To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is proposing to promote tourism in East Anglia; and if he will make a statement.

The English tourist board, which receives grant in aid from my Department, will allocate at least £400,000 to the East Anglia tourist board during this financial year. The total allocation to each regional board has not been settled yet, as a proportion of regional funding will be distributed later in the year by means of a new scheme aimed at directing resources to areas where the industry is most in need of support.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the opening earlier this year of the Manor House museum in Bury St. Edmunds, which will house the borough's collection of paintings and porcelain and, in particular, its unique collection of clocks? That will further enhance the reputation of Bury St. Edmunds as a great jewel in the crown of East Anglia. Does my hon. Friend agree that the opening of the museum, and so many others like it, demonstrates the flowering of—and interest in—the arts that has come about in the past 10 years?

I have indeed heard about the Manor House museum and its collections, and I know that my hon. Friend has supported it over the past year. It does, of course, represent, a jewel in the crown of East Anglia's tourist attractions; moreover, it confirms the flowering of the arts that has developed over the past decade or so. It is a little-known fact that, over the past 10 years, roughly one museum has opened every two weeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what involvement his Department has had in discussions to increase private charitable funding to secure the future of the Royal Opera House.

It is for the Royal Opera House to take the lead in seeking sponsors for its proposed redevelopment scheme. I welcome the fact that it has already received pledges of significant private contributions to its appeal fund.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that redevelopment scheme is essential to the future of the Royal Opera House, or does he endorse the more sceptical view expressed by the Arts Council? What specific response have the Government made to the magnificent pledges of Mrs. Vivien Duffield and Lord Sainsbury?

As the local Member of Parliament, I could not but be aware of the physical circumstances of the Royal Opera House. They have been described as Dickensian; I would say that, backstage, they owed even more to Gustave Dore. The ROH is clearly right to propose a redevelopment scheme.

As for the view of the Arts Council, it has of course asked for reports, but it has also engaged in a continuing dialogue with the ROH. Mrs. Duffield and Lord Sainsbury, who have already been generous to the Tate and National galleries respectively, came to see the Prime Minister recently to describe developments in the scheme.

I wish the appeal well, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is very difficult for people of moderate or poor means—as opposed to a person who is rich, corporate and probably a subscriber—to see world-famous singers at the Royal Opera House, because the numbers are limited to about 2,000? Following the example of President Mitterrand, has the right hon. Gentleman considered building a larger opera house, in which ordinary working-class people of moderate means, along with those who take advantage of corporate hospitality, could see world-famous singers?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for wishing the appeal well. The Royal Opera House has made it clear that it wants access to be improved, and the scheme will afford that not only in terms of the number of seats available, but in terms of the number of performances that can be accommodated. While I do not wish the French President ill in any way, I think that the hon. Gentleman has been more generous to the new French opera house than other critics might be.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he is now able to give a formal estimate of the cost of the Windsor castle fire; and if he will make a statement.

As I said in my statement to the House on 29 April, early estimates suggest that the reconstruction will cost £30 million to £40 million over five years. That is the estimate which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 22 February.

There have been estimates of up to £44 million in the newspapers recently. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it has been alleged that the fire was caused as a result of criminal neglect, because of the removal of fire service cover? Why is it that they do not call upon the Queen to pay the lot and foot the bill, because they were responsible at the beginning? Why should there be one law for the Queen and another for the rest of the British public? Why is it that they have got the gall to charge people for going into Buckingham palace to pay for the fire and to pay for her taxes? They are just a bunch of cheapskates.

I take it that in his initial remarks the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Berkshire fire service report, which was made available within government on 19 April but which saw the light of day two days before the county council elections, which some may think was a remarkable coincidence. That report, as the chief fire officer has said, has been selectively quoted by others. As for the financing and maintenance of the royal palaces, the hon. Gentleman knows from our long-running dialogue that this was settled in 1831. Many hon. Members would welcome, as he did not, the Queen's decision to open Buckingham palace to the public and to make sure that the contributions are given to the restoration of the castle.

As we have the finest Queen in the world, who is hugely admired and respected by the vast majority of people everywhere, will my right hon. Friend totally repudiate the unrepresentative view of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) Can my right hon. Friend give a forecast of how much money the opening of Buckingham palace is likely to raise towards the Windsor castle repairs?

My hon. Friend, as the Member of Parliament for Hampton Court palace, does admirably in terms of his expressions of loyalty. I absolutely endorse what he says. The ticket sales for Buckingham palace will reinforce the ticket sales for Windsor castle. It is expected that that revenue will provide the clear and vast majority of the funds necessary for the restoration.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to meet representatives of the newspaper industry to discuss freedom of the press.

I met the chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance Limited on 9 March to discuss the newspaper industry's response to Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation. I look forward to a future meeting with the board in due course.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear on the next occasion that he meets representatives of the press that the public will no longer tolerate chequebook journalism that destroys lives for the sake of the cheap, ephemeral headline and then moves on to the next headline, leaving shattered lives behind? Will he make it clear to them that they have failed lamentably in their paltry efforts to regulate themselves and that it is high time that they were subjected to external sanction and regulation?

The hon. Gentleman will have made his point to what is called Pressbof more vividly than any words that I could use. However, I join him in hoping that the press will continue to look at ways in which their methods of regulation can be improved.

Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that a free press is a guarantee of our own freedom? Nazi Germany did not have a free press; South Africa did not have a free press. We are lucky to have a free press. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that fact?

I share my hon. Friend's support and acclaim of a free press. All hon. Members recognise that, although the press sometimes views the House with suspicion in case we should seek to encroach on its freedom, the responsibility for ensuring that we retain a free press, which I agree is one of the glories of our constitution, rests on the press itself.

While the right hon. Gentleman is considering his response to the Calcutt and National Heritage Select Committee reports on press regulation, will he invite representatives of newspapers, magazines and broadcasting to talks about how the present laws, which inhibit press freedom, might be changed, and will he consider the threat of the concentration of ownership and cross-ownership of the media to the plurality of views and voices? In particular, will he now use powers contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to require Mr. Rupert Murdoch to choose between his ownership of BSkyB and five national newspapers?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in his description of the need for the Government to determine their response to Sir David Calcutt's report and the Select Committee report. I pay tribute to the comprehensiveness of the latter. Its comprehensiveness sets the Government a considerable task in responding to it. As we wish to observe due courtesies to the House and to the speed at which we respond, it might be a mistake to enlarge the agenda further, but the question that the hon. Gentleman asked remains under review.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance has been given to the British Amateur Rugby League Association through the Sports Council in 1992–93.

The Sports Council provided £160,000 in grant aid payments to the British Amateur Rugby League Association in 1992–93. In addition, it provided considerable advice and expertise to BARLA on sports science, coaching and international issues.

Will the Minister pass on my appreciation of, and gratitude for, the excellent grant that the Sports Council gave the sport of amateur rugby league last year? Does he accept, however, that it is not only a question of the allocation of funds and will he undertake that until the increasingly professional sport of rugby union ends its policy of discrimination against rugby league it will not receive a donation from the national lottery?

We had an excellent debate on this, albeit in the middle of the night, on 28 April which was initiated by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is in his place today. It is not in my gift to do what the hon. Gentleman asks. It is crucial that we maintain the arm's-length principle of funding and Ministers will not decide who benefits from the lottery. However, as I said on 28 April, it is important to have a wide debate on the issues and, as I suggested at the end of my speech, perhaps a few heads need knocking together.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities to support rugby league and amateur rugby union have increased dramatically in recent years, and will he join me in praising all those who encourage and educate children in those sports, especially those who are involved in amateur rugby league and rugby union in Blackpool, which is a home for both sports?

Yes, of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I welcome his comments. As a former teacher, it would be surprising if I did not recognise the importance of sport for young people.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received in the last six months as regards the future maintenance and stewardship of monuments within Greater London.

I have received various representations from organisations and individuals about the future maintenance and stewardship of monuments in Greater London.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern not only among professionals in conservation work but ordinary, proud Londoners, who see their capital city falling into decay? Will he address himself to the fact that there are 831 grade I and grade II listed buildings on English Heritage's at-risk register in Greater London? Does he accept that the Albert memorial, shored up as it is, is just a symbol of greater decay throughout the capital? What will he do about it? Does he understand that the fact that he might universally be considered a nice man is twinned with the fact that he is considered to be a totally useless Minister?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the cordiality of his question. I recently announced the Government's determination of the English Heritage strategy on the care of listed buildings in London. I am conscious that it decided recently to place the Albert memorial on the list of buildings at risk. It is an issue on which there is some disagreement between my Department and English Heritage, but we recognise the point that it wished to make and, as has been made clear, we will return to the restoration of the Albert memorial as soon as appropriate funds allow.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the comment that he just heard is not typical of the House? Most hon. Members see him as a living memorial to the triumphs of the arts and Conservative policy, and long may that continue to be the case. May I endorse what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said about the Albert memorial—he will know that I have taken up that issue—which is a memorial not only to Prince Albert but to the triumph of the arts and sciences during that age of British history and is precious to Londoners and people throughout the country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks although, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) had adopted an antithetical style by saying something friendly followed by something disagreeable, I had the faintest misgiving that perhaps my hon. Friend was going to reverse the process. I have made it clear that, by definition, the Government recognise the importance of the Albert memorial. As and when funds allow—we shall approach the subject during the future public expenditure round—we will resume its restoration.

Is not it the case that Buckingham palace is the most popular, well-known and often-visited of all the monuments, memorials and historic buildings in inner London? In view of that fact, will the Minister tell us what projection the Government have made of the income that the Queen will receive during the next five years? As he has decided to issue tickets in advance, through travel operators and others, what considerations are the Government giving to the prospect of those awful west end parasites, the ticket touts, meandering their way in front of Buckingham palace? Have they considered that and would it not be a demeaning spectacle if the residence of the head of state were to be marred by those very parasites?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his praise of Buckingham palace as a symbol of our nation, although architectural critics have not always been so kind. The decisions about access to Buckingham palace were taken by the royal household, which will be in charge of access arrangements. As I understand it, the group tickets have already sold out and I imagine that the old-fashioned British principle of queuing will apply to people applying for tickets individually.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to abolition of the television licence fee.

The licence fee will continue at least until the expiry of the present royal charter in 1996. The longer-term future of the licence fee will be considered as part of the charter review.

Has my hon. Friend read in the newspapers during the past few days about the massive windfall that some directors of independent television companies have picked up simply because they managed to gain one of the franchises? Does not that show that there is masses of money in the private sector that could fund television programmes on BBC, just as well as it funds programmes on ITV? Is not it quite wrong that if grandad wishes to watch "Coronation Street" on ITV as opposed to "EastEnders" on BBC, or grandma prefers "This is your Life" on ITV to "One Foot in the Grave", they must pay £85 a year for a lot of programmes that they do not want to watch, when private sector money is available to fund the BBC?

My hon. Friend has put her finger on an important point. Indeed, it was a point raised by her constituent Mr. Leonard Jones of 77 Belmont avenue, Wickford in his letter to her of 20 October which she forwarded to me. I am grateful to her for raising that point. It is part of the charter review process and we will consider that representation.

Given the limitations of the licence fee, especially as it affects pensioners, will the Minister accept that many Labour Members would be sceptical about any alternative form of funding the BBC that left it open either to crude market forces or to increased Government intrusion in programme making?

I accept that very important point. There are two sides to the argument. I also take the point about concessionary licences over which the House and successive Governments have wrangled for many years. It would be very expensive to change the position. Conservative Members and, I suspect, all other Members do not regard the licence as an instrument of social policy.

Many years ago, I asked for the television licence to be completely abolished and I supported a Labour Bill on that. Will my hon. Friend try to get away from the licence fee? We employ many people to go round with detector vans, and we have to replace and maintain those vans. It costs a lot of money that could go towards television programmes. There must be a better way. It would help pensioners tremendously not to have to pay those large bills.

Of course I recognise my hon. Friend's point about the cost to pensioners. It is also worth making the point that the BBC licence fee costs about 23p a day. My hon. Friend's representation will be taken into account and we shall have to work out a way forward. It is worth noting that we have received more than 6,000 representations in response to the paper that we published before Christmas. I do not think that there has ever been such a widespread review of broadcasting policy.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that among the vast amount of evidence that he has received, no coherent argument is emerging for changing the current system of financing the BBC through the licence fee. The debate on the future of the BBC cannot be seen in isolation from the wider broadcasting industry and from the chaos caused by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Will the Minister admit today that ITV is in danger of being swamped by imported American programmes and that the BBC could become the only significant source of original, high-quality United Kingdom production? When will he face up to his responsibilities and take up his responsibility to amend the invidious and infamous Broadcasting Act 1990?

I accept my responsibilities; I have broad shoulders and I intend to use them. However, I do not accept for one moment that the ITV companies are in danger of being swamped by anything. They are vibrant and strong, and they are making programmes that are held in worldwide esteem. Of course there are coherent arguments on all sides of the debate about the future funding of the BBC. The hon. Lady has done her bit to destroy confidence in the ITV companies by some of her recent comments.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for the millennium fund; and if he will make a statement.

Subject to the views of another place, the millennium fund will finance a number of projects, large and small, throughout the United Kingdom to celebrate fittingly the beginning of the third millennium. I hope that the fund will also endow a system of bursaries.

May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the millennium fund will not be used only to fund monuments in London and in the rest of the country, although they may have a place? Could not an imaginative scheme be developed to advance the cause of individuals and the welfare of people as we move into the third millennium and seek to establish a completely new spirit for the whole nation and for the world?

In 1851 and in 1951, which are the most recent parallels and analogies, when my party was not in power, the monuments were concentrated heavily in London. I do not know who will be in power when the millennium is celebrated, although I have great confidence in my own party. One thing of which I hope I can be certain is that the monuments will be spread throughout the United Kingdom.

In the context of my hon. Friend's question, as I said, I hope that there will also be bursaries. I hope that they will be enjoyed not only by those starting out on their careers but by those starting out in retirement and that that will be in the spirit of what my hon. Friend seeks.

Could millennium funds be diverted to the Albert memorial? Is it not a fact that, because of deterioration related to copper sulphate and iron oxide, any repairs will be more difficult and infinitely more expensive in 1994 than they would be if they were done straight away, in 1993? Is not this a classic case of a stitch in time saving nine?

All uses of lottery funds will be decided by those named as the distributors under the National Lottery etc. Bill. It will be for the distributors to decide on the quality of applications on the basis of the advice that they receive. I recognise that the Albert memorial might be such a candidate—

This summer.

The Bill does not become an Act until later this year. The use of millennium funds may fall foul of the principle of additionality, which is important to Opposition and Conservative Members alike.

I appreciate that there are difficulties in deciding what should mark the millennium, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that our music industry, and the popular music industry in particular, has some of the greatest talent in the world? Does he agree that the establishment of a great music palace, within whose walls the popular music of previous decades and of the present could be played, would be a fitting and exciting way in which to mark the millennium?

I have no doubt that a series of imaginative proposals will be put to the Millennium Commission when it is established. My hon. Friend's idea seems a good candidate, but applications will be treated on their merits by the commission.

Does the Secretary of State know why questions such as that raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) are being posed now? Could it be because of the secrecy that has been a hallmark of his Department's approach to certain aspects of the National Lottery etc. Bill? Is he aware that the GAH report, which his Department commissioned but refused to publish, has now been published—conveniently, after the Bill has received its Third Reading and at the exorbitant cost of £695 a copy? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a scandal if GAH made a financial killing on the back of public money, especially given that hon. Members were denied access to the contents of that report during the passage of the Bill?

I take mild exception to the hon. Gentleman's observation about the Government's secrecy in the context of the millennium fund. We have sought to be open in every answer that we have given. The report published by GAH earlier today was not commissioned by the Government and has not yet been seen by my Department.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little less modest about who will be in power at the time of the millennium and a little less cautious in his replies about the Albert memorial? Can he not put in a good word, as it is a total scandal that that great memorial is rotting away under scaffolding?

I am certain that, with the continuing and robust support of my hon. Friend, my party will be in power at the time of the millennium. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that his support is robustly given during the seven years from now. As regards the Albert memorial, I can only repeat what I said and draw my hon. Friend's attention to the principle of additionality, which is of some importance in the overall lottery equation.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next intends to meet the Arts Council for Wales to discuss funding.

I have no current plans to do so.

When the Secretary of State meets the Arts Council for Wales, will he use his good offices to press for additional funding for the Pontardawe international music festival? That unique and excellent local event attracts 20,000 spectators and participants to its annual August festival. Although it has received some additional grant aid in the past few years, it is run by an enthusiastic bunch of volunteers who need permanent funding to assist them of the kind that goes towards specialist but narrowly based forms of music. Will the Secretary of State press for that funding on a permanent basis? I invite him to attend the festival over the weekend of 20 to 22 August, if he is in that part of the world.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance warning that he intended to raise the subject of the Pontardawe music festival. I gather that, last year, West Wales Arts began to give a development grant to the festival of £5,000 for each of three financial years. That grant attracted funds from other sources for the 1992 festival. I hope that the organisers achieve the same this year. As to the future, the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take responsibility for the Arts Council for Wales on I April next year. For future years, perhaps the hon. Gentleman's request should be more locally delivered.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact on the tourist industry in the east midlands of the level of service on the midlands main line; and if he will make a statement.

English tourist board research indicates that 8 per cent. of trips to the east midlands in 1991 were made by train. British Rail has already invested significant sums to upgrade the line.

Is there not a danger that the east midlands will become a backwater in terms of tourism, commercial provision and industrial activity unless it has an effective rail link in the midlands main line, for which electrification is required? If the line is to link with the heart of Europe through St. Pancras, electrification begins to be required. Could the Secretary of State for Transport be informed that it is no to privatisation and yes to electrification?

As far as I am concerned, it is yes to tourism in Derbyshire. I shall visit Derbyshire on Thursday to launch the Peak tourism partnership. I shall, of course, explain to the people of Derbyshire the benefits to tourism of privatisation and of electrification, which may or may not happen. Railtrack will be financed primarily through charges to the users, but, as it was originally a nationalised industry, it will have access to Government loans. Privatisation will therefore increase the range of public support mechanisms for infrastructure spending.

Does my hon. Friend agree that tourists who wish to visit the east midlands, and Derbyshire in particular, have benefited considerably in recent years by continued and sustained investment in the rail infrastructure on that line? Does he agree that the journey time for tourists to reach the east midlands is now 30 to 45 mintues quicker than it was five or six years ago?

Of course, my hon. Friend is right. I travel on that line. I know that it is an excellent line. I wish that some of the other lines in Britain were as good.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he intends to take to protect a free press.

In deciding our response to the recommendations of Sir David Calcutt and the National Heritage Select Committee on press self-regulation, we shall be guided by our commitment to freedom of the press, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.

Does the Minister agree that it is something of a paradox that we have more television stations, more newspapers and thicker newspapers, yet they appear to be in the ownership of fewer and fewer hands? Should not the Minister be wary about the freedom of the press in Britain after the experience of self-censorship of those people who worked for the Mirror Newspaper Group during Maxwell's days? Should he not cite as an example the Scott trust, which was supposedly a good thing but which has used the Manchester Evening News and The Guardian to increase its share of newspaper ownership in Greater Manchester?

It is perfectly valid to talk about concentration of media ownership, but that is a slightly different issue from the freedom of the press to comment on events, people and activities. As I have just said, that is the cornerstone of our democracy.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the television franchise system.

It is too early to consider changes to the arrangements which came into effect at the beginning of the year, but I shall keep the working of the Broadcasting Act 1990 under review.

Does the Minister agree that the crazy auction system by which the franchises were allocated has already led to severe problems, particularly in the case of Tyne Tees Television? Is he aware of the great concern in the north-east of England about job losses at Tyne Tees, about the failure to deliver the regional programmes that were promised and the effect on the region's media industry, which many of us want to see expand? What specific steps will he take to resolve the matter?

The hon. Lady takes a more pessimistic view of the working of the Act and of the health of the federal system than other, more objective, critics might. I made it clear on 6 May, in answer to a question that she tabled, that the Independent Television Commission was looking at the Yorkshire-Tyne Tees merger and its consequences, and I look forward to its report.

Does the Minister care about broken franchise promises and companies using every ruse in the book to deny the truth to the ITC? Is it not a fact that the Broadcasting Act 1990 has led to a big increase in acquired programmes, with the obligation to produce 86 per cent. of programmes falling to only 65 per cent., with worse to come? Surely even the Minister must realise that the Act will result in less innovation and a narrower range of programmes for viewers. That must call for some concern from him.

I yield to none in wishing to sustain the production base of television and broadcasting in this country. It underlay the Green Paper that we issued on the BBC last November, and I regard it as important in national and international terms. The hon. Lady constantly tempts me to interfere with the ITC, which has responsibility under the Act, and, in the process, interfere with the arm's-length principle which governs most of the activities in which my Department is engaged and which we regard as an admirable part of the British system. The hon. Lady would do more justice to her overall position if she did not constantly ask me to interfere in matters of particulars.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that specific provision is made in the various charters for the needs of disabled people.

Charters should take account of the needs of all customers and set standards of service which apply to all of them, including people with disabilities.

Is the Minister aware that since, tragically, the Conservatives came to power in 1979, there have been five private Members' Bills, including two of mine, designed to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? When will the Government break the habit of a lifetime and listen to people, including every disabled persons' organisation? Is he aware that they all believe that those measures should have been allowed through by the Government? Will he make sure that there is early legislation to ensure that, in future, disabled people in Britain are regarded as first-class rather than second-class citizens?

That comes ill from the Labour party. There has been a 300 per cent. real-terms increase in spending on the disabled since the Labour party was last in power. That is a record to be proud of.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of charters for individual services was the best way to proceed, rather than publication for groups of services? Does he further agree that the publication of individual services must improve a particular service, rather than that of a whole sector?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Much the best way to get better standards from organisations is to set targets for them. That is why I am pleased to say that 27 of the 31 existing charters have specific targets aimed at helping disabled people, and I hope that the other four will be improved so that they do, too.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an important need for people in receipt of disability benefit and those in receipt of other benefits, such as pensioners, is flexibility and choice as to how the benefit is paid? Does he realise that the Department of Social Security is introducing new forms that do not give the option of payment through post offices? Given the inconvenience and hardship that that will cause to all those claiming benefits, particularly the disabled, will he stand up for the citizen's right to choose and stop the DSS acting in such a devious manner?

There is no intention to infringe in any way the right of people to choose how they want their pensions or other benefits paid. I believe that the DSS has been carrying out experiments to find out whether various alternative methods of payment are acceptable, but no decisions have been taken on any changes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system of charters brings great benefits to people with disabilities, in housing, transport, education, and so on? Will my right hon. Friend ensure, as and when new charters are developed and introduced, that he always bears in mind the need to consult people with disabilities and their organisations, in order to produce all consultative documents in forms that people with visual handicaps can understand?

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend's point. We have produced a range of tapes and material in Braille for that very purpose. I had a useful meeting with members of the all-party disablement group recently, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), at which we discussed those issues.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support he gives to research on psoriasis and acne, and other related dermatological topics; and what representations he has had in relation to such research from the National Eczema Society.

The main agency through which the Government support research into skin disease is the Medical Research Council. In the financial year 1991–92, the MRC's expenditure on research directly relevant to psoriasis and other dermatological disorders was more than £2·3 million.

As one who was a spotty teenager, greatly embarrassed by acne during my national service, may I ask the Government sympathetically to monitor the representations that have been put forward, on supposedly relatively minor disorders, by the National Eczema Society? What is the Government's response on the effort on research of the limited list procedures put forward to them by Rona MacKie, professor of dermatology at the university of Glasgow, and John Hunter, head of the big dermatology department in Edinburgh?

To look at the hon. Gentleman's elegant countenance, one would never have thought that he was a spotty youth. The Government are aware of those concerns. It is necessary to balance the costs and the benefits to patients, to the industry and the taxpayer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs will look this summer at all the dermatological drugs available on the NHS and will take into account the perspective to which he referred.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 10 years there has been a significant increase in asthma and eczema cases and other atopic illnesses? Does he agree that that may be linked to environmental factors relating to car pollution? Will he therefore liaise with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to make sure that any research carried out takes cognisance of that fact?

I will draw those comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Medical Research Council is at arm's length from the Government—it makes decisions about priorities—but it is important that it should reflect on that important aspect, and I will ensure that it is aware of what has been said.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to ensure that individual charters are systematically reviewed and strengthened.

Charters are a baseline for continued improvement. As standards are met, they are reviewed and raised and new standards are developed as appropriate. Delivery is for the service providers in the first place, but my Department keeps a sharp eye on it through, for example, the Prime Minister's seminars and our published reports.

I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that the parents charter is regularly revised, and in particular to take account of the additional information that will be available to parents once full testing of the national curriculum is introduced.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of testing and the connection between that and information. The recent polls show that parents want more information about the performance of schools and their children. They have not yet seen perhaps as clearly as they should the connection between testing and that information. We have to explain that connection, but it is vital that we continue with the testing programme to ensure that the information that parents want is available to them.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what remedy the charters provide against the squandering of taxpayers' money by the Benefits Agency? For example, £2·1 million has been spent on health screening programmes in private clinics for staff aged 35 and over, 86,000 individual items of corporate clothing costing £2·1 million have been provided and £6·8 million has been spent on overtime because of the total incompetence with which the disability living allowance system has been administered. That makes a total of £10 million already, which could have been spent on benefits instead of nonsense. Will the hon. Gentleman now sack Mr. Michael Bichard and restore parliamentary accountability for the Department of Social Security?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman regards expenditure on health screening as squandering money. I am also surprised that he has attacked good employment practice in the civil service. He asked about the relationship between those factors and the charters, which focus on outputs from public services. There have been problems with the DSS agency's outputs— they have been clearly recognised and are being tackled. The charters do not involve the sort of expenditure to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as that would not be sensible when trying to manage an organisation that provides good outputs for patients, clients and customers.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report regularly on the progress of the market-testing programme.

I am happy to be able to tell the House that when the current market-testing programme for the year to September 1993 is completed, I shall publish the outcome in line with our citizens charter principle of providing more information on Government activities.

I have also set in hand the publishing of a contracts bulletin which, from this summer, will announce all Departments' future programmes and then all individual market-testing contracts when they are under competition.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the bulletin is published, it will be made fully available to the small business community, which will find it extremely useful when tendering for contracts that were previously not available to it? Will he ensure that it is widely available and written in plain English?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The work that we have done makes it clear that the bulletin will be particularly helpful to smaller companies that may be interested in smaller contracts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, since his appointment last year, his disagreements with Cabinet colleagues and his lack of political will have turned the market-testing programme into a fiasco, produced the chaos that we now see in the civil service and stalled his commitment to open government? We are still awaiting the White Paper on science. What steps will he take to ensure that when the inevitable Cabinet reshuffle takes place, after the fiasco last week, it will not result in the right hon. Gentleman being replaced by one of his more dynamic colleagues?

One thing that was made perfectly clear by all the commentators over the weekend was that we had reached another stage in the terminal decline of the Labour party. Having listened to the hon. Lady's contribution, one can see why. The hon. Lady hopes that the market-testing programme will go away, but she will find that it will not—we will proceed with it for the benefit of taxpayers and those who use public services.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the civil servants who have been involved in market testing have demonstrated that once their sense of enterprise is released, they are able to do their jobs much better? Certainly, the agencies demonstrate good enterprise within the civil service and the Government.

My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, many in the public service are far more forward looking than the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). As Jo Rogaly said in the Financial Times last week, the Labour party stands for nothing except "the maintenance of bureaucracies".

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to review and amend citizens charters.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr.Legg).

Is the Minister aware that the citizens charter's list of performance indicators for local government includes hardly any that relate specifically to services to ethnic minority communities and contains no mention of major services such as education? Does he accept that record keeping and monitoring are an essential part of ensuring that equal opportunities policies operate effectively? Will he ensure that charters and performance indicators do not continue simply to ignore them?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is important to monitor the participation of ethnic minorities in a range of activities. I will certainly draw the attention of the Audit Commission, which is responsible for local government performance indicators, to what the hon. Gentleman said about ethnic minorities. We shall certainly bear in mind the interests of ethnic minorities in drawing up all the charters so that, where appropriate, they can be taken into account.

Will my hon. Friend, in reviewing and amending the citizens charter, recognise that in local government the achievement of a charter mark was accepted with pleasure by competent local authorities at the top of the scale? However, there is considerable wastage at the bottom end of the scale and it would benefit the public, in terms of the quality of services and potential savings, if heavier pressure were placed on local authorities at the bottom end of the charter list.

My hon. Friend, with his great experience of local government, is absolutely right. I should like to draw the attention of the Opposition Front Bench to a statement made recently in the Municipal Journal by the leader of the Labour party on Berkshire county council, Dr. Lawrence Silverman, who seems to be well in advance of his party in the House. He said:

"if the private sector can provide computing, payroll and other financial services cheaper than the in-house bureaucracy, then we owe it to the people…to make these savings and to put the money saved into direct services".

My hon. Friend and Dr. Silverman are absolutely right; it is Opposition Members who have not quite got the point.

In reviewing and amending charters, the Minister placed considerable emphasis on responsiveness to public demand. On the education charter and particularly testing, given the thumbs down from teachers, the public at the polls and even education advisers to the Secretary of State for Education, will the Minister at least draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that the citizens charter is meant to pay attention to other people's views and, one hopes, will do so before the system descends into chaos?

Of course we have to pay attention to people's views and explain our policies clearly and effectively. But, as I said earlier, we have to explain that there is a vital connection between testing and the information that parents are seeking about the performance of schools.

In reviewing charters, is my hon. Friend aware that the passengers charter is working very well? Last weekend, I was on a train from Truro to London which was an hour and a half late. Every courtesy was extended to me, plus an offer of compensation. Does that not show that the Government put people first and that they care?

There is no doubt that an improvement in performance has been effected by the way in which the charters are picking up the performance of public services through monitoring, and a significant contribution is being made.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment the Government have made about the Earth's vulnerability from debris shed from the Taurid object; and in what scientific and international initiatives the Government are involved in order to gather intelligence about the threat presented by asteroid strikes generally.

The chief scientific adviser last year consulted extensively on the threat posed by asteroids. The conclusion reached was that the United Kingdom should not divert major Government resources to research in this area, although work on asteroid collisions is going on at Sheffield university.

The United States have been looking at the matter carefully, and I understand that its conclusions have led it to fund a limited detection programme. Clearly, it would be pointless to duplicate that research. We shall, however, continue to monitor the research undertaken and keep our approach under review.

I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Does he understand that large numbers of distinguished scientists and experts throughout the world are alarmed by their inability to alert Governments to the gravity of the situation? Will he give the matter further consideration? In particular, I commend to him an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 25 April by its science correspondent which explained with great clarity the seriousness of the matter, which really should not be treated with levity by the House.

Let no one say that Members representing Essex take only a parochial view of matters. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have read the article to which he refers, and there is a real issue here. At this stage, it is a research issue. We are well in touch with the international network studying it.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the theory that the dinosaurs' lives came to an end as a result of an asteroid? [Interruption]

Order. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but there is a great deal of noise going on. Let me hear whether his question is in order.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the concern shown by the Labour party is deeply ironic in this context and that research, at this stage, is as far as it need go?

Probably the straightforward answer to that is, yes.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent discussions he has had with industry about research foresight concepts; and whether these will be covered in his science and technology White Paper.

The Office of Science and Technology published a report by the science policy research unit at Sussex university on research foresight in March this year. I and my officials have had many discussions on such foresight with major British companies and the Confederation of British Industry in preparing for the White Paper.

I am grateful for that reply. We greatly look forward to the publication of the White Paper as a result. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of our competitors, including the United States and Japan, already participate in such foresight exercises?

Indeed they do, and so do the Germans, the Dutch and people from other competitor countries. There may well be lessons to be learnt, which is why I have been in touch with the Sussex university unit, one of the centres of expertise on this subject.

Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that other Governments in Europe and the European Commission take a considerably greater interest in this matter than do the British Government and that, in the conferences planned on the European Community fast programme, he and his colleagues are participating but little?

We shall be coming to the discussion on the fourth framework programme, where a great deal of work is going on in this country, to make sure that our negotiating position is properly organised. The hon. Gentleman will find that we do not hold back when it comes to putting forward Britain's views on this matter.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Order. I have a Standing Order No. 20 application to hear from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).