To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the long-term value of the millennium projects. [7496]

The Millennium Commission's legacy will include projects all across the country worth about £3 billion. These range from new art galleries and science centres to hundreds of village halls and community greens. The commission's millennium awards for individuals will also provide opportunities for thousands of people to achieve personal aspirations while putting something back into the community.

As the Secretary of State is aware, we recently launched the construction of the national landmark millennium project for the arts in Salford—the Lowry centre—a unique combination of the performing and visual arts which brings together creativity and imagination in a way never done before. It will create 6,500 jobs in Salford. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he considers to be the long-term benefits of the Lowry centre?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the enormous benefits that will come from the Lowry centre. It is one of 12 landmark projects across the country. It will provide jobs, entertainment and education, and it will provide a major new resource for the people of her area. I very much welcome the development of the Lowry centre, as I am sure she does, too.

I was very pleased to have been at the launch of the Lowry centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has always been bipartisan agreement on the Millennium Commission and that there was always an Opposition Member on it? Does that not make all the more disgraceful and deplorable the six months of shenanigans over the major event—the millennium exhibition at Greenwich—which have achieved no change in the five conditions apparently set out but merely jeopardised the project and made sure that Mr. McCormack has to work even harder for his very substantial commission?

I pay much tribute to the role that the right hon. Lady played on the Millennium Commission in developing the various landmark projects around the country, but I pay rather less tribute to her question. The millennium exhibition at Greenwich will be going ahead. It was important that we reviewed the position, as we said we that would immediately on coming into office, and the review is now complete. We have identified a number of aspects of the exhibition which will be fulfilled, such as having a permanent legacy and its being completed at the cost prepared for it. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady's colleague, the former Deputy Prime Minister, is now the Opposition nominee on the Millennium Commission.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the leaks in the newspapers last week about threatened cuts to provincial projects for the millennium? Is he aware that in many areas the projects will not only bring about regeneration but will create jobs, have a very important educational, scientific and cultural interest and, in Hull, create an international centre for marine studies? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that no specific decision has yet been taken by the Millennium Commission and, secondly, that no money is being shovelled out of the provinces to the capital, thus favouring the capital at the expense of the provinces?

I can indeed confirm those two points. There was some inaccurate reporting in the newspapers last week, not for the first time, about these matters. The Hull project to which my hon. Friend refers and, indeed, a wide range of other projects are still under active consideration for round 3 of the Millennium Commission's work. The proper detailed appraisals are going forward in the normal way and announcements about them will be made in three or four months' time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on plans to encourage local authorities to sell minor works of art, purchased by past local authorities, which have not been on public display for over 20 years. [7497]

That is a matter for local authorities to decide. Disposals from museum and gallery collections need special care, and I hope that any local authority would take into account the guidelines issued by the Museums and Galleries Commission.

I do not want the family silver to be sold off, but would the Minister consider giving a directive to local authorities? Local authorities have works of art in their vaults and rooms, many of which have not come out for 50 years. I have been to several museums in the north-west, where many works of art have never been uncovered and lie rotting. Local authorities now have air conditioning and various other things to do. There should be a directive saying that a local authority could sell such works or bring them out for viewing by schools. There would then be some direct remuneration to the authority.

rose—

Order. I have not heard a question yet.

I asked about a directive.

Do you want a directive or do you not want a directive? I am sure that the Minister can make a small response.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that works of art are rotting. I am sure that directors of museums all over the country make sure that everything in their collection is well preserved. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. We want to ensure that anything held by a museum is as widely accessible as possible, particularly to young people. There is great potential for work with schools and communities. However, I have no evidence that the basements and stores of local authority museums are stuffed with undiscovered treasures. I will seek the views of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Local Government Association. The MGC has laid down very good guidelines for local authority museums.

I hope that the Minister will not issue a directive. Which guru will judge what is a minor or major work of art? The purpose may be to raise money, but, as the Minister well knows, it is not long since paintings from the Alma-Tadema and pre-Raphaelite schools were regarded as worthless, but now they are fetching millions. If such a directive were issued, in about 20 years all the Lowry paintings in the museum mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) would be swept out and put on the market.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the MGC guidelines are adequate for the time being. I shall not issue a directive. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has learnt so well from his distinguished father and understands how fashions and valuations vary. Sir Denis Mahon often picked up now priceless Guercinos for his magnificent collection, recently at the National Gallery, for very small sums in the 1930s. Hon. Members on both sides understand how such matters change.

If I call Sir Patrick Cormack, do you think that I might get a question rather than a comment?

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no greater deterrent to potential donors than museums carelessly disposing of their assets?

I entirely agree.

Well done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been allocated by the Millennium Commission to projects to mark the millennium. [7498]

The Millennium Commission has allocated £993 million to 111 capital projects and a further £19 million to 13 partner bodies making millennium awards to individuals. In addition, a grant of £400 million has been agreed for the new millennium experience at Greenwich, giving a total allocation to date of £1.4 billion.

Why has the proposal for Cresswell Craggs in my constituency not been allocated any money? It is the northernmost part of the hemisphere that relates back to the ice age. Can we really expect to sustain an expenditure of £400 million for the polystyrene dome at Greenwich? It will probably cost double that before it is finished, now that we know that a tube station has found its way into the middle of it. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that he may not be able to find money for hospitals and other things that would mark the millennium in a much more decent fashion for millions of people around the country? He should remember the song about the folly of years gone by, in which the man who had once built a tower to the sun asked:

"Brother, Can You spare a Dime?"

As I suspect that my hon. Friend knows, the Cresswell Craggs application was made to the heritage lottery fund and not to the millennium fund. There are a number of problems outstanding in connection with that project, not least of which is the fact that the land was privately owned and on a short lease. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss the prospects for that project further at any stage, I shall be delighted to meet him to do so. I should point out to him, however, that decisions on such matters are the responsibility of the distributory bodies and not of the Government.

Might not one appropriate way to mark the millennium have been to include the word "tourism" in the Department's new name, as tourism is the largest industry for which the right hon. Gentleman now has direct responsibility?

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a press release issued by the British Hospitality Association, one of the major representative bodies in the tourism industry, in which the association says that:

"a name is only a name. What is far more important for the association is that we have such good relations with the Department, which we are determined to build on".

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the role of museums in preserving the industrial heritage. [7499]

The industrial heritage is of immense importance to the understanding of our past. Museums clearly have a central role to play in its preservation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the vital contribution made to our national industrial heritage by the national coal mining museum in the Wakefield district not far from my constituency? Does he agree that the children of Pontefract and Castleford mining families have a great opportunity in that underground museum to learn about their industrial and social history? What can be done to safeguard the future of the national coal mining museum?

Yes, I know of the excellent work of that museum, which I have visited on more than one occasion. My hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that such museums are extremely important, especially for children in understanding the past of their region and where they came from.

How does the Minister reconcile his two apparently conflicting policy objectives—that admission to the great museums, including the industrial heritage museums, should be free to the public, and that museum trustees should be free to set charges if they wish? Will he reassure trustees that his Department will not discriminate against those who decide, in pursuance of their public duties, that charges are the right policy for their museum?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that trustees of museums have always decided and will continue to decide whether a particular museum charges for admission. There is no conflict between that duty on trustees and the Government's determination to pursue ways of ensuring the widest possible access for members of the public to the national collections—I emphasise that we are speaking of the core collections of the national museums, which have been collected with public money and maintained with taxpayers' money from all over the country. The two objectives are not in conflict.

I commend my hon. Friend's extraordinarily imaginative and progressive decision to give national recognition to the Bowes museum and the Beamish open air museum, both in the county of Durham. May I invite him to go further and to work in his Department to unlock the fund raising that would assist those two museums to enhance the superb work that they are already doing?

I am glad that my right hon. Friend finds those decisions imaginative. It is surprising how people find imaginative the work that benefits them and their constituencies. I am sure that that is shared throughout the House. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Bowes museum is one of the great museums in this country. To anyone who cares about museums, it is hardly surprising that it was at the top of the list of the first wave of designation. That makes a premier division for museums. In asking how we can add value to that, my right hon. Friend raises an important point that we are currently considering. That must be the way forward for designating museums. They are benefiting from the added status. We must now consider and discuss with them how to add value to that status.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the British academy of sport. [7501]

I have visited all three sites and had discussions with the UK Sports Council and officials. I hope to make an announcement in September.

Does the Minister recall that on 9 May, referring to the location of the British academy of sport, he said that there was no firm decision in his mind, but that it would not take him long to work it out. If a week is a long time in politics, what on earth is four and a half months? Why has it taken the Government so long? Why have they been sitting on the fence, given that the Minister of State visited the sites fairly soon after the election? What has got in the way of his coming to the House with a decision earlier than September?

The hon. Lady obviously has problems grasping the theory of time. The Government have been around for only nine weeks and I have been doing this job for only eight weeks. I have not yet made Minister of State, and I doubt whether I will, but I will settle for Parliamentary Under-Secretary. We have survived for a long time without a British academy of sport and it is essential to get it right. I have inspected the three sites, but it is a very difficult decision. I do not want to make a decision in such haste that I shall have to repent at great leisure. The decision will be made, and it will be made in the best interests of sport in the United Kingdom.

In agreeing with my hon. Friend that it is important to get the decision right, may I draw his attention to the excellence of the submission from the central consortium, and the widespread support for that submission from both the east and the west midlands? Does he agree that one of the reasons why it is such a strong application is that it consists of a number of centres of excellence, including Lilleshall on the boundaries of my constituency? I know that my hon. Friend has been travelling around seeing as many centres as possible. When Chelsea are away at Aston Villa, for instance, and he has good reason to be in the west midlands area, may our hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and I invite him to come and see the work being done at Lilleshall, which I am sure will enable him to reach a speedy and correct conclusion?

And I know which decision my hon. Friend thinks would be the right one. There are three excellent sites: that is the purpose of having a shortlist and what makes the task more difficult. Each site has some advantages and some disadvantages, and all three sites have proponents as strong as my hon. Friend. I assure him that no site is yet ruled out, and none will be ruled out until we rule out two when we take the final decision.

Does the Minister agree that, whichever site is chosen, it will be important to continue the previous Government's policy of regional academies for sport in addition to the national academy? Does he agree that the two unsuccessful bidders should immediately be invited to become regional academies? May I further ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as a new Minister, he feels comfortable working in a communist-style ministry of culture?

Once the central academy is set up, the need for regional centres will be essential. On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, when I ran the arts and recreation department on the Greater London Council I was referred to as the snarling tsar of culture. I am happy where I am.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the progress made by the film review group. [7502]

Following the film review group's first meeting on 3 July, co-chaired by Stewart Till of Polygram and myself, the six specialist sub-groups have been established and are drawing up detailed work plans for their specific areas.

What effect will the Budget have on the deliberations of the film review group, especially on the future of the film industry?

The film tax concessions in the Budget were warmly received by the whole industry. Both the industry and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor accept that the concessions will provide the opportunity to improve the capacity of the UK film industry, increase the number of skilled workers in film and production and ensure that we have strategies to build on those skills and talents. That is how the industry will respond, thus justifying my right hon. Friend's confidence in it and its in him.

First, I welcome the fact that the Minister has shown more enthusiasm today for his brief than when he recently spoke to the all-party film group, when he made it clear that his indignation at not being in the Cabinet was not greatly reduced by his films portfolio. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say that he would reject any suggestion by the film review group for the Government to join the Eurimages project, which has so far failed to secure the widespread distribution of European films and has instead used substantial sums of public money to pile up a European film mountain of films that are unwatched and may prove unwatchable?

I had planned to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box, but I trust that he will have a higher regard for fact and veracity on future occasions. I am delighted with my job and I regret that he will never be able to say that. Given the excitement in the industry and the splendid work that the film review group is doing, he might have been more constructive. He might have paid tribute, for example, to Colin Leventhal, Channel 4's director of acquisition, who heads the subgroup on finance, or to the sub-group considering skills and new jobs. The hon. Gentleman has come naked of ideas to the Opposition Dispatch Box, and that is why he will never enjoy himself as much as I do at the Government Dispatch Box.

Surely the financial aspect of film production and distribution should be the main area of concern. Will the members of the film review group be able to address that matter?

The groups, including the main group, have been working extremely hard and have considered that issue. I wish to make it clear, however, that, despite the excellence and the comprehensive nature of the main group and the sub-groups, those who are not in membership are very welcome to make a contribution in evidence, either in writing or in person. I include in that an invitation to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he next plans to meet cable television operators to discuss their future expansion plans. [7503]

My right hon. Friend has already met the Cable Communications Association and had a wide-ranging discussion on broadcasting policy issues.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the cable companies on their multi-hundred million pound investment in cabling up Britain? I include in that ComTel, which is cabling up Lichfield. Does the Minister think that cable companies—which provide not only television but telephony services—would have made that investment if they had thought that British Telecom would be able to compete with them, given that BT already has a network in the UK? When will the Government be in a position to say whether BT will be competing with the cable companies, which currently have great doubts about continuing their investment?

I agree that the cable companies have done well. They have invested £7 billion so far and are on their way to a projected investment of £12 billion. They have installed more than 2 million telephone lines, which has sharpened competition with BT. The Government are committed to lifting the broadcasting restrictions on BT and to treating BT and the cable companies on a fair and equitable basis. There are many issues to be considered, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm date on which any such decision will be made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the customers are more important than the cable companies and that we should ensure that customers get the maximum benefits of cable television as quickly as possible? Does he understand, therefore, that his failure to give BT a much earlier right to broadcast has disappointed some of his hon. Friends?

My hon. Friend will know that these things are under discussion with BT. As he says, the television and telephony services to the public are crucial. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should take up with the cable companies why they are not making greater penetration into television and broadcasting, as fewer than a quarter of the houses they pass are taking up the opportunity of television services. We want high-quality television services and more opportunity for telephony services in the interests of the consumer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the regulations governing media ownership. [7504]

We have no proposals to revise media ownership restrictions at present, but the subject will be considered as we develop revised proposals for regulating the converging broadcasting and communications industries.

It was a genuine question, and I am saddened that the Secretary of State was unable to give a firm assurance. In the light of the Independent Television Commission's award of digital transmission systems to British Digital Broadcasting—and the opportunities that that creates for British Sky Broadcasting to provide and decode programmes—and in the light of the Mirror Group's territorial ambitions in television, particularly in Scotland, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time to look seriously in the public interest at cross-media ownership to ensure that the public are guaranteed fair and reasonable access to news and information? Will he conduct a review?

First, I always expect genuine questions from the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, I agree that it is the public and their interests that must come first. That is why the key principles in any such discussion must be plurality of voice, diversity of ownership and quality of content. Any regulatory regime must ensure that those principles are maintained.

When the Secretary of State considers the issues of media ownership, will he give some thought to the arrangements for appointments to the part of the media that the Government own—Channel 4? Will he say something about reports in the newspapers that the ITC has been ordered not to renew the contract of the current chairman of Channel 4, Sir Michael Bishop, on the basis that he is a Conservative supporter, despite the fact that both the previous chairmen, who were appointed by Conservative Governments, were prominent Labour supporters? Will the Secretary of State confirm that his action, apparently saying that Sir Michael would be reappointed over his dead body, is all of a piece with the Minister for Sport's intemperate remarks about Lord MacLaurin becoming chairman of the Sports Council?

I pay warm tribute to the work of Sir Michael Bishop as chairman of Channel 4, particularly his work in fighting off the depredations of the previous Government, who threatened to privatise it. In that respect, I recall that the right hon. Gentleman, in a previous incarnation, was busy doing commercial work proposing precisely the same thing. I should say, however, that the ITC, which is responsible for recommending the appointment to the chairmanship of Channel 4, subject to ratification by the Secretary of State, will proceed to public advertisements for the position in the normal way, as is appropriate under the Nolan procedures.

When the Secretary of State looks at cross-media ownership, will he bear in mind the fact that many of us on the Government Benches are also concerned about the issue? Media lobbyists can always give persuasive reasons why their privileged position should continue, but there is no evidence—certainly looking back over the past 20 years—that cross-media monopoly has increased diversity or increased the service to the public.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The point that she makes is important. What we need to do, in relation to regulation of the media industries, is ensure that plurality and diversity are protected while, of course, the needs of the media industries and their aspirations to make their way in a global communications world are considered. Striking the right balance is important, but in all this the needs of the viewer and listener must come first.

Does the Secretary of State agree that regulation in the media industry could be improved? If so, would he cut the number of regulatory bodies? Is he planning to replace Oftel—the Office of Telecommunications—with an "Ofcom" regulatory body? Would he consider merging the Monopolies and Mergers Commission with the Office of Fair Trading, for media purposes

Matters relating to the OFT and the MMC are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, in a world in which broadcasting and telecommunications increasingly converge, it makes sense to look seriously at the regulatory regime. That is precisely what we are doing with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. We will come forward with considered proposals in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to reform the national lottery. [7505]

My right hon. Friend will make a statement later this afternoon on the Government's proposals for reforming the lottery.

I hope that I will hear this afternoon that local applications are given equivalent consideration to applications made by quangos, if not more consideration. My question relates to my constituency, in which the Butterwick trust, a charity, wishes to open a hospice for dying children—anyone who goes through that period knows how traumatic it is. However, the trust has been turned down three times, and we know not why. It is important that the trust should know why.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House concerns that many hon. Members on both sides of the House share. She will know that those decisions are taken—if the proposals are submitted individually—by a body that is independent of the Government. I assure her that the Government believe in the people's lottery and, therefore, we are concerned about obtaining a genuine public response. My hon. Friend and the House will not be disappointed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes his statement in, I hope, a few moments.

What is the Minister's current definition of additionality?

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is planning to contest the Glasgow, Govan constituency, or is he asking a question relevant to a Department that he once headed? Well though I understand his worries about additionality, I do not recall that he did much about it when he was in government. If the right hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye when my right hon. Friend makes his statement, Madam Speaker, I am sure that he will not be disappointed.

Does the Minister not recognise that less than a quarter of the money raised by the lottery for good causes has been distributed to those causes and that, in some cases, additionality has been helped by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, whose position under the present Government's policies appears to be as parlous as it was under their predecessors? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 27 per cent. pools betting duty, as opposed to the 12 per cent. duty on the lottery funds, will drive the Foundation for Sport and the Arts into the ground and that it has done more good in its lifetime than any of the national lottery causes have for the arts?

The last question is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the Independent Television Commission and digital television; and if he will make a statement. [7506]

The recent award of licences to operate digital terrestrial television multiplexes was a decision which was, by statute, entirely for the Independent Television Commission. I have accordingly received no representations concerning that decision, although some opinions have been expressed to me about its possible implications.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the licence fee for digital television should be higher than that payable for terrestrial television?

No, I do not necessarily agree with that proposition. Those, of course, are matters for further debate and discussion. The BBC's licence fee arrangements are in place for the next four years—agreed by the Government of the day, whom the hon. Gentleman now supports from the Opposition side of the House. I see no reason at this stage to move to a higher licence fee.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the frustration felt by people in north-east Lancashire, who are fed up with being treated as country cousins, with no Channel 5 and very little cabling? To cap it all, digital terrestrial and digital audio, which will roll out across the country next year, will touch only 60 per cent. of the population. What does he have to say to people in north-east Lancashire who will be left behind by that? We all pay the licence fee. Surely, digital terrestrial and digital audio should reach 99 per cent. of the population, not just 60 per cent.

I agree entirely that that must be the aim. Indeed, if we progress properly and speedily with the introduction of digital terrestrial television, we will be able to expand it to a much greater extent than that envisaged by my hon. Friend in making his point.

The Secretary of State will be aware that Channel 4 has been awarded one of the digital multiplexes. In the light of an answer that I received from the Treasury two weeks ago, merely saying that if Channel 4 were to be privatised the amount raised would depend on the means of sale, will he take this opportunity to state unequivocally, once and for all, that the Government have no intention of privatising Channel 4?

The hon. Gentleman is slightly incorrect in that the multiplex has been awarded jointly to Channel 4 and Channel 3. I can confirm that we have no intention of privatising Channel 4; nor, indeed, does his party, which did not propose that before the general election.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to assist the campaign to host the soccer World Cup in England in 2006. [7507]

The Government are committed to attracting major sporting events to the United Kingdom and are giving full promotional and diplomatic support to the Football Association's bid to host the 2006 World cup. I am chairing a co-ordinating group of FA, Premier League, Sports Council and Government officials to ensure that we focus the campaign as much as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous support throughout the country for bringing the World cup to England in 2006 and of the great boost that it would be for soccer? Will he comment on the ways in which football clubs and supporters might work with the Government to assist in his campaign to bring the World cup here?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it would be an enormous boost to British football, and indeed to tourism and to the country as a whole.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his policy in respect of public defenders. [7528]

Any criminal defence services funded by legal aid would have to be independent, adequately resourced and of the right quality to play an effective part in a criminal justice system. We have not ruled out the possibility of engaging employed solicitors, or indeed solicitors under specially designed contracts for particular kinds of work, if those would be the most suitable arrangements in all the circumstances.

As the hon. Gentleman and his Department have expressed some concern about the quality of the Crown Prosecution Service and the solicitors employed there, what assurance can he give that, if he were to go ahead with a public defender system, he would be able to ensure that solicitors of the highest calibre were employed, and not simply those who were unable to get jobs elsewhere?

In setting up publicly funded services, we would guarantee lawyers of an appropriate quality and standing. We intend to adopt the most appropriate system for delivering legal services, according to the nature of the work in question. We have not ruled out the possibility of having employed lawyers; indeed, there is likely to be a pilot scheme in Scotland in due course which will allow us to test precisely the quality of the service that is made available.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's policy towards the recommendations contained in the Woolf report on civil justice. [7531]

My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has invited Sir Peter Middleton to review current proposals for reform of civil justice and legal aid systems. He is to produce an interim report by September. The Lord Chancellor, however, has made it clear that, in the meantime, he wants the preparatory work to continue, to preserve the planned implementation date of October 1998 as a realistic option.

In the light of that reply, and given that the Woolf report was one of the most thorough investigations ever undertaken into any part of the justice system, what on earth do the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor think that Sir Peter Middleton can tell them that the Woolf report has not already told them?

In the first place, the Government were elected on a commitment not only to review the Woolf report but to examine, at the same time, proposals for the reform of legal aid. We consider it appropriate and necessary to consider both aspects of planned reforms as part of a thorough review. The Lord Chancellor has made clear his support for the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations, which are designed to deliver a quicker, simpler and cheaper civil justice system. The purpose of Sir Peter's review is to ensure that we are on the right track.

How does the Department intend to reconcile the differences between its policy on the Woolf report and the decision in the Witham case?

I have said that we will carefully examine the review following Sir Peter's report in September. It will then be appropriate to consider his recommendations in the light of any decided cases.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will extend the provision of legal aid to cover defence from libel actions. [7532]

There are no plans at present to extend the scope of the legal aid scheme to include defending libel actions. Successive Governments have taken the view that the outcomes of such cases are uniquely difficult to foresee and that, even if the general mechanisms against unmeritorious proceedings could be strengthened, they would still not provide an effective safeguard against the potential waste of public money.

I am disappointed by that reply. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will incorporate consideration of extension in the review of legal aid. Does he recognise that libel actions, and the threat of them, have been used by people such as Robert Maxwell to inhibit freedom of speech and abuse the course of law? Would it not be fairer to ensure that those who wished to publish articles could not be subject to unfair actions for libel from people who want only to shut them up?

After the previous Lord Chancellor's Question Time, the hon. Gentleman kindly sent me a copy of various documents produced by his party, one of which referred to the Liberal Democrat proposal that legal aid should be available for libel proceedings.

Listening to the Liberals over the past eight or nine weeks, I get the impression that they have spent their 1p on tax about 11 times. How can the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raise such cases, given the present limits on legal aid, when some people who take out compensation claims against employers cannot get legal aid because the employers argue that they have not got enough money to pay out compensation? Surely that should get priority over what has been put forward by these tinpot Liberal Democrats.

My hon. Friend is, as ever, understated in his response. He knows that Sir Peter Middleton is examining all aspects of legal aid and, in particular, ways to extend legal advice and assistance to those who do not presently enjoy their benefit. Only last week, we approved a further extension of existing pilot projects to allow the Legal Aid Board to support, for example, advice and assistance in advice agencies. That may well give legal advice to people who have not previously enjoyed its benefit in the cases to which my hon. Friend referred.

Would the hon. Gentleman be at all reassured to learn that his substantive answer is broadly supported on the Conservative Benches? Most Conservative Members believe that it would be a mistake to introduce legal aid in terms of either promoting a libel case or defending it. That said, will he consider the possibility of alternative funding methods, such as a contingency fee fund? I make a distinction between a contingency fee fund and contingency fees.

I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support—or at least I think I am. The purpose of Sir Peter Middleton's review is to consider all aspects of the ways in which we can support those who need high-quality advice and assistance. I have received several suggestions—not least from the Bar—that useful work could be done exploring a practical contingency fee system.

Before offering an extension of legal aid that would benefit the few, will the Minister consider the higher priority of reducing current court fees, which were imposed by the previous Government, and which are denying the many access to the courts?

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement on that question recently in another place. He said—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree—that it is not so much court fees that deter people from going to court as the cost of lawyers who appear in such cases. If my hon. Friend is concerned about those people of lesser means—I suspect that he is—I refer him to a series of exemptions and qualifications that allow those in receipt of benefit, for example, to have their fees waived. There should be no reason why court fees should prevent anyone from accessing courts and justice.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the additional sums his Department will need to implement his proposals to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law. [7534]

Work is already in progress within the Lord Chancellor's Department to assess the likely practical impact of incorporation of the European convention on the work of the courts, the provision of legal aid and the need for judicial training. However, a financial assessment of the proposals has not yet been completed.

How do the Government intend to protect judges from political interference and to protect Parliament from the judges when the convention is enshrined in United Kingdom law?

The judges will be protected from political interference in the way that they have always been protected from such interference under our system: selection decisions will be based on choosing the most ably qualified candidate for the position. That has always been the approach in our system, and it will continue. We shall incorporate the convention, on which work is still under way, in a manner that is entirely consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

Will the Minister confirm that, although the Gracious Speech says that the main provisions of the European convention will be incorporated, the Government intend to incorporate the whole convention? If there are to be exceptions, will the Minister tell us what they are and why they will exist?

The Government intend to incorporate all the provisions of the convention. The words in the Gracious Speech refer to those protocols that have not yet come into force.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to announce changes in legal aid for immigration work. [7538]

Sir Peter Middleton is reviewing all aspects of the provision of legal aid, including the procedures by which legal aid is granted. He will produce a preliminary report in September.

The Minister will be aware that legal aid costs are spiralling upwards all the time. Is he further aware that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service is extremely cost-effective when providing legal help regarding immigration matters? Given that the service is cheaper and usually more efficient than solicitors, will the Minister ensure that the immigrants advisory service gets a fair shout when he considers legal aid for immigration cases? In that way, money could be saved and the public would probably be served better.

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Government believe that there should be sufficient publicly funded services to provide access to advice and assistance for asylum seekers and other immigrants who wish to remain in this country. In due course, the Government will make specific proposals on how that will be achieved.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if an appeal has been lodged against the proposed closure of Monmouth magistrates court. [7539]

No.

I thank the Minister for that answer. When he receives such an appeal, I urge him to give it serious consideration. Many people in my constituency are signing a petition to ensure that Monmouth magistrates court is kept open. Should the magistrates court in Monmouth be closed, it would cause considerable inconvenience to defendants, witnesses and victims, who would have to travel long distances to other courts.

I shall endeavour to give my hon. Friend a fuller response. The policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department is that decisions whether to close magistrates courts remain entirely a local issue, subject to the rights of appeal prescribed in law. Magistrates courthouses are not Crown property: they are owned or leased by the paying authority on behalf of the magistrates courts committee. Under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the Lord Chancellor's responsibility in relation to magistrates courts is limited to hearing appeals in a dispute between the magistrates courts committee and its paying authority over a proposed court closure.