To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of landfill gas schemes in operation or under construction; and what is his assessment of their potential impact on the reduction of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions.

My Department is aware of 68 landfill gas schemes in operation, under construction or proposed. With all 68 schemes in operation, and if the gas were used to replace coal, the overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be approximately 1 million tonnes per year.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he remind the nation that carbon dioxide is a killer of all life? Much as I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, how much more can be done?

What about trees?

Trees, of course, absorb carbon dioxide. Would not more trees be a help?

If I may, I shall address the important issue that my hon. Friend raised by referring to landfill gas schemes. There are many areas where we can carry out further research and development on environmental matters. Methane is the main component of landfill gas and is 27 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is therefore important to use the combustion of methane to recover energy. That is beneficial. It removes the methane and disposes of fossil fuels. That is an important environmental step forward and I take on board my hon. Friend's point about other aspects of environmental concern.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives the Government are undertaking to promote the development of landfill gas technology.

My Department has a substantial programme of research and development assistance and technology transfer to promote the use of methane from landfill sites which has led to the continuing commercial exploitation of the technology.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, because what we do with our waste is now of enormous importance and we are looking towards the day when much more of what we discard can be recycled. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, in the meantime, all landfill sites that are to be constructed will be absolutely safe and that there will be no seepage or other emissions from those sites? Will he do that to assure my constituents that they will be absolutely safe? Will he also do all that he can to make maximum use of products like gas from such sites which will prove to be an invaluable contribution to the recycling process?

Safety is paramount when considering applications for the development of landfill gas sites. Eleven schemes are under construction and 25 are proposed. I assure my hon. Friend that the safety of those schemes is paramount and that many criteria must be satisfied before permission is given.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of departmental expenditure on the promotion of alternative energy sources.

The expenditure for 1990–91 in support of my Department's substantial research, development and demonstration programme into renewable energy sources was over £20 million.

Does the Minister agree that that is an abysmally small amount, given the need to find environmentally clean and safe alternative energy sources? That figure compares most unfavourably with the £40 million or so that the Government spent on advertising the privatisation of electricity—an ideological sop as far as the Government are concerned. The only things that are green about the Government's environmental policy are the mould and moss growing on the good intentions and lack of policy.

The hon. Gentleman should know that no Government have done more than this Government to develop sources of renewable energy. We are committed to doing yet more and to working towards 1,000 MW of electricity generation capacity from renewable sources by the year 2000. Over £180 million has already been invested in research, development and demonstration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fuel cell is an almost pollution-free source of alternative energy? What is his Department doing to encourage the development of fuel cells? Will he acknowledge that today, the first day of platinum week in London, his Department should promote fuel cells more?

I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of money is being spent by the Government, and rightly so, on fuel cell development at Brogborough. I recommended that my hon. Friend sees that project. I know that he is already well aware of it. It is an important two-phase project carried out under the non-fossil fuel obligation and will be the largest landfill gas electricity project in the United Kingdom, generating 9 MW. The fuel cell development and research associated with landfill gas are a key part of our work.

Is the Minister aware that the efforts of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay to develop alternative energy sources are seriously hampered by the Government's discrimination against Scotland with regard to the non-fossil fuel obligation? Will the hon. Gentleman not treat Scotland in a manner which makes the development of wind, wave and other forms of renewable energy more difficult than in England?

The Scottish, English and Welsh electricity systems are largely separate and the Government are considering how Scottish generators might contribute to the expansion of generation from renewables in Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my grandfather built the last working windmill in this country? Would my hon. Friend like to say a word or two about the potential for wind, which is perhaps not an inappropriate matter for us to discuss in the House?

Wind energy should concern the House. There is much research and development into the development of wind energy, not least at the wind farm in Wales. It is regrettable that many projects for the wind generation of electricity that come before planning committees often face hostile opposition from the very environmental groups who argue for wind generation around the country. I hope that those environmental groups will take note of the important renewable sources of energy in the United Kingdom, to which wind energy can contribute, and not oppose many planning applications on grounds of aesthetic concern. Indeed, even noise has been an issue that has been put to us in opposition to wind projects.

Must not the Minister agree that the privatisation of electricity is setting back the development of renewable energy because the newly privatised companies are not willing to give long-term contracts? Everything shows that long-term contracts or long-term guarantees for the sale of electricity are necessary if renewable sources such as barrages, windmills or wave power are to be developed on any reasonable scale.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. The assumption that contract length has been a constraint on generators seeking to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation is untrue, because they need the flexibility to offer bankable contracts to sponsors of projects with long pay-back periods. That is why the first tranche of the NFFO was very successful. It is now clear that applications under the second tranche, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be considerable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his current review of the future of the nuclear industry.

The Government will carry out a full-scale review of the prospects for nuclear power in 1994, taking account of all relevant factors.

Does my right hon. friend agree that the policy of the Opposition parties—of phasing out nuclear civil energy—would be completely disastrous in terms of meeting our international obligations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? Does he accept that, in that context, his answer today is disappointing? We run the risk of losing expertise in the nuclear industry if we do not consider and decide how to go forward with the industry before 1994.

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I am not sure about the second part. My discussions with people in the nuclear industry suggest to me that they are confident that they will be able to demonstrate that nuclear power is safe and economical. I believe that to be the best safeguard for the long-term future of nuclear power in Britain.

Will the Secretary of State revert to a previous incarnation and rebuke one of his colleagues as strictly as he did when he was the Government Chief Whip? That colleague should be the Prime Minister who on Thursday used the term nuclear "dumping" in column 823 of Hansard. Does not the Prime Minister know that there is no such thing as nuclear dumping? There is careful storage in controlled, safe conditions. The Prime Minister should not have used that word.

Whatever success I had as Chief Whip in a previous incarnation was as much to do with my relationship with the Prime Minister as with anything else. Therefore, I do not believe that it is my business to comment on something that was said in Parliament last week, when I was in America. I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—the disposal of the waste from the nuclear industry is an important part of the process of the nuclear industry and, of course, it must be safe and secure. That is a fundamental consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of homes with accessible lofts whose lofts had been insulated (a) in 1978 and (b) in 1990.

In 1978 some 8·7 million homes with accessible lofts had loft insulation. By 1989 the number of homes with loft insulation had risen to 15·3 million. Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that excellent reply. Are low-income families eligible for financial assistance in these matters? If so, how much money will be made available to them this year?

In most cases, investment in energy efficiency equipment or insulation justifies itself financially, but assistance is required for low-income households. I am pleased to say that the home energy efficiency scheme, which was launched in January to give grants to precisely those households, will have a budget of £26 million in the current year.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government's own figures—before they became so embarrassing that the Government stopped publishing them—showed that if the Tory Government had maintained home insulation at the level that they inherited from the previous Labour Government, 5·5 million more homes would now be properly insulated?

No. When the Labour party left office, only about 60 per cent. of homes had loft insulation. The figure now is 90 per cent. That shows that Conservative Government is good for energy efficiency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of capital investment in the North sea in 1989 and 1990; and what level he expects it will be in the current year.

Capital investment in the North sea increased by 30 per cent. from £2·7 billion in 1989 to £3·5 billion in 1990. I expect that rapid growth to continue in 1991.

Given that encouraging answer and the investment announced last week in the Alba field and the Everest Lomond field, does my right hon. Friend agree that production from the North sea continues to provide good news for Scotland and for England, continues to confound the pessimists who talk down the North sea and brings good news for gas and oil consumers in Britain?

My hon. Friend is right. Last Tuesday I was able to announce the approval of two major new schemes. The Chevron-operated Alba field and the Amoco-operated Everest/Lomond CATS—central area transmission system—project involve investment of £2·4 billion. In total, 11 development projects have been approved so far this year. The total value of new orders placed for goods and services for the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990 rose to a massive £6·2 billion. That is an increase of over 60 per cent. compared with the previous year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although those figures are most welcome, there is now a grave danger that there will be a concentration of gas power stations on Teesside and, consequently, of power lines that flow from them, and that it is necessary for the Government to have a strategy, so that power stations are located throughout the country and not concentrated in one area and pylons do not all emanate from Teesside? Although the gas fields are near the north-east coast, it is time that we recognised that other parts of the country use electricity and should take their fair share of the environmental problems.

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I understand his constituency concern, but he would not expect me to comment in detail on those matters because he knows that they are, or will be, subject to planning applications before approval and that all considerations will be properly taken into account when they are received.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of new projects being started in United Kingdom yards for the construction of offshore platforms.

At the present time United Kingdom construction yards have orders valued at £1·6 billion arising from 18 field development projects.

Will my hon. Friend confirm not only that last year's figure of £6·2 billion for goods and services from North sea oil is a record but that no less than £4·8 billion of that sum was provided by British manufacturing and other British companies? Does he agree that that is a tribute to the vitality of the North sea oil industry and to the efficiency and competitiveness of British industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I simply add that that £6·2 billion represented an increase of more than 50 per cent. on the 1989 figure.

May I remind the Minister that the Scott Lithgow offshore fabrication yard, which is located in my constituency, is one of the finest of its sort in Scotland? Why are the Minister, his officials and the officials at the offshore supplies office so massively indifferent to the needs of that yard and the labour force in the locality, where the unemployment rate is about 13·5 per cent? Why are the Minister and his officials refusing to assist Scott Lithgow to acquire orders from the North sea oil and gas industries?

I refute and reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. The parent company, Trafalgar House, is considering subcontracting work to the yard. I know that Scott Lithgow is actively seeking work. In doing so, it recognises that it is not just a matter of matching orders with yards; it is up to fabricators to decide which orders to bid for and then to be competitive. I am fully aware of the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and of the management's determination to seek orders and match them to its capability at the yard.

Do not the figures given in answer to this question and the previous one dispel the doom and gloom that was spread some time ago about our running out of oil and gas in the North sea?

They do. Even better news comes from considering the beginning of the cycle. Last year we had another record for exploration and appraisal wells with 224 sites, beating the previous high of 190 in 1984. The prospects for the North sea are good. We can expect future work for United Kingdom fabricators and suppliers and substantial further production of oil and gas well into the next century.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future ownership of the industry.

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

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal to discuss this matter, will he ensure that the views of the miners and others employed by British Coal are considered? Does he agree that privatisation of British Coal will be successful only if it enjoys the support of the employees?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that British Coal employees have an opportunity to participate in the privatisation and that they work to make it a success. I know that the chairman of British Coal would want the same.

The House will be aware of a recent drugs find in Colombian coal imports. When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Coal, will he discuss possible ways to stop that transpiring and ensure that the industry's morale is sky high and that there is sufficient coal from British mines to meet our energy needs?

Colombian coal imports and their prices are matters for the European Commission rather than for me. I certainly want British Coal to be able to compete for as many orders as it can get. It will do that if it can deliver the coal at competitive prices and in a proper manner, and if its productivity continues to improve, as it has in previous years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Coal's success will depend not on who owns it but on its efficiency and productivity? For example, the two Nottinghamshire collieries that have led the production league for the past six months are at Welbeck, on an advancing face with 72 tonnes per man shift, and Thoresby, on a retreating face with 157 tonnes per man shift.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Following my visits to the coal industry, I have been impressed by the spirit, enthusiasm and skill of those in the industry. The coal industry is making good progress with productivity, which is up by over 90 per cent. from pre-strike levels. However, further productivity gains are essential. The industry has the technology, investment and the skills to achieve those.

I compliment the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on his moderate question, which was quite unlike the views expressed by Mr. Evans, the Conservative candidate for Monmouth, on any topic mentioned. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that any proposals that he has to privatise the coal industry are not based on the principles that were used to privatise the electricity industry? There were price rises to consumers in south Wales, including Monmouth, of 50 per cent. above inflation and enormous pay rises for the directors of South Wales Electricity of up to 45 per cent., whereas directors of businesses in south Wales, according to a survey in this morning's Western Mail, received pay rises of only 2 or 3 per cent., or even pay cuts. The directors of South Wales Electricity are receiving pay rises of £20,000 to £30,000.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not discuss such matters with the chairman of British Coal when I next meet him. If I did so, I should be able to point out that any electricity price rises incurred since the Conservative party has been in office are nothing compared to the 2 per cent. rise every six weeks when the Labour party was in office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the contribution combined heat and power plant could make to reducing the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions by the end of the decade.

My Department's most recent estimates indicate that combined heat and power could in time lead to reductions of as much as 5 to 10 per cent. of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions. The degree to which this will be realised by the year 2000 will depend on the future development of the United Kingdom power market.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that combined heat and power can make a bigger contribution to reducing global greenhouse gases at a lower cost than any other solution? Is he aware that the Government memoranda to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the potential in the United Kingdom was not 4,000 MW but 30,000 MW? Will he now take measures—they are still required—to remove some of the obstacles holding back industrial combined heat and power, particularly the example that I sent to him from Air Products?

Yes, I am happy to acknowledge that combined heat and power technology is good for the environment as well as being highly energy efficient. My hon. Friend referred to impediments, but I remind him that the restructuring and privatisation of the electricity supply industry have opened up the market to competitive, alternative, independent suppliers. Indeed, many suppliers of combined heat technology have risen to the challenge.

Does the Minister accept that the freeing of the power market means as much as what the Tories stated in 1983 in debates on the Energy Act? It means as much as what was said throughout the debates in the House on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The Government still do not recognise the fact that the energy from combined heat and power technology is not competitive with ordinary generated electricity. It is energy used for the benefit of the environment and consumers. When will the Government take the action that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) mentioned and stop the restrictions still in force against the development of combined heat and power?

Any regulatory or administrative restrictions that still exist will be dealt with by my Department and the Office of Electricity Regulation, but the main impediment to the spread of CHP technology in the past has been the state-owned, monolithic structure of the industry, which we have dismantled. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be known as environmentally aware, he should change his attitude towards what we have done in the electricity supply industry in the past three years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how he proposes to assist renewable energy projects to fulfil the non-fossil fuel obligation.

My right hon. Friend proposes to assist renewable projects by requiring the regional electricity companies to contract for renewable generating capacity under a series of additional tranches of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful remarks. Is he aware that the public at large, and young people in particular, have accepted and support the clean, renewable energies of wind, wave and tide? Will Her Majesty's Government consider how they can encourage the use of those resources, which are popular, cheap and infinitely renewable, by the grace of the good Lord?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most important way in which we can help this year is to make a second order under the non-fossil fuel obligation for renewables, which we shall do. We shall take note of my hon. Friend's important point that we should support not just one or two potential renewable sources, but a whole series, and that we should identify separate tranches of the NFFO.

The Minister will be aware of the widespread support, as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said for increasing the proportion of our energy that is produced from renewable sources. However, one inhibition has been the apparent conflict between, for example, a barrage and the conservation interests of wildlife in an estuary, whether it is the Severn or the Usk, Felixstowe on the east coast or the Lyme. Will officials at the Department of Energy put their heads together with officials at the Department of the Environment to try to provide, as a matter of policy, a proper way of evaluating environmental and energy benefits and disbenefits so that we find the best sites for wind, tidal and other alternative sources, rather than having a battle each time a site is chosen? We should have a strategy, not an ad hoc approach.

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify a problem that we faced and, I believe, resolved. That problem highlights the additional need for planning policy guidance to be given by the Government to local authorities so that we avoid the sort of diversity described by the hon. Gentleman. Work is under way on a planning policy guidance note, which will be isssued shortly and will go a long way towards resolving the problem described by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future coal supplies to power stations in the midlands region.

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

Does the Minister agree that the short-sighted policy of the rundown of coal production in the west midlands region has gone so far that it even endangers the future of the power stations in that district? What guarantees will he give that no power stations in the west midlands will be closed, other than Meaford and Ham Hall, whose closure has already been announced?

As the hon. Lady knows, three-year transitional contracts give security of volume and price so that the coal industry can adjust to the new market in energy. The future size of the industry depends on the future size of the market, so it is up to British Coal and all who work in it to create a reputation as a secure and economic supplier of indigenous energy to the electricity supply market. Substantial progress has been made since 1985.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal to discuss coal supplies to midlands power stations, will he impress on him that as long as miners' jobs and pension funds are secure, it matters not whether coal mines are in state ownership or private ownership? There is no doubt that what the coal mining industry needs for survival is capital input. If businesses—whether Shell or the power companies—put money into the mining industry it will fight off competition from abroad. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Yes. Coal produced by good British pits can compete with coal imported from anywhere. My hon. Friend makes a good point—that the challenges facing the coal industry will be the same, whether it is in public or private ownership.

Does the Minister accept that productivity in the midlands, west and east has increased at a remarkable rate over the past few years? Following the question of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), may I put it to the Minister that when the future shape of the industry is being decided it would not be a bad idea if, following discussions with British Coal, the Secretary of State for Energy were to organise a ballot of the workers in the industry so that he might have their view on privatisation before the general election? There would probably be a very clear result against privatisation.

I happily acknowledge that the industry has greatly improved its productivity in recent years, albeit from a very low base. Only high productivity can bring security to the industry in the long term. As regards the holding of a ballot, I need say only that we shall be having a general election and that that will show whether people think that the future of the coal industry should be put into private hands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total electricity output of Nuclear Electric in the year ending 31 March 1991.

Last year Nuclear Electric plc produced just under 45 terawatt hours. This was a record level of nuclear electricity production in England and Wales. It was also more than 7 per cent. above Nuclear Electric's production target for the year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the most encouraging figures that he has just given. Does he agree that it would be beneficial to have a source of energy other than fossil fuels? If we took into account the cost of the effects of sulphur, nitrogen and CO₂, emissions—leaving aside the cost of slag heaps—the real cost of electricity generated by fossil fuels would be seen to make nuclear generation a very cheap option.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question. In 1994 there will be a full-scale review, which will take account of all the relevant factors. The relative environmental costs of fossil fuels is one factor that we shall want to take into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on what assistance is available to connect people to the mains electricity supply in remote rural areas.

Under the Electricity Act 1989, all new consumers were given the right to connection on reasonable terms. The Director General of Electricity Supply is empowered to adjudicate in cases of dispute.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. He will be aware that recently the Rural Development Commission undertook an inquiry into the matter. May I suggest that he meets the chairman of the commission to discuss ways in which the Government might help it to connect the premises of my constituents in rural areas, or at least to give them some assistance? The advertised costs are quite prohibitive.

Yes. My right hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the Rural Development Commission and has pointed out that the position of such customers has been substantially improved. Previously, they had a right to a supply only if they lived within 50 yd of a distribution main; now, the regional electricity companies are obliged to offer reasonable terms for such a supply and the director general can determine what is reasonable in those circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss the pricing formula for electricity tariffs.

Monitoring and enforcement of the price controls in the public electricity licences issued to the regional electricity companies are matters for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

Has not the Government's blunder in their inflation calculations last year meant much higher electricity prices than are justified by the rate of inflation this year? Does the Minister agree that the Government have the power, but the people get the bills?

There is a degree of illogic about the hon. Gentleman's question. He was arguing for higher increases last year as well. That is what would have happened: the total increase would have been more. It is, of course, right that last year inflation to October was forecast at 6 per cent. Unfortunately, it was higher than that and the price increases recently announced take account of that increase in the rate of inflation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of capital investment in the North sea.

As my right hon. Friend noted in response to a similar question earlier, capital investment in the North sea increased by 30 per cent. from £2·7 billion in 1989 to £3·5 billion in 1990. We expect that rapid growth to continue in 1991.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a Shell fellow-elect of the Industry and Parliament Trust, I have been able to see at first hand some of the substantial investment currently going into the North sea? It is good news for the United Kingdom economy. Will my hon. Friend ensure that Treasury Ministers, in so far as he has any influence over them, continue to produce a tax regime favourable for marginal investment in the North sea?

As my hon. Friend knows full well, the Treasury has for many years recognised that a stable fiscal framework is essential for operators and investors taking long-term financial decisions in the North sea—a point of which I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury are only too well aware in the context of future decisions.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy towards the arts in the London area; and if he will make a statement.

The overall aim of our policy for London, as elsewhere, is to continue to develop a climate in which the arts can flourish. To that end, London will have a new regional arts board from 1 October 1991. Good progress has been made with the appointment of Mr. Clive Priestley as chair, 10 of the 14 other board members and a chief executive, Mr. Tim Mason.

I welcome the appointment of Mr. Priestley. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that London is the cultural centre of the world in every aspect of the arts? Will he therefore resist the pressure that has come from the House in recent years to divert money from London to the regions? It is right to build up money for the regions—but not at the expense of London.

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I regard London as the cultural centre of the world and will do all in my powers to ensure that it remains so. However, it is only right that the regions should have a fair crack of the whip, too. It is true that in recent years more money, on a percentage basis, has gone from the Arts Council to the regions than to London, but I stress that there is no crisis in central Government funding of the arts through the Arts Council. If there is a problem it is down to the London boroughs—individually or through the London boroughs grants scheme—some of which are, alas, withdrawing funding from the arts.

I join the Minister in welcoming Mr. Priestley's appointment, but he faces a difficult task.

The hon. Gentleman should not quote from a script passed into his hand by some stagehand whom he has just met. The fact is that I have instructed the Arts Council, through Greater London Arts, to make available short-term funding for those of its clients who may be suffering because of a lack of decisions under the London boroughs grants scheme. The problem lies not in the fact that there is no money in the system. Quite the opposite: there is money in the system, but unfortunately some boroughs have decided that funding the arts is a luxury. The shadow Minister should be using his persuasive powers to persuade the London boroughs to continue to fund the arts through the money that they will have under the LBGS.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he will next make an official visit to the Teesside region to discuss funding of the arts.

I am due to visit Tyneside in July for the Museums Association annual conference. I hope that my next visit to the Northern region after that will be to Teesside.

Although my right hon. Friend believes that London is the cultural centre of the world, he should learn that Tyneside and Teesside are 50 miles apart and are nothing to do with each other. On Teesside we have a world cultural event every two years—the Cleveland international eisteddfod—which receives little financial backing from the Government. It would perhaps be enhanced if a Minister were to attend. If I told my right hon. Friend that it was to take place in two or three weeks' time, he might say that I was not giving him sufficient notice. However, it will not take place for 18 months, so I hope that I shall not be accused of that and that he will not say that he cannot make commitments 18 months ahead. It is time that the Government showed their commitment to the Teesside region by attending the international eisteddfod, which has a worldwide reputation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his lesson in geography. I was aware that Tyneside is different from Teesside, but I thought that I should point out my general commitment to the north-east. He is being somewhat unfair about the Billingham international folklore festival. In recent years it has won six business sponsorship incentive scheme awards, all of which are matched pound for pound by the Department through the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. He should give credit to my Department for that. I hope to accept his invitation and to be with him at the Billingham festival at some stage in the future.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how many experts have been given grants for art restoration in the war zones of the middle east.

The Office of Arts and Libraries has received no requests for such grants and none has therefore been made.

What is the policy towards any requests for help that might come from Kuwait? Should not those who, rightly or wrongly, willed the war, which resulted in the destruction of the shrines at Kerbala and Najaf, at least respond favourably if the Shia community ask for help? Can we be prepared for that?

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough Member to know that there is little point in asking wholly hypothetical questions. As I said, I have received no such requests for help in restoring, for example, any religious or cultural items that might have been taken from the museums. If we were to receive such a request, I am sure that the conservation departments of our leading museums would do their best to help. They might make a charge, but that would not be unreasonable. However, they have received no such request, nor do we have any specific information about damage to artistic or cultural objects.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will bring forward a plan to remove the arts in London from funding by the London boroughs grants scheme.

The problems surrounding the settlement of the LBGS budget this year have demonstrated that the joint local authority arrangements for funding arts organisations in London are not working effectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that today Tom Stoppard, Tom Conti and others launched a campaign to save the King's Head theatre, which is one of the best in the capital and in the country, from the disastrous cut in grant by the London boroughs grants scheme? Is not it a fact that that scheme not only knows precious little about the arts, but puts them in the bottom category of its priorities? Is not it time that London's arts were rescued from its clutches?

As I said in answer to an earlier question, the difficulty is not that there is no money in the system—there is, from the Arts Council through Greater London Arts and also from the LBGS which, I understand, intends to devote approximately £3 million of its budget, or about 11 per cent., to arts organisations. The problem is——

The Minister is ill-informed.

The shadow Minister for the Arts says that I am ill-informed, but he has not read his script. He has been too busy reading The Stage and I advise him against that in future. The money is there, in the system. The difficulty is that the LBGS took so long to reach decisions. That is why I had to ask the Arts Council to give interim, temporary help to its clients who were in difficulties.

The Minister must be aware that there is a real crisis of funding in the London arts—in large measure due to the overall financial squeeze that has been placed both by the Government and by the Tory boroughs on the London boroughs grants committee on the funding of voluntary bodies and arts organisations in the capital. It is seriously affecting two theatres in my constituency—the Almeida and the King's Head. Is it not time that the Minister stopped wringing his hands and pretending that he was not responsible for any of that and instead devoted some Government money to supporting the arts in London?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that because I know of his great interest in the subject. However, he is being less than just. Greater London Arts is giving an award this year to the Almeida theatre of £238,000. That is Government-provided money. Like the hon. Gentleman, I should be sorry if the Almeida, which is one of the most important new writing theatres in the country, went under. It is his council, Islington, and the London boroughs grants scheme which are keeping back £56,000, a mere one fifth of the Arts Council money. The hon. Gentleman should bring his influence to bear on Islington to see that the Almeida does not get into difficulties. Islington is not a Tory borough; I do not think that the Tories are yet in control of Islington.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of chief executives and senior managers in executive agencies have been recruited from the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

One objective in appointing chief executives is to get the right person for each job. Open competition is now the presumption. Fourteen of the 50 chief executives appointed so far have come from outside the civil service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Knowing, as we Conservatives do, that bringing in the private sector or subcontracting agencies to chief executives refreshes parts that socialist policies cannot reach, will my right hon. Friend think about applying those policies to the Passport Office which, at this time of year, is always under great pressure, which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction to people? I am sure that the Passport Office could be far better run if either the chief executive did it or the private sector were brought in to do it.

It is likely that, when the present chief executive retires, the next chief executive of the Passport Office will be appointed by open competition, so the best choice will be arrived at from applicants within and outwith the civil service. I spent three happy summers at the Home Office, where I was responsible for the Passport Office, and I should be one of the first to agree with my hon. Friend that some of the best and most efficient private sector methods could be applied to passport offices.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss morale within the service.

I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues.

When the Minister next meets representatives from the civil service trade unions, will he tell them whether it is true that the Prime Minister's new policy unit, headed by Ms. Sarah Hogg, is drawing up a secret agenda for selling off large parts of the civil service? Is that the case? What is to be sold off? Will the Minister be sold off as well?

If there were a secret agenda, I would not know the answer to the question, would I? The hon. Gentleman is trying to make castles out of shadows and nightmares. It is perfectly right that the policy unit at No. 10 should look at the further applications of the "next steps" agency process. I was pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor, spoke favourably about the "next steps" process during his speech last week.

If there is no secret agenda to privatise large parts of the civil service, should the Government win the next election, why is the Minister planning the abolition of the central rules for staff appraisal and reporting? If he is doing that, can he assure the House that any changes to staff appraisal will be introduced only after meaningful consultation with the trade unions representing civil servants?

I have no doubt that there will be close consultation with civil service unions on the subject. If we move to greater flexibility in pay determination within the "next steps" agencies—we want to do that, as has been said many times in discussions about the "next steps" process—it is only right that staff appraisal should also be delegated to a greater extent to the chief executives of the agencies. That will mean that the agencies will not follow a wholly uniform pattern at every stage.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what courses on the machinery of government are run by the Civil Service college.

The college runs over 40 courses a year on machinery of government issues. They benefit greatly from the contribution of Members of the House—including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for which I am most grateful.

It is my pleasure.

That latter remark was wholly unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. As he has spent time—for which I thanked him—lecturing at the Civil Service college on the value of Question Time, I hoped that he would make better use of his opportunity today. It will not be necessary for us to make available at the Civil Service college copies of Sir Bernard Ingham's memoirs; my impression from reading yesterday's Sunday Times is that it will be freely available on the bookstalls.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are being made in the civil service to encourage women with children to return to work in Government Departments.

Government Departments and agencies have adopted a range of measures designed to enable those women who so choose to return to work in the civil service. They include flexible working arrangements, career breaks and child care provision.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, of the items that he listed, the one that needs the greatest encouragement is the adoption of flexible working patterns? That will permit a number of women with children and other family responsibilities to take up a career while abiding by those responsibilities.

Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. When I was responsible for various departments connected to the Home Office, I was aware that recruitment for the department in Croydon was aided by the introduction of flexible working patterns. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the proportion of women now working part time is 13·7 per cent., as opposed to just under 5 per cent. seven years ago. He is right to emphasise the importance of these matters.

Will not many women be discouraged from joining the civil service when they consider the unhappy treatment of Colette Bowe in the Westland affair? If the book will not be supplied to the Civil Service college, will the Minister ensure that a video of Sir Bernard Ingham's television interview last night is shown? It was most disturbing to see senior civil servants violently contradicting each other on the Westland affair. One senior civil servant even contradicted a senior Cabinet Minister. Will the Minister institute an inquiry into the Westland affair? It is time that we knew who was telling the truth and who was lying.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no; I have no intention of instituting an inquiry. As for the first part, I think that he would be the first to complain if we distributed free copies of Sir Bernard Ingham's book, or free copies of the video, to members of the civil service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made with the European fast stream initiative to encourage civil servants to work in the European Community.

The European fast stream has attracted more than 4,000 applications this year. We have already allocated more than half the 30 places available.

How long will it be before these fast streamers are working in Brussels? Will they ensure that Britain's interests are even better represented in the European Commission?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that five European fast-streamers are already in post, that the first European fast-streamer was a woman and that 20 places are currently on offer. I intend to ensure that the under-representation of the British in European Community institutions is adjusted in our favour.

Will the Minister outline the criteria by which his civil servants are chosen to work in Brussels? For example, are they assessed on their views about the United Kingdom's role in the European Community?

I shall gladly send the hon. Gentleman some of the documents that are issued to those who apply for such jobs. Those people undergo a thorough and detailed examination. He will be interested to know that on our new joint drive with the Commission, there were more than 12,0000 requests for application forms from graduates from all backgrounds in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman would like to receive more details about the examination I shall see that he gets them.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps are taken to give executive agencies set up under the "next steps" initiative freedom in the management of the delivery of services to the public and their customers.

A fundamental objective of "next steps" is to improve the quality of Government services provided to the public. Agencies are given the managerial freedoms that they need to achieve that.

Many people are concerned that the various Departments will not give enough freedom to the new agencies to manage their own affairs. Is the actual position different from what people think?

That is a fair question. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there are already some good examples of greater freedoms in and better customer service by the existing agencies. He will also be pleased to know that in October we announced that we would ask the efficiency unit to undertake a study of the relationship between individual Departments and their agencies to make certain that we were moving towards giving sufficient freedom. I expect a report of that study to be published shortly.

With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.