To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her policies concerning regional orchestras. [35898]

The Arts Council is currently responsible for formulating policy on regional orchestras. Following a consultation process undertaken in association with the BBC, the Arts Council recently published its orchestral strategy document, setting out the council's goals for orchestral activity over the next 10 years.

May I warn the Minister that when the Department of the Environment cuts its grants to local councils, they then cut their grants to regional orchestras? Does he know, for example, that on Merseyside one council has ceased to provide grant and another has halved its grant to the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra? Does he agree that revenue support is crucial for effectiveness in regional orchestras' futures? Does he also agree that the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic is a world-class orchestra with a charismatic maestro and is really delivering the goods?

Yes, it is a wonderful orchestra. The hon. Gentleman may recall that I had the privilege of hearing it give a stunning performance in May, through the kindness and courtesy of the hon. Gentleman and his wife. Its new chief executive, Mr. Anthony Lewis-Crosby, is also doing a marvellous job.

Is my hon. Friend aware that regional youth orchestras are particularly vulnerable to cuts in local authority support? Does he agree that such orchestras are an important part of the infrastructure of music in this country, as they provide many of the very talented musicians of the future? Will he examine that issue and ensure that the existence of the excellent regional youth orchestra network is not compromised?

My hon. Friend makes an important point: youth orchestras are of exceptional importance. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that this year the Arts Council is spending more on music than it has ever spent before—some £44 million—but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the council's attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she now has for future allocation of lottery funds. [35900]

Parliament decided that each of the five good causes should benefit equally from the proceeds of the national lottery. I see no reason to change this at present.

Does the Secretary of State understand that almost the entire British public at every level consider that the way in which the Government have organised this expenditure of public funds is a public disgrace? Will she see whether there are other ways in which other people's money could be spent which they would find acceptable, whatever the Government may think?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the way in which the funds were distributed—through the five independent distribution bodies—was debated carefully in the House. The fact is that the lottery has been the most remarkable success: it has raised more money for good causes than anyone expected. I am sure that, like me, the hon. and learned Gentleman looks forward to the caring charities making their awards later this month.

As the lottery is giving widespread pleasure and excitement to large numbers of people while raising massive new sums for thousands upon thousands of good causes and also producing some useful revenue for the Government, is it not time that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) stopped carping and complaining and gave the Government credit for a brilliant national achievement?

I totally endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Of course it is characteristic of the Labour party that it is unable to welcome such a formidable success. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who asked the question, failed to recognise that in Leicester the lawn tennis club, the Haymarket theatre, Thurmaston parish council, Leicester rowing club and Loxton leisure services all received lottery money. It is characteristic of the Opposition to look for the cloud rather than the silver lining.

Is it not absurd that major arts organisations in Scotland such as Scottish Opera and Glasgow Citizens Theatre should face a major funding crisis at a time when so much money is coming into the lottery and is available to the arts? Is it not time that the rules on funding for the arts were changed so that at least some revenue spending as well as capital spending can be funded?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that already in Scotland the Scottish Arts Council has made 66 grants totalling almost £6 million. I agree that overall, in the country as a whole, the figures are 462 grants and £190 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have been having discussions with the chairman of the Arts Council as to whether there are ways in which, as the lottery money unfolds, it would make sense to modify the rules. However, nobody should underestimate the phenomenal contribution to the arts as a result of this very successful lottery.

Does my right hon. Friend not feel ashamed of the way in which, in the media today, she tried to defend the allocation of £21 million to Sadler's Wells, bearing in mind that two medical charities in which I am involved have got nothing? Does she agree that the best thing she could do is to say to the Chancellor, "If you want to make public expenditure cuts, close my Department and the Arts Council and everything that goes with it"?

I have been looking forward to debating this matter with my hon. Friend and I hope that he will come on a number of visits with me. I was recently at Sadler's Wells watching some of the youngsters rehearsing ballet and I thought particularly of my hon. Friend and wondered whether he would do me the honour of coming with me on such occasions. The constituency Member, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), may wish to debate with my hon. Friend some of the detail involved in the prospects for inner-city regeneration and the popularity of ballet, to which some 2.9 million people went last year.

Does the Secretary of State realise that Camelot, the operator of the lottery, is currently taking 1 per cent. as pure profit and that that percentage will inevitably rise as its start-up costs diminish? That means, does it not, that Camelot's profit for this year alone will stand at some £50 million? Would it not be far better for the operation of the lottery to be put on a not-for-profit basis, with the money saved going to charities whose fund raising is currently suffering grievously?

Labour Members never learn and never change. They have this ideological hostility to any organisation ever making a profit. I commend to the House today's report by Peter Davis of Oflot in which he further discusses the award of the operating licence to Camelot. That was commended by no less a body than the National Audit Office. Writing of Camelot, Mr. Davis said that it

"offered the greatest contribution to the good causes … and retained the lowest percentage of turnover to cover its operating costs and profits."

Does my right hon. Friend accept that when the distribution of lottery money was debated in the House there was virtually no opposition to the present system? Will she try to ensure that in future the charities board gets a better record and reports more regularly, and that all the announcements by the various grant-making bodies are co-ordinated? Would that not reduce much of the current criticism?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's reminding me that those matters were debated thoroughly by the House, and the independence of the distributing bodies was emphasised by both sides. We are now reaching the stage at which the flow of good announcements is such that everyone is having constantly to amend the figures: 1,432 projects have now received help to the tune of £545 million. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Caring Charities Board has had to work hard to establish procedures for the distribution of money, but the caring charities receive £300 million a year which they could not otherwise have expected.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional funding she will make available for youth sport. [35901]

The Sports Council will make available, additionally to the £4 million already spent on youth sport, an extra £1 million to enable trainee and serving teachers to obtain coaching qualifications. It will also set up a £2 million challenge fund to promote formal links between clubs and schools. Sportsmatch will be earmarking £1 million of its funding for school projects and, within the rules, we intend to make maximum use of the national lottery.

Are the Government considering additional funding for youth boxing? After James Murray's tragic death—the second death of a boxer in Britain in 18 months, on top of all the other serious injuries—should not the Government insist that the provision of any public money is conditional on a root and branch reform of boxing, which could perhaps include a ban on punches to the head, the prevention of dangerous dehydration and any other measures necessary to put safety first? Without such reform, should not boxing be banned altogether?

I certainly do not agree that boxing should be banned altogether. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point at a tragic time. The Sports Council does not give any money to youth boxing, although Sportsmatch has given some which has been matched by the private sector. As the hon. Gentleman knows, after the tragedy on Saturday, the British Boxing Board of Control is conducting a full inquiry. After the tragic death of Bradley Stone 18 months ago, an independent working party was set up under the neurologist Peter Richards. It has completed its report and a summary is published today; the full report will be published in November. I think that that would be a good time to look again at the findings of the two reports.

Bearing in mind his well-known interest in cricket, will my hon. Friend the Minister, through the Department for Education and Employment and the particular organisers, say something about the programme for reviving cricket in schools in the Greater London area and, indeed, in further education institutions? What progress has been made?

In respect of improving the opportunities for young people to play cricket, the paper that we published on 14 July spelled out clearly the fact that cricket is one of the games that we wish to encourage most. I mentioned in my original answer the £2 million that the Sports Council is to make available to promote links between clubs and schools; cricket clubs will, of course, be among those which will benefit.

Further to the original question, which dealt with making more money available for youth sports, does the Minister agree that making that money available, especially in deprived areas, could do much to prevent youngsters from getting into trouble in the first place so that we would not need the rather ridiculous statements made by the Home Secretary to the effect that he wants to lock up people for longer? Would it not be better to make funds available at an early stage and give youngsters somewhere decent to play sport?

Yes, I agree entirely with the first part of the hon. Lady's question. In fact, her suggestion is one of the prime moving dynamics behind the consultation paper. I want more young people to have better access to sporting facilities. [Interruption.] I heard someone mention the selling of school playing fields. We are, I hope, going to make the Sports Council a statutory consultee so that no school playing field can be sold without that body having its say. We also intend to allow schools, with their local communities, to buy back land to make even more sports facilities available for young people.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about tourism in the midlands. [35902]

Tourism is an industry of vital importance to the midlands, as it is throughout Britain. In the midlands it provides 240,000 jobs and generates revenue of at least £900 million.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that overseas tourists should not confine their visits to London, but should go to parts of the midlands? Does she further agree that attractions such as Alton Towers in my constituency and the beautiful scenery surrounding it compare with anything that London can offer?

Undoubtedly, tourists coming to this country should visit Alton Towers. Of course, with the increasing pursuit of leisure and holiday activities within this country, people do not need to go overseas for their breaks—they can have excellent holidays in this country.

Will the Secretary of State look closely at the bid from the city pride site of Derby to be the site for the millennium exhibition? If the bid is successful, would that not be an enormous kick for tourism in the east midlands?

The hon. Gentleman has once again identified the way in which the lottery is resulting in wonderful regeneration projects and opportunities throughout the country. He will be aware that four sites are being closely examined for the millennium festival. We are further ahead than any other country in our preparations to celebrate the millennium. The lottery means that we can do it in a more magnificent way than anywhere else. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Derby.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the distribution of lottery funds is sufficient to encourage tourism in the east midlands? Is she aware that there are many attractions in my constituency of Bosworth, such as the Concordia theatre, the new Hinckley museum and even Bosworth battlefield, all of which might benefit from a little more generosity?

My hon. Friend rightly identifies the fact that overseas tourists often refer to heritage and cultural activities as the main reasons for their visits. The lottery money enables us to improve and modernise our arts, heritage and cultural life generally, which is a great boost for tourism. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the distributing bodies, which are independent in their decisions about the distribution of lottery money.

Is the Secretary of State aware that midlands tourism has much less to fear from the social chapter than from the Government's current imposition of VAT on tourism, at levels far above those set by our competitor countries in the European Union? In this pre-Budget period, is she paying particular attention to the views of the Price Waterhouse report on the reduction of VAT? Will she give that her personal support?

Is that a pledge?

My hon. Friend asks whether that is a pledge. The Opposition parties are very good at reducing sources of income while increasing spending, without even trying to make the figures add up.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions she has had with Camelot concerning the level of prizes in the national lottery. [35903]

I met Sir George Russell, chairman of Camelot Group plc, on 21 August. We discussed a number of issues concerning the national lottery, including prize levels.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in some cases the multi-million pound prizes actually cause social distress? Would it not be far wiser to limit the top prize to £1 million, thereby creating a more fair and equitable lottery?

Looking at the background papers on the subject, I am reminded of the hon. Gentleman saying that he thought that the prizes were not large enough. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman will know that growing numbers of people play the lottery in a syndicate, so that very often, when a large prize is won, the proceeds are shared by a number of people. When large prizes are available, there is an enormous increase in the amount of money for good causes. The roll-over results in an increase of about 27 per cent. The lottery is required to maximise the return to good causes, to protect the interests of those playing, and ensure that it is conducted with propriety. I believe that on all three counts it is acting as a model.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that many of my constituents would love to cope with the social distress to which the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred if they were to win such magnificently high prizes? Indeed, that is precisely why so many of my constituents buy tickets. If they were not to do so due to all the petty restrictions beloved of Labour Members, there would be less money available to charities and the other many good causes.

My hon. Friend sums up the situation precisely. If the Opposition parties had their way, they would cap the prizes and reduce the money coming through for good causes. As things are, we are all winners with the lottery. Millions are playing, millions are winning and, above all, 1,432 projects have already benefited. The Labour party cannot abide success.

Is it true that the Secretary of State has issued a memo giving instructions to all the people who are concerned with grants and money from the lottery that in no circumstances should any money go to socialist Stratford?

If the hon. Gentleman checked where the lottery money was falling, he would find that far more goes to socialist authorities than to Conservative authorities, for the very reason that the money is going towards regeneration projects which are totally improving the face of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Stratford?"] There are no special cases. However, perhaps I could give the hon. Gentleman a list of projects in the Stratford area—[HoN. MEMBERS: "And Stratford East"]—to reassure him on that front.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how she will ensure that the subsidy that Channel 4 must pay to the ITV companies will be used solely to finance programmes; and if she will make a statement. [35904]

It is for the Channel 3 companies to decide how they use any moneys paid to them by Channel 4 under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Does the Secretary of State agree that Channel 4's creative programming has produced not only viewer satisfaction and commercial profit, but an increased international respect for this country's primacy in quality public service broadcasting? Will she assure the House that the Bill soon to be introduced on the media will re-examine the present funding formulas so that Channel 4 will not be unfairly penalised in the future—as it undoubtedly is at the moment—for its overwhelming success?

I do not accept that Channel 4 is penalised for its success. Channel 4 has been extremely successful as a result of the new arrangements and I congratulate it on all that it has done. The Broadcasting Act 1990 set out the funding formula for Channel 4 and that exists until the end of 1997. It would be quite improper to move the goal posts during that period. Like the hon. Lady, however, I commend the success of Channel 4.

The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Broadcasting Act was never intended to draw money from Channel 4. Indeed, the safety net was designed to assist Channel 4. Does she accept that taking £70 million from Channel 4 in each of the next two years will damage the creative ability of the British television industry and will mean that one of our biggest assets will be under-used? Will she undertake to review the matter and, if appropriate, bring forward relevant amendments which we could discuss in the House when we debate the new media Bill?

It is only the Labour party which constantly wants to move the goal posts. We have already had the smoke-filled deal on BT and the cable companies. Similarly, on this matter, it would be quite improper to modify the arrangements while they are under way. The funding arrangement has ensured the stability of Channel 4 at a time when there is a great deal of change in the television industry. The independent television companies took that into account when they bid for their licences. Certainly, the independent television companies invest very heavily in original programming.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the provision of funding for grass roots participation in sport. [35905]

The main provision for grass roots participation in sport is made by local authorities, with expenditure in excess of £950 million annually, but the Sports Council will consider applications to the national lottery from local authorities and others in support of projects offering a wide appeal.

Does the Minister accept that enthusiasm at grass roots for any sport will depend on a number of factors, including funding, but also on safety? In the light of the tragic death on Friday evening in Glasgow, does he agree that it is now necessary to have an independent inquiry into the safety of boxing? Why not set up a royal commission for that purpose?

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks a serious question and I take it seriously. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), there will be an inquiry by the British Boxing Board of Control within the next couple of weeks. The hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "independent". An independent working group under the neurologist Peter Richards will report in November. I suggest that the best thing that we can do is see what both reports say. Then—although I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not at this moment in favour of a royal commission—we will certainly look at the matter again.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the tragic death of James Murray, which everyone regrets deeply, the sport of boxing has a great deal to offer young people of all ages? It is a well controlled and well disciplined sport which is valuable to young people who choose to undertake it and others who do not choose to undertake it. Will he agree not to discourage public funds from going properly into the sport, notwithstanding any possible measures to increase safety?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a terrific sport and it would be a great shame if this tragic death weighed too heavily. When deaths from sports were last examined in a comprehensive way—between 1986 and 1992—there were some 268 deaths from other sports, including 40 deaths from ball games, as opposed in those days to only three deaths from boxing. So although this is a tragic moment and we should not take it as anything other than that, we should not let ourselves be overwhelmed by one tragedy.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's policy concerning reduced cost television licences for retired pensioners; and if she will make a statement. [35906]

As the Government made clear in the White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", published in July 1994, we have no plans to introduce reduced fee television licences for pensioners. This would be very expensive in terms of lost licence fee revenue, on which the BBC depends for the funding of its home broadcasting services. Any such shortfall would have to be offset by a substantial increase in licence fees for all other licence payers, irrespective of their means.

Many progressive councils which have warden-operated schemes charge as little as £5 for a television licence to those who were lucky enough to be in such accommodation before the Government changed the law in May 1988. Can we not have a national scheme in which all pensioners are winners? That is the subject of campaigning by many people, by The Star newspaper in my area and by almost every pensioners' organisation that I have ever addressed.

I certainly pay true tribute to the persistence of the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents who were not eligible for the £5 concessionary fee because they had not signed on before 18 May 1988. Nevertheless, we now have a scheme whereby pensioners or the disabled living in residential accommodation which qualifies for concession receive their television licence for £5 a year. Although I readily admit that there are one or two anomalies in the scheme, it is probably the best that we can construct. Perhaps Opposition Members can use their ingenuity to find a way of making this a matter for discussion when the Broadcasting Bill comes before the House in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made with carrying out the Government's new sports policy, with special reference to competitive sport in schools. [35907]

The working group on university sports scholarships, which is being chaired by Sir Roger Bannister, has begun its work, and the consultation stage on the sportsmark and gold star awards scheme for schools closed on 13 October. My Department and the Sports Council are now working towards the implementation of that scheme in secondary schools for the academic term 1996–97. The Department of the Environment will shortly publish a consultation paper on the Sports Council becoming a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting school playing fields.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in welcoming the development of substantial local projects, of which two in particular are being proposed in my constituency—Blackpool cricket club's plan to develop new facilities for youngsters and a potential partnership between two local primary schools? One of those schools has a sports field but insufficient drainage and the other has no sports field but would like to share a sports field if the lottery will provide funding for a new exterior changing block and for drainage.

I know of the hard work that my hon. Friend has done for Roseacres and for the other school. As long as those schools can show that what they want is good for the wider community, they will certainly be eligible for lottery funds. I wish them all the luck in the world.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have no new sports policy—it is more a rehash of others, including parts of our own—does the Minister recognise that more than three quarters of those who responded to the Department for Education's consultation paper on the national curriculum opposed the narrow imposition of compulsory competitive sport in our schools?

I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that we do not have a sports policy. When we announced our new sports policy on 14 July, it was heralded as the biggest revolution in sport for 50 years. We cannot produce policies every day of the week.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what studies she has undertaken of the impact of the national lottery. [35908]

My Department has commissioned research on participation levels and we are undertaking a study of the economic impact of national lottery proceeds on the cultural and sporting sectors.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although there is widespread public approval for the success of the lottery there is considerable anxiety about its impact on charities and on the competitive position of small shopkeepers who have been denied the right to sell lottery tickets?

Allegations have been made about the lottery's effects on charities; so far, they have been without substance. A recent MORI poll suggested that, of those playing the lottery, 4 per cent. had increased their contribution to charities, whereas 2 per cent. had reduced their contribution. There are many charities. In some years, they are very successful, in others they are less so.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the Rowntree Foundation's concern that a disproportionate number of lottery grants are going to the most prosperous parts of the country? Will she address particularly the Rowntree Foundation's recommendation that the matching funding requirement should be relaxed in disadvantaged areas where the problems of raising local funds are the most severe?

All the distribution bodies take a flexible approach to the way in which matching funding is interpreted. I dispute very strongly the hon. Gentleman's allegation with regard to the Rowntree report. Lottery money is going to a wide range of regeneration projects, such as the recent renaissance of Portsmouth harbour, which received £40 million; the Earth centre at Doncaster, which received £50 million; the Welsh highland railway, which received £4 million; the trans-Pennine trail; the millennium forests in Scotland; and the Sustran cycle tracks up and down the country. Regeneration is proving to be a great boost to the country.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of whether an adequate number of people are applying to become magistrates in the Duchy. [35883]

My assessment is that although there is an adequate number of applications from certain age groups—for example, retired people—we are not receiving enough applications from younger individuals.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his first Duchy questions. Will he confirm that it is his policy to ensure that successful applicants are drawn from a wider cross-section of the community? Is he aware that there is sometimes a problem in that regard?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I recognise that within the County Palatine, where I have responsibility for appointing magistrates, there is a problem, which also exists throughout England and Wales, in finding enough young applicants, particularly among men and women who work in industry. I intend to approach some of the larger employers within the County Palatine to remind them of the great contribution made by unpaid voluntary magistrates and of the contributions that employers can make to their employment opportunities and to their own businesses by discharging that essential public service.

Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable concern in the County Palatine that the magistrates who are appointed do not reflect the political complexion of the county? I accept that it is not a political duty, but magistrates should represent the political views of a broad cross-section of the people living within a county.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I am pleased that he has reminded the House that magistrates are not appointed purely on the basis of their political affiliations. It is important, however, to ensure that magistrates reflect the views of the communities from which they are drawn and that a fair and proper balance is maintained.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in implementing the Government's deregulation initiative. [35884]

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress he has been able to secure on deregulation by Her Majesty's Government. [35892]

With permission—[Interruption.]

Order. I can deal with the matter. The Deputy Prime Minister is replying to the question.

I have been asked to reply to Question 31 as the Minister responsible for deregulation—[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister has been asked to reply; I accept his response.

The Government announced a package of new measures on 19 September in response to a report by the deregulation task force. It included new joint working arrangements on taxation and national insurance. As well as changes to existing legislation, we accepted recommendations to make enforcement more business friendly and to minimise burdens from new regulations. We have now accepted more than 530 of the recommendations made by Lord Sainsbury's task force. Copies of the task force's report, the Government's response and a commentary on progress on Lord Sainsbury's recommendations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

May I say how welcome that statement is to many business men in my constituency? I hope that, in progressing the initiative, my right hon. Friend will do his best to ensure that business men are aware of the progress that we are making in achieving deregulation.

I shall certainly ensure that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The deregulation unit and the Office of Public Service must consider how European directives have been implemented in the United Kingdom. I confirm that the provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 can be used to amend and simplify United Kingdom implementation of legislation in European directives. That will be much welcomed by the business community.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his important new responsibilities and the Government's business friendly initiative announced on 19 September.

Order. We are not in debate. The hon. Gentleman has asked about a particular document. The Minister must now be allowed to answer. He has had enough information about the document—I certainly have.

I have, too. I confirm that I am aware of those directives.

The Minister has not read them. Mr. Freeman: I have read them.

Is the Minister aware of the clear evidence that his pressure to deregulate is leading to fewer inspections of private care homes and residential care premises? That is not only a retrograde step but a dangerous one. If that is his idea of deregulation, his Government will suffer for it, but my constituents will suffer even more.

That is not the idea of deregulation. It is principally to make sure that we, unlike the Labour party, seek to lift the burden on enterprise, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. We are not seeking to remove protection from the consumer, from those in care homes or from anyone else, particularly those in the workplace. We are deregulating to help the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy.

Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which he and the Deputy Prime Minister support, gives unprecedented powers to central Government, because, by statutory instrument, the House can change Acts of Parliament? Does it not also show the undemocratic and centralised view of the Government that the Minister attempts to answer a question from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is sitting there beside him and does not have the guts to answer?

I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister can answer for himself, and he will. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister will answer for himself as soon as I have answered the question.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what principal priorities he has set his Department. [35885]

To promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which my Department is responsible.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman already promoted himself? In the summer the Order Paper described him as the First Secretary of State, whereas today's Order Paper describes him as the Deputy Prime Minister? Will the next Order Paper describe him by his real title, which is surrogate party chairman? Surely he is nothing more than a glorified party chairman. That being so, should not his salary, at least in part, be funded from Tory central office, or could it not afford him?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that there has been a lot of progress since the summer—we are on our way to victory.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister willing to put his great skill, courage and determination in watching expenditure into looking carefully at expenditure by the European Community, which sadly seems out of control? This week we have been told that the agriculture budget will overspend its legal limits by £1,000 million. Will he see whether anything can be done about that matter?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will give the matter full attention.

I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his new jobs. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not mention all his new titles, as I have only 20 minutes.

The deputy leader of the Labour party referred to my former hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). There is a better journey—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who saw through the Labour party long before its own leaders, flirted with social democracy and ended up serving his country as a Minister in a Conservative Government.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the evidence that since he joined Mrs. Thatcher's first Administration in 1979 this country has undergone substantial national renewal and that it remains a principal task of any Conservative Government to unite the nation?

My hon. Friend understands that one of the proudest boasts of the Conservative party is its adherence to the philosophies and policies of one nation. For that reason, above all else, we have governed this country longer than any other democratic party in the history of democracy.

Should it not be one of the Deputy Prime Minister's priorities to produce a co-ordinated ministerial line on Europe? In that regard, would he explain to the Defence Secretary that this country has had treaty obligations to go to war on behalf of other European countries and has been part of an integrated command structure with other European countries since before the Defence Secretary was in his pram?

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has never questioned the obligations of this country under treaties. He was merely talking about the concept of a federalist defence policy in Europe, which the Government reject.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his responsibilities in respect of the presentation of Government policy. [35887]

I am chairman of the Cabinet committee with responsibility for the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy.

As he has completed his pantomime act in Blackpool, will the right hon. Gentleman, who is often described as the Archie Rice of British politics, tell us when he expects a substantial improvement in the standing of the Government? Are we right to believe that if, as seems likely, no such improvement occurs, the right hon. Gentleman will resign, or will he try once more before the next general election to get the job that he really wants?

No, I shall help the Prime Minister win the fifth term which he is entitled to expect.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he and I have listened over many years to the Opposition's comments on the Government's policy and that it is those policies and the way in which we have practised them that have won us successive general elections and that will win the next one?

As always, I find myself in complete accord with my hon. Friend.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his Department's priorities in Scotland. [35888]

As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to promote the continuing improvement of public services and the deregulation and increased competitiveness of British industry.

In the background briefing to the Deputy Prime Ministers's appointment we were told that he would implement policy across Whitehall. Does that include the Scottish Office and, if so, what gems await us?

The Deputy Prime Minister and, indeed, all the Ministers in the Office of Public Service cover competitiveness across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether Labour's policy on a national minimum wage and adherence to the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty would aid competitiveness. Most Conservative Members will be quite clear about the answer to that question.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responsibilities have been transferred from his Department since 1 July. [35889]

The Office of Science and Technology has transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry.

As co-chairman of the all-party group, the Friends of Medical Research, I am disturbed that, in the last funding round, only 30 per cent. of the Medical Research Council's bids for Alpha funding were granted, against the usual figure of around 100 per cent. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that such projects are important to ensure that the brain drain is reversed and that medical research will not fall between the twin stools of his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry?

I know that my hon. Friend follows these matters very closely, so he will be aware that we have succeeded in keeping constant in real terms the overall science budget at about £1.3 billion a year. Included in that is a hefty share for medical research. Obviously, I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whose responsibility that is, but I am sure from my conversations with him that he is well aware of the importance and success of medical research in this country and that he will do his best to keep up funding.

I can understand that the Minister may have some difficulty knowing whether he is deputy to the Deputy or deputy to the deputy to the Deputy, but given the new supervisory regime in the Department, and the demise of the cones hotline, will he now tell us what the three top priorities for the citizens charter are, and who decided them?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman himself knows who he is deputy to—perhaps what happens on Thursday will have some say in that. The fact is that the citizens charter's priorities remain as they always were—to produce a better quality public service.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to introduce new deregulation measures. [35890]

As part of the package of new measures that we announced on 19 September, we hope to bring forward one deregulation order each week Parliament is sitting, using powers under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

The whole House will welcome the unfreezing of payments to medal holders, but when will the Government deregulate the rule that freezes 30 other payments, including the payment to widows which has not been increased by a penny since its introduction, even though it replaced the widow's allowance, which was increased every year? The widow's payment should now be £881 more than it is. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of being a Minister in a Government who cheat widows at the moment of their bereavement?

The whole House will wish to share with the Prime Minister the delighted reception from Victoria Cross holders following the announcement made last week; it was much appreciated not only by the holders but by all members of their families.