passport service. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has made it plain that he will use relevant private sector expertise where that would help to improve standards of service. Of course, the decsion to establish an agency, along with all the other agencies that we now have, is to help to improve services to the public. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to encourage Government Departments to adhere to the quota system in order to ensure that better opportunities are available to enable disabled people to be recruited into the Civil Service.

All Departments aim to employ a 3 per cent. quota of staff who are registered as disabled. We will shortly be publishing a revised code of practice on disability to help to increase employment opportunities for disabled people in the Civil Service.

It is nice to hear the Minister, who is sitting next to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, say that the Government are trying to ensure that the quota is met, but they are not achieving much. Not a single Government Department, including the Cabinet Office, adheres to the 3 per cent. quota. Is that because it is really the Government's intention to phase out the 3 per cent. quota?

The latter part of the question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that no Department has met or exceeded the quota of 3 per cent. At 1 June 1989, five Government Departments were above the quota and four had reached 2·5 per cent. Overall 1·3 per cent. of Civil Service employees are registered disabled, which is a little more than the figure for the national work force.