To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department is spending in the current financial year on capital projects at museums and galleries. [37920]

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the funding of museums and galleries. [37930]

The 17 museums and galleries sponsored by my Department will receive over £205 million in grant in aid. The lottery has made 139 awards totalling over £250 million to capital projects at museums and galleries. The Government's position on the funding of museums and galleries was recently set out in "Treasures in Trust". Copies were sent to hon. Members and placed in the Library of the House.

Has any of that money gone to service museums and, in particular, to any museum in Lancashire?

It has all gone to Gilbert and Sullivan.

I hope that it will be possible in due course for lottery money to go to Gilbert and Sullivan and the D'Oyly Carte, but its arm's-length relationship with the Arts Council is not a matter for me to comment on. I am sure that many hon. Members would favour that proposal strongly.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that a substantial amount has gone to service museums, including £6.5 million to the imperial war museum's new American air museum at Duxford and £61,000 to the King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment museum in Lancaster.

The Secretary of State mentioned "Treasures in Trust", which made no reference to the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering in local authority museums. Can she assure the House that CCT will not be introduced?

There are no plans to introduce CCT in local authority museums. The document is an excellent framework for the standards for which we should all be looking in museums, ranging from the great national museums to the equally important local museums. It is a timely account and a spur to action which I hope will unite the House.

May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the welcome donation to the museum in Lancaster? It is a superb museum already, but it will be infinitely better when it is finished. At the last Armistice day, there was avid talk about what improvements could be made to the museum, and these can now be made.

Order. This is Question Time. I did not hear a question.

I said, "Would she accept my thanks?"

Order. That is hardly the sort of pertinent question that we get in this House. If the Secretary of State wishes to make a brief comment, I will accept it but I would like to hear questions in future.

I accept the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), and I should add that that museum uses a lot of volunteers. Volunteers are the life-blood of museums, which are the focal point of many communities. I hope that the additional resources from the national lottery will lead to greater use of museums by both young and old.

Do not these figures reveal the truth—that the Government are using the receipts from the national lottery to conceal and compensate for their inadequacy in meeting the capital needs of the galleries and museums for which the Secretary of State is responsible? Are they not covering up for the past 17 years of neglect? Did not the Prime Minister promise that lottery money would not be used in that way? Is that not yet another broken promise from the Prime Minister?

One of the most enjoyable features of recent months has been watching the Labour party's agony as it tries to cope with the formidable success of the national lottery, which has produced more money than anyone expected. If Labour had had its way, it would have increased operating costs, reduced the amount of money going to good causes and meddled with the distribution. I am delighted that, in addition to the £205 million given to the key 17 museums, a further £250 million has been provided by the lottery. As the document sets out, another £500 million is likely to be provided between now and the end of the century.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many tourists visited Britain in the first six months of (a) 1996 and (b) 1995. [37924]

The latest figures indicate that there were 11.8 million visits to the UK by overseas tourists in the first half of this year. That is an increase of nearly 14 per cent. on the 10.4 million visitors to the UK during the same period in 1995.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer, which demonstrates once again that a small island like Britain can hold up its head and compete successfully with the fine weather giants of the tourism industry. What lessons does she think that we might learn from the fact that Euro 96 was a success not merely for London, where most tourists usually go, but for the regions as well? How can we build on that success?

My hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable on these matters, is right: Euro 96 was a formidable success. Our earnings for overseas tourism in June this year were £1.2 billion—20 per cent. higher than for the same month last year. I have asked David Quarmby, chairman of the British Tourist Authority, and the English tourist board to chair a group with people from the sports, museums and arts worlds to find out how we can do more to promote British tourism by building on many of our great sports and arts events.

In respect of the right hon. Lady's recent activities on tourism, does she recall that the day before the House rose in July the Prime Minister told us

"No one can buy access to Ministers"?—[Official Report, 23 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 144.]

Why then did the right hon. Lady charge tourism industry people £500 each to have breakfast with her last week in Bournemouth? The letter sent to people clearly states:

"For £500 you would be able to discuss issues of concern to you … over breakfast with Virginia Bottomley and members of her National Heritage team."

Is that proper? Does it not make the Prime Minister's statement to the House in July absolute rubbish?

Anyone who thought the only way to speak to me was to pay £500 would be wasting a great deal of money. It is well understood that I am only too easy to meet in any number of settings, particularly in the tourism industry, where there is huge potential. The meeting was very successful. It is my understanding that if one wants to go to one of the Labour party's nosh-ups in Park lane, one has to pay £1,000.

Tourists to the United Kingdom in 1995 and 1996 will in the main have been spared exposure to the sort of hard-core pornography in our hotels that they might experience elsewhere on the continent. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the rest of the residents of the United Kingdom are also spared such exposure?

I have already made an order proscribing a recent porn satellite channel; that makes it a criminal offence to sell equipment and smart cards or to market or provide any programme material for such channels. With the huge development of cable, satellite and television channels in this country we will not be a centre for filth and pornography and I intend to take every action to make that clear.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funds she provides for the support of rugby union. [37925]

The Sports Council, which is funded by my Department, provided £125,558 in support of rugby union football in England in 1995ߝ96, of which £80,000 went to the Rugby Football Union for the development of the game at grass-roots level and £45,558 for the development of the game in the regions. In addition, since November 1992, Sportsmatch has awarded nearly £1.4 million for grass-roots rugby union schemes in England and £201,747 for those in Scotland, which has been matched by a similar sum from businesses.

The Minister's well-known concern for and interest in the game are acknowledged. I have even seen him recently at Border Sevens competitions and that is welcome—I am sure that it was in the course of his ministerial duties. However, the large amount of new money that has found its way into the game has come in at a national level. None has reached the junior clubs or the district level of the sport. The welcome work that the Government have done in creating new opportunities through academies of sport and all the rest has been at the elite end of the sports world. The sums that the Minister announced are welcome, but can he not do more and find more resources to produce extra facilities for the junior clubs and the district level, which after all is the level at which future stars are bred?

I will certainly use my good offices, such as they are. Even as we speak, the home countries rugby football unions are discussing with the television authorities the money that they might get from televising games. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about wanting as much as possible of that money to go to youth and district sport and about ensuring that clubs that he knows well, such as Hawick, Gala, Jed Forest, Melrose and Kelso, do not fall out of the game because they are in towns with small populations. I hope that the professional game would never drive out their great tradition of rugby.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing that he could do would be to knock a few heads in rugby union together? Both the professional sports association and the RFU have seriously embarrassed us in the past year. Will my hon. Friend take note of what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said and ensure that the money goes to the grass-roots until the big boys learn how to behave themselves?

I will do everything I can that is proper to ensure that the governing bodies know the view of the Government—and, indeed, of the House—that as much as possible of the money that they get from television sports rights should go into youth sport.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total sum paid in prizes and the total sum contributed to charitable and community causes since the establishment of the national lottery. [37926]

As at 7 October, Camelot had paid a total of £3.032 billion in prize money. The National Lottery Charities Board has made 4,757 awards for a total of £318.4 million to charities and voluntary organisations. In addition, more than 85 per cent. of all lottery awards made so far have gone to charities or voluntary organisations.

Do not these enormous sums demonstrate how unfair the critics of the national lottery have been? In offering my right hon. Friend my sincere congratulations on a fantastic achievement, I ask her to ensure that as much as possible of that money goes to good causes in Southend-on-Sea.

As we have passed the 100th national lottery draw, we have the opportunity to take stock and see how lottery awards are falling in constituents across the country. In my hon. Friend's constituency, eight awards, amounting to £1.25 million, have been made— from the tennis club, to the Jewish youth centre, to an art gallery and to a cricket club. I have sent all hon. Members a copy of the leaflet "It could be your good cause" so that those who feel that their constituencies have not understood the opportunities inherent in the national lottery can offer advice and encouragement to take them.

Has the right hon. Lady yet established, or will she be establishing, or will she be getting one of her ministerial colleagues to establish, an investigation into the appalling social and economic damage that the national lottery is doing to the poorer families in every one of our constituencies? These are the people who most need to dream this unrealisable dream.

I respect any hon. Member who believes that we should continue to monitor the effect of the national lottery, but there is very careful observation of it. The family expenditure survey last year suggested that the average weekly household spend is £2.30, which is not excessive. When one considers the good that is being done to causes up and down the country and the number of charities, and sports and arts projects— especially in inner-city areas—that have benefited, one has to accept that overall the lottery has had a monumentally good effect on the country.

Despite the publicity to which my right hon. Friend referred, does she feel that the full potential of the national lottery has yet been appreciated by many community groups and will she consider the possibility of more direct advertising, perhaps on television, to bring home to them their opportunities to apply?

I will consider all options because I want every group to understand how to access the money. It is interesting that bowls clubs have benefited from the national lottery. I understand that that is because they were circulated about the application procedures. I welcomed the results from our Building Communities Week this year, in which we went to various parts of the country, especially those which I believed had not yet realised the full potential of the national lottery, and not only to areas which were clear success stories. Together with all the distributing bodies, I will make further efforts to ensure that, if there are parts of the country that have not yet achieved the full benefit from the lottery, they will have the information to do so.

Did the right hon. Lady approve the speech of her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister at Bournemouth last week, when he said that, after 1999, it was his intention to use Millennium Commission money to fund information technology projects in schools? As the right hon. Gentleman is simultaneously proposing that, after 1999, Millennium Commission money should be used to shore up the millennium exhibition, which seems to be escalating out of control, and since that money cannot be spent twice, which of those projects of the Deputy Prime Minister does she support?

The answer is yes: I did approve of what my right hon. Friend said. He said that there was a commitment to make good any difficulties concerning the millennium festival through Millennium Commission funds before allocating them to a further purpose. It is important, however, to make sure that the operating company for the festival is properly established and that good value for money is achieved. I have no doubt that it will be a magnificent festival which will set an example to the world in the year 2000.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on progress on consultation on the heritage Green Paper. [37927]

The closing date for response to the consultation paper "Protecting our Heritage" was 30 September. A substantial number of comments have been received. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are studying them carefully.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the money from the Millennium Commission that has already been given to enhance our architectural heritage through the Church Floodlighting Trust. Has my right hon. Friend had any consultations about the importance of our historic churches and chapels? Does she agree that they often represent the most significant part of our local architectural heritage? Will she support them in order to maintain that heritage for the future?

I can indeed give my hon. Friend great encouragement. Apart from the Millennium Commission funding for church projects, the heritage lottery fund has already made 104 awards. Later this week, English Heritage, together with the heritage lottery fund, will announce an extremely welcome further initiative to streamline assistance for churches and to add significantly to the resources available for that. I think churches are part of our national heritage and that that announcement will be an extremely popular further development.

Could the House have a rather less frivolous answer to the first important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? If there is to be consultation, are we to assume that those who pay £500, or whatever, for breakfast, or whatever, are entitled to privileged access over those who take part in the established civil service view of consultation—the kind of precedent that has been set hitherto by the civil service in serious consultations? Is money going to buy the Minister's ear?

The right hon. Member for Copeland had a very serious answer from me: I am available at virtually every major tourist event and I am only too happy to hear directly from people about their concerns and about the real issues. I find that a great number of people are extremely worried about Labour's tourism taxes and the threat that they would pose to a very important industry. A great number of new jobs are expected to be created in that industry, but they would be jeopardised by the minimum wage and the social chapter. It is quite simple: the Conservative party, like the Labour party, and even like the Liberal party, organises a number of events that are sponsored. A sponsored event is such that the meeting is open to anyone who wants to pay £7.50 for breakfast.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, welcome as her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) was, the fact remains that churches are paying more in value added tax than they receive in grants from English Heritage, important as those grants are? Will my right hon. Friend talk to her Treasury colleagues in the next few weeks to try to ensure that something is done to put that right?

I find myself having many close discussions with the Treasury at this time of year and I shall seek to ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are added to them. My hon. Friend has made a crucial contribution to the step change in the amount of money available to churches. Many congregations feel that they would rather raise money for the poor and any number of other good causes and are worried about the amount of money that goes into preserving their buildings. The initiative will be a proper and popular use of lottery money.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage BSkyB to invest in programme making; and if she will make a statement. [37929]

Broadcasters will need to invest in programming if they are to attract viewers in the increasingly diverse and competitive television market. The Government have no plans to introduce further regulation of cable and satellite broadcasters.

That is a disappointing and naive answer. The Minister is surely aware that Sky Television has invested virtually nothing in original programming other than sport and news and has very few plans to do so. Is there not a danger that, ultimately, Mr. Murdoch will drag his television competitors down to the same level as he has dragged his competitors in British journalism? While we are on the subject, the Minister will also be aware that Mr. Murdoch will shortly obtain monopoly access to digital television. I know that the Minister has received strong representations on the subject from the BBC and ITV. Does he have plans to do anything about that?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The answer to his second question is that I shall consider the matter carefully in light of what the BBC, in particular, said last week.

Will my hon. Friend note that Granada Television has become part of BSkyB's package? It launched seven new channels on 1 October— many of the programmes that it makes are made in Manchester, which is good news and a boost for jobs in the north-west.

What my hon. Friend says is true: it is good news. We must remember that this country has become the satellite capital of Europe, and we want to keep it that way.

Does the Minister agree that any investment in programming by BSkyB would be bad news for the viewer if it was investment to obtain further exclusive coverage of major national sporting events? As he joins me and the rest of the House in congratulating Damon Hill on his magnificent achievement yesterday, will he acknowledge the simple truth that the reason why it was a major event of national interest was precisely that it was available to everyone on television? There would not have been the same interest had the event been confined to an exclusive minority channel, available to a few hundred thousand subscribers. What steps is he taking to ensure that major sporting events remain available for the majority of viewers?

I am sure that the whole House will want to offer tremendous congratulations to Damon Hill on his magnificent achievement.

As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question—that matter was debated at great length during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill. The hon. Gentleman will know that the listed events have been protected and that there is now a code that means that any important athletic event, such as the Five Nations, will be shown on free-to-air as well as pay television. I believe that the House reached the right conclusions at the time and we have no plans to change them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that cable and satellite television have significantly extended the range and choice of television programmes available to the public of this country? Does he agree that they have provided much extra sport on television and, more important, have ensured that significant extra resources have been made available to sports, particularly football?

My hon. Friend is right. Access to watch sporting events has greatly increased. The amount of money that has come into the sport will benefit it enormously. Some £700-odd million has been invested in soccer. The rugby deal is still being discussed—£87.5 million is already on the cards—and £40-odd million is to go to cricket.

In answer to the earlier question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I hope that a lot of the money will go to youth sport.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had this season with the Football Association about the current problems facing premier league soccer. [37931]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the governing bodies of football.

I am very reassured by that answer. As the sweeper in the ministerial team, is the hon. Gentleman succeeding in communicating some of the problems that affect premier football at the moment? He mentioned the £700 million that BSkyB is putting in, which is going to a limited number of clubs. The admission price excludes many people, and the Marc Bosman judgment has implications for the domestic transfer market. Those are all serious matters, causing football supporters concern, and I hope that the Minister will show some concern himself.

I hope that, if the Minister does nothing else this week, he pays close attention to the welfare of British supporters travelling with their clubs to European cup competitions. When Manchester United went to Turkey—it will return this week—its supporters were used for baton practice by the Turkish police. Will he ensure that British travelling supporters are well looked after?

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. What happened to Manchester United the last time it visited Turkey was disgraceful, but that is unusual. Leeds at Eindhoven was another example. But by and large—I have investigated this matter as far as I can—there is no evidence that British fans are picked on when they go abroad. I very much hope that Manchester United fans get a smooth passage, as they wish.

Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the yobbo-like behaviour of the Aston Villa goalkeeper on Saturday? Does he agree that yobbo-like behaviour by premier league players can only encourage yobbo-like behaviour in the crowds?

I agree with my hon. Friend without reservation.

The Minister will be aware that the present Government have failed to provide any significant structural or financial support to the hosting of the Euro 96 football tournament. He will also be aware that the Football Association plans to bring the World cup here in the year 2006. Will he therefore be more proactive, and seek a meeting with the FA to discuss its problems and offer practical support?

The Minister, Euro-sceptic or not, might like to consider the approach of the French, who are hosting the next World cup. They have established an interministerial committee, based in their Prime Minister's office, to co-ordinate their World cup activities. Or must we accept that only under a Labour Government will a World cup bid receive such positive support?

We will give every possible promotional help to the FA or to the other football authorities in the United Kingdom, to help them bring the World cup here. In the past few days, I had a discussion with Mr. David Davis about that matter, and we have arranged to hold a further meeting, at which I and other members of the FA can decide what best may be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the level of book loans from public libraries over the last year. [37932]

The total number of book loans in English public libraries was 450.5 million in 1994ߝ95, the latest year for which confirmed figures are available.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the library service is cherished throughout the country? That being the case, does he share my disappointment that Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council cut the libraries' budget by £1 million, thus raiding the book fund for the first time in living memory, meaning that no new books could be purchased in the current year, including my own?

Yes. It was very disappointing indeed that that was done, not least because the amount that is spent on libraries throughout England—about £500 million— has actually increased by 2 per cent. in real terms on average in the country as a whole, so it was a pity that Essex was not able to follow what other authorities apparently were doing. However, I pay tribute to the efficiency and courtesy of my local Essex public library, in Frinton-on-Sea.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to stop under-age participation in the national lottery. [37933]

I have directed the Director General of the National Lottery not to license games which, in his opinion, do not have sufficient controls to prevent the participation of young people under the age of 16.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, for the public, one of the most disturbing aspects of this sleaze-ridden Government is their complete indifference to under-age gambling? She may be aware that the Office of the National Lottery and the British Medical Journal have both recently published reports showing the number of 12 to 15-year-olds gambling on the national lottery.

Is she aware, in the light of her statement, that Camelot last year terminated only one retail outlet for under-age gambling? What steps is she taking to ensure that our children keep their pocket money in their pockets instead of swelling the already swollen profits of Camelot?

I agree that it is quite wrong that children who are under age should play the national lottery. The director general has repeatedly reinforced that message to Camelot. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that two retailers have lost their licences and another has been suspended. That can have a powerful effect, since the value to a retailer of having a lottery outlet averages £8,750 a year.

I am encouraged by Dr. Sue Fisher's second report, which suggests that fewer under-age children are playing the lottery. It is of course wrong that any should, or that they should buy cigarettes or alcohol. The enforcement measures are similar, and require trading standards officers and police commitment as well as renewed energy on the part of the director general of Oflot and Camelot.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is another sense in which we want to encourage the participation of young people in the national lottery? It was the idea of the founding fathers and mothers of the national lottery that a large sum of money should be used to provide artistic and sporting outlets that would take young people off the streets and away from the temptations of juvenile crime. Can she report good news on that front?

I certainly can. I announced only last week that directions will shortly be issued to enable lottery money to go to revenue grants for young people in sport and the arts, to encourage participation and to promote excellence. The Millennium Commission has already announced an award to Operation Raleigh, which particularly involves young people; and about £7.5 million has been given in the form of 257 awards to children's play projects and children's charities. Thus, in many ways, the lottery is providing worthwhile activities for young people.

Has not Camelot expressed the view, as regards its scratch cards, that it would be quite happy to have the playing age raised to 18 because it recognises the problems associated with them?

I am not aware of Camelot's having expressed any such view, but I believe that the whole of the national lottery should be kept under review. It is carefully regulated by Oflot, but if we reach a stage where it needs further regulation or controls, I shall certainly implement them. I am, however, mindful of the fact that the Select Committee's comment on this subject endorsed the Government's position.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many awards from national lottery proceeds have been made to individual potential sportsmen; on the basis of which criteria; how much has been the average award; and if she will make a statement. [37934]

None as yet. The Sports Council has recently undertaken a nationwide consultation exercise to help it determine and develop the proposed schemes and priorities It will announce the new arrangements shortly.

I welcome the progress that my hon. Friend has made in this area. Does he agree that good sportsmen who achieve a great deal internationally give a good lead to lesser sportsmen and children who are not very good at games? How much will be spent in total on assisting gifted athletes and sportsmen to success? Will he bear in mind that Charlotte Dutton, a leading snowboarder, and Ryan Cadogan, both of Ealing, lead their respective fields in the 15 age group?

My hon. Friend has been in touch with me about both his constituents. I congratulate him on his assiduity. We shall have to wait until the Sports Council makes its announcement about how much money will be spent, but I expect about £10 million to £15 million to be set aside to help young sportsmen and women.

The Minister will recall that he and I have corresponded about the amount of support available to disabled athletes. In the light of the success of the United Kingdom team at the paralympics in Atlanta, can he confirm that disabled sportsmen and women will be eligible for awards of the kind he has just described from the lottery?

Yes, I certainly can. This might be a suitable occasion on which to say that the young sportswoman about whom we corresponded, Miss Caroline Ellis, had great success. I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the assiduity with which he carried that matter, through. I confirm that athletes with disabilities will be eligible for the revenue funding that we shall announce shortly.

The Secretary of State announced today that individuals can get funding for dance and drama Will the Minister note that Lord Gowrie said today that that is just an interim solution? Will youngsters such as Natasha Cornish in my constituency, who started on a course this September, be able to apply for funding next year and in subsequent years? What are the long-term prospects for funding for dance and drama students? Is the Secretary of State's announcement genuine or just a temporary measure?

It is a genuine announcement. In case my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) does not catch your eye on this matter, Madam Speaker, may I thank him for all the help that he has given on this matter? Some £15 million will come from the lottery and some £10 million will come through the Department for Education and Employment, so it is not temporary in the sense that it is here today, gone tomorrow. If we can improve the scheme, obviously we shall. The hon. Gentleman's constituents should be absolutely clear that we want to ensure that many dance and drama students who have been unable to promote their abilities because of a lack of funds and because local authorities' discretionary ability to give them money has not been taken up will be enabled to do so through this scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will stage an official national exhibition to promote the United Kingdom's participation in European art and culture. [37936]

The United Kingdom has a flourishing cultural sector. Its artists, actors, musicians and performers demonstrate throughout the year that they can compete with the best in the world.

I thank the Minister of State for that broad answer, but will he be a little more specific? In view of anxieties about the excessive domination of so-called American culture, should not the Government promote the virtues of the age of enlightenment, the renaissance, and 18th and 19th century romanticism rather than the present-day xenophobia of spokesmen who reside in Billericay and Southend?

Xenophobia has no place in the Department of National Heritage. My hon. Friend asked for a specific example. Fair enough. I can tell him that 10 British applicants have won funds under the Kaleidoscope programme of the European Union to promote artistic and cultural activities with a European dimension. I congratulate them on that, which is exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend wants.

Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the British Tourist Authority in encouraging people from overseas to come to Britain to enjoy our arts, culture and heritage? Given that every £1 grant in aid that the BTA receives brings in £27 of business to this country, of which £4 goes back to the Treasury in taxes, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that there will be no further cuts in funding to the BTA in the current spending round?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his command of recondite figures, but I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. He must wait until the Budget, like the rest of us. He is right to say that the role of the arts is important in tourism. I was near his constituency— in Harrogate—the other day to address the Museums Association. Some 62 per cent. of visitors to museums are foreign tourists and well over half of those who come to London theatres are foreign tourists, so the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the arts are extremely important.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in London. [37937]

Some 861 good causes in London have received lottery grants so far. My hon. Friend may be glad to know that eight projects in his constituency have received lottery funds totalling £654,000.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are grateful for the aid and look forward to the next eight projects and the eight after that. Does she agree that London is not only the capital of our country but the cultural capital of the world, so big investment in projects in London is very much in our national interest? Does she also agree that the lottery and my right hon. Friend should carry on pumping money into London in our national interest rather than listen to the sneering attitude of too many Labour Members from outside London who do not understand London's place in our national life?

I shall speak this evening to the Royal Society of Arts about our heritage and our future and set out Britain's exciting creative position with the present magnificent investment. A third of the population lives in the south-east, so it is understandable that London, as the capital city, should receive substantial sums of lottery money. However, I do not underestimate the significance of investment in Newcastle, Liverpool, Sunderland, Birmingham and Portsmouth. We are now seeing across the nation the remarkable regenerative effects of substantial lottery awards.

Does the Secretary of State consider the Churchill family to be a good cause? I can assure her that my constituents were outraged by the £12 million award to that so-called good cause.

There have been a great number of substantial awards; they are part of Britain's heritage. Alongside the large awards are numerous small awards. Some three quarters are for less than £100,000, and they are making a formidable difference. Only the Labour party would wish away our heritage and our inheritance and shred everything that we stand for. We understand that new Labour has no principles and no history.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the judiciary are drawn from a wider range of social and educational backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [37951]

The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint entirely on merit those best qualified for judicial office. Those among the legal profession who are eligible to apply for judicial office are encouraged to do so.

Did the Minister notice that, of the most recent batch of appointments to the High Court, all had been to public school, five of the six had attended Oxford or Cambridge universities, and all were men? Are there any serious plans to break up the old boy network in the higher levels of the judiciary? If not, should we give the task of appointing members of the higher judiciary to someone other than the Lord Chancellor's Department?

The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity recently to put his approach to the Home Affairs Committee, and it was soundly rejected. He did not persuade Committee members then and he has not persuaded me this afternoon. He appears to be launching a dramatic attack on the old school tie network—I wonder whether he has cleared it with the Leader of the Opposition.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that most people would prefer, and indeed expect, to be tried by their elders and betters rather than by some ghastly politically correct, cooked-up judiciary?

My hon. Friend is right of course. When appointing judges, it is important to get the right people for the job. Their skill, experience and expertise are fundamentally important issues.

Why cannot judges be elected?

Is it not typical of the Labour party that its members want to tear up 500 years of legal history? Judges are elected in America and I do not see any encouraging signs that we should follow them down that route.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges are drawn from the legal profession because knowledge of the law is important when sitting on the bench? The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is really being critical of entrants to the legal profession. It is clear from looking at the Front Benches in this place that lawyers are doing quite well everywhere.

We are delighted to hear that. It is a fact that the background of judges today reflects the entrants to the legal profession 20 or 30 years ago. Most judges are experienced, skilful and senior people. As the profile of entrants to the legal profession changes dramatically— as it has over the past 17 years— we can expect judges' backgrounds to change, and they will do so in the next few years.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responsibility he has for overseeing the provisions of the Peerage Act 1963. [37952]

I have no such responsibilities. The Lord Chancellor has personal responsibility for supervising the working of the Act, which is exercised not through the Lord Chancellor's Department but through the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.

Why will not the Government agree with the Opposition's modest proposition to modernise Parliament by ending the hereditary right to sit and vote in the House of Lords? Does not the Minister understand that it is absurd for a seat in Parliament to be decided, as in the case of the late Lord Moynihan, by whether and when a person made love to someone in the far east? Did the Minister notice that, on 28 and 29 August, Conservative peer Lord Noel-Buxton said that he went to the House of Lords for free meals, heating and lighting? If we switched the lights off in the other place in December, half of the peers would not be facing the Lord Chancellor but St. Peter. It is time for reform.

I am proud to be British and proud of our history, constitution and heritage, but here we have another Labour Member who wants to tear all that up. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman have nothing to do with my Department. I can only speculate that the hon. Gentleman's sudden interest in life peerages flows from his anxiety about his prospects in Thurrock at the next election.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the other place works well and with great integrity? Does he also accept that, at times, the other place has given even his Department some difficulties in reviewing legislation? Does he agree that tinkering with the other place would damage it, as tinkering with the rest of our constitution would damage it?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I believe in the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The truth is that our constitution works well and is the envy of the world.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from people in West Yorkshire over his proposals to change the procedure for the allocation of legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [37953]

My Department has received many representations about the Lord Chancellor's plans to reform the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, two of which came from people in West Yorkshire. Neither was from the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister accept that there is much concern in West Yorkshire about the way in which the current legal aid system, and the Government's plans for it, is causing harm to many people who rely on legal aid to pursue justice through courts? Will he ensure that people from lower income groups are able to obtain legal aid more easily?

We wish to ensure that no one is denied access to justice simply because of the depth or shallowness of his pockets. Indeed, our reforms are designed to increase access to justice. The hon. Gentleman appears to be slightly out of the touch with the people of West Yorkshire. Only two of them have written to me about our legal aid reforms. One of them, a Mr. Nickolls from Bradford, wrote:

"Anyway, on legal aid at least, the correct things are now being said … so British justice might not be entirely dead yet—just taking a long time to come out of intensive care! Don't take years to get something done"

Does my hon. Friend realise that in my part of West Yorkshire all the complaints are from people who are being pursued, often frivolously, by those who can get legal aid? Those with legal aid put down people who cannot, often wrongly.

My hon. Friend is right. There is now a dramatic imbalance between those who are entitled to legal aid suing those who are not entitled. Our reforms are designed to get to the heart of the problem and to redress that imbalance, which has crept in over the past few years.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the administration of his Department. [37954]

A wide range of measures is constantly being undertaken to improve administration. They currently include: taking forward the management improvements set out in the civil service White Paper "Continuity and Change"; use of the private finance initiative to deliver better computerisation, services and accommodation; and other measures to enhance the quality of service and provide better value for money for court users and the taxpayer.

Would not administration be improved if the Minister's Department had more resources, obtained possibly by clawing back some of the millions of pounds that have been looted from legal aid by criminal millionaires? If we cannot claw the money back from the millionaires, possibly because they have fled abroad, should not we claw it back from those who have benefited from the work of those crooks? Can we make a start by demanding that the Conservative party pays back into the public purse some of the £400,000 given to it by Asil Nadir in an attempted bribe?

We are all concerned about cases where there appears to have been an abuse of legal aid money. My Department has already moved to take steps to close the loophole that has been used by the apparently wealthy. Our legal aid reforms are designed to crack down on weak and trivial cases and to ensure that a stiffer merits test is applied, which is the very thing that the hon. Gentleman has urged us to do. I thank him for his support for our White Paper reforms.

Will the improved administration plans for the Department include more training for judges, including senior judges, particularly after the most unfortunate decision made in the Maxwell case, which undermined the meticulous preparatory work of the Serious Fraud Office?

When introducing the reforms brought forward by Lord Woolf, the judiciary will have to undergo serious training, which it is enthusiastic to do. Resources will be made available. It is our intention to have a legal system fit for the 21st century which is safe in Conservative hands.

Talking of elders and betters, what is the Minister's response to the criticism of the Government by the judiciary over the weekend? The Master of the Rolls described our civil justice system as a "no-win casino". The head of the chancery division described the Government's proposals for court fees as "mistaken". When will the Minister's Department publish Lord Woolf's report? Will he cost it so that we can reform a system that is increasingly falling into disrepute?

We are about to announce our response to Lord Woolf' s report. We shall take seriously any comments made by the judiciary. As I understand it, some comments were made in relation to the prospect of the Opposition Front Bench trying to outdo my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is introducing tremendous reforms that are supported by the nation at large. The hon. Gentleman's response appears to be, "Mine is bigger than yours."

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the administrative reforms that he is undertaking will enable his Department sufficiently to pursue contempt of court cases? In particular, will the reforms enable his Department to examine the clear contempt of court of those who quote privileged court documents, including the disgraceful conduct of the right hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in quoting privileged documents?

My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. The disclosure of documents in the case to which he refers clearly needs to be carefully scrutinised. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for full consideration.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to visit the land registry and land charges offices in the Plymouth, Devonport constituency to discuss the work of the offices. [37955]

I visited the Plymouth district land registry on Wednesday 18 September 1996, and I was greatly impressed by the enthusiasm and efficiency of all the officers whom I met.

I am pleased to note that my tough and exacting question, which I tabled before the summer recess, precipitated a long overdue visit by the Minister to the land registry in my constituency.

I note that the Minister said that he was impressed by the very good work that the staff are doing—so will he now give a guarantee that the morale of the staff and the excellent work that they are doing will not be undermined by the threat of privatisation?

My visit was set up well before the hon. Gentleman tabled his question. We have no plans whatsoever to privatise the land registry. I know that that will come as a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, who loves to scaremonger. Indeed, he is happy only if he has frightened people into not being able to sleep at night. On this occasion he has well missed the target.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the small claims court more efficient and accessible to people on low incomes. [37958]

The National Audit Office's report on the small claims procedure, published in March, disclosed that most people who had pursued small claims had found the procedure cheap and easy to use. Considering the NAO's finding, the Committee of Public Accounts made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and accessibility of the small claims procedure. The Department has responded to the Committee's conclusions in the minutes of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

I welcome the Minister's answer, but as cuts in legal aid will damage the legal rights of those on low incomes, is it not incumbent on the Government to improve the efficiency of the small claims courts? Should not the Department be introducing measures immediately to increase financial limits, to improve the representation of those using the courts and to achieve a faster throughput of cases with swifter judgments?

The hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, out of touch. At the beginning of this year, we increased the limit for small claims from £1,000 to £3,000. We are monitoring that measure carefully. The hon. Gentleman is right: we want a small claims system that is cheap and easy to use. We believe that we have that, but we will monitor it carefully.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some people, who succeed in gaining awards through the small claims courts, do not obtain them because procedures are not enforced? Can something be done urgently to improve that?

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point. We are considering a range of ways in which to improve the enforceability of judgments so that people who obtain a judgment in the courts are guaranteed to receive the money. We will report in due course.