To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what forms of assistance his Department gives to urban areas to develop new recreational facilities; and if he will make a statement.

My Department assists in the provision of recreational facilities through credit approval cover to local authorities and by the grants that are available from the Sports Council. Substantial additional funding of new facilities is provided through the Foundation for Sport and Arts, the Football Trust, Government support for the Manchester Olympic bid and the Department of the Environment's urban programmes. Non-sporting recreation is also widely assisted.

Will the Minister advise me how communities such as Ossett and Normanton in my constituency can obtain leisure facilities given the capping of local authorities, which means that authorities are helpless when it comes to providing such facilities? The Minister's main answer will not help communities such as Ossett and Normanton. Has he any advice to give?

The hon. Gentleman and I have sparred over these issues for several years. We did so when we were in different jobs. Responsibility for local government spending must rest with local authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local authorities are being inventive and innovative in their funding. Many of them are establishing charitable trusts to set up facilities of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

May I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government's outstanding commitment to create a brand new museum to house the royal armouries collection in Leeds? Is this not a remarkable example? We trust that there will be a sizeable commitment from the private sector to create a great focus for bringing tourists both to Leeds and Yorkshire generally, and at the same time renew the urban environment of Leeds.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he has taken a substantial interest in this and several other tourist developments, as well as accompanying infrastructure developments. The Leeds project is extremely important for the future of our armouries and those of the world. The partnership that is exhibited between central Government, local government, the Urban Development Corporation and the private sector is crucial to the success of the enterprise.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has regarding new regulations regarding the press.

The report of Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation was published on 14 January. I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made on that day.

While recognising the right of the press to investigate the rich and the powerful—I wish only that it would do so more frequently—when was the last occasion when press barons were criticised in the newspapers that they own or in other newspapers? Does the Secretary of State agree with the views that Lord Gilmour expressed last week outside the Palace when he said that for 10 years Tory newspapers toadied at every opportunity to the Government, especially to Lady Thatcher, and acted as her poodles? Is there not a great deal of hypocrisy coming from the press, especially the tabloid press?

My knowledge of the press over the past 10 years is not so encyclopaedic that I could give a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Lord Gilmour has been in separate correspondence with me to rebuke me for having misquoted the example of John Wilkes when I first took office.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the historic meeting of the 21 editors is an important sign of what newspapers intend to do? Does he agree also that the people who should be even keener than newspaper editors on protecting press freedom are members of this place?

I am in broad agreement with my hon. Friend. I thought that the reaction of editors in terms of the manner in which they wish to see the Press Complaints Commission further changed was extremely encouraging.

The Secretary of State will recall that on Friday hon. Members voted to give the Shops (Amendment) Bill a Second Reading. The Government have, in effect, allowed the Bill to move to its Committee stage as a form of consultative process before they introduce their own Bill in the autumn. Will the right hon. Gentleman follow that precedent and agree to give the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) the same opportunity when it is debated on Friday? Will he allow it to go to Committee so that we can examine in detail the need for legislation on the right of reply?

When I made my statement on 14 January, I explained the Government's attitude to the Bill being promoted by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It would be wrong of me in any way to anticipate the views of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. However, a consultative process would be welcome—not least to the hon. Lady, who will recall that on 11 January she described the statutory body as a necessary move, but by 14 January she was saying that it was clearly not the answer.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the working of the Broadcasting Act 1991.

The aim was to increase diversity and choice in broadcasting and that is being achieved.

Is not it true that the Broadcasting Act has been a catastrophe? Has not it unleashed a tidal wave of junk television? Have not many of the new franchise holders already reneged on the commitments to quality that they gave when they obtained the franchises? Are not some of them already in serious financial trouble because they overbid? Will not they shortly be going cap in hand to the Secretary of State's Department asking for new financial arrangements? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to enforce the commitments to quality that were given when the franchises were awarded?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on all three of his assertions at the beginning of his question. He offered me the role of censor; he implied that various institutions had already reneged on their commitments —of which I have seen no evidence; and he made further references to their financial state, which does not fall directly within my responsibility. The need to enforce quality is an obligation under the Act which has been discharged to the Independent Television Commission.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate new franchises such as Carlton, Meridian and Westcountry on their arrival in the field only this month? Can he tell the House whether it is his intention to review the progress being made in the cable industry in bringing new franchises into operation across the country?

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new stations that began broadcasting this year. I shall certainly be in touch with him on his point about the cable industry.

What representations has the Secretary of State received about the future of Independent Television News? Is he prepared to reconsider the arrangements in the Act that require the franchise holders to become minority shareholders in ITN?

As with everything else in the Act, those matters were widely debated at the time that it passed through the House. In the light of that widespread debate, it would be inappropriate to go back over the conclusions of the Act and I have no plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend share with us his thoughts on the decision of the Office of Fair Trading about the networking arrangement? I understand that the matter is currently before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but does he share my concern that if the independent television companies are denied the opportunity to sign secondary rights when signing up new programme contracts, that should apply to all other television broadcasters? If that were to be the case, what future would there be for the BBC, Channel 4 and BSkyB, not to mention the independent television companies?

As my hon. Friend made clear, the networking proposals are now being examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would be wrong of me to anticipate its conclusions.

When will the Secretary of State respond to public concern and quickly use his powers under that Act or other legislation to prevent hard-core pornography from other European countries being beamed into British homes via satellite? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that neither domestic nor foreign hard porn and depravity have any place on our screens? Does he accept that those paid-for programmes, which are especially demeaning to women, are contrary to the standards set out in the Act and should be prohibited?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are consulting urgently on the legal position in the context of such broadcasts. It might be unduly premature to pass judgments on censorship upon them until there is wider knowledge of their content.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will consider the reintroduction in England of grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The section 4 scheme was withdrawn in England in 1989 because of doubts about its effect on overall levels of tourism investment in England, and there is no evidence that the situation has changed. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals to target the resources that are made available through the English tourist board to the regional tourist boards on those areas where the industry is most in need of support to exploit tourism potential.

In the light of my hon. Friend's answer, I ask him to explain the other measures that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have in mind to assist the tourism industry in England, and in particular hoteliers and resort towns such as my constituency of Eastbourne.

Eastbourne is one of this country's premier tourist resorts. Sussex resorts took part in the English tourist board's highly successful resorts initiative in 1992 and Brighton has joined for 1993. The Eastbourne resort prosperity initiative is a prime example of the partnership that we seek to establish throughout the country. Much more than that, it is crucial that this country's tourism industry is acknowledged as one of the most important and prosperous of all our industries, offering massive employment and huge potential for growth over the next decade.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his latest estimate of the Windsor castle fire costs.

The cost of clearing, making safe, and protecting the site will be about £1.5 million. It is too early to estimate the costs of restoration and rebuilding.

When will that figure be available, because the Secretary of State was very quick to move in and to write an open cheque on behalf of British taxpayers? Does he recall my question to him on 1 December 1992, as to what attempt had been made to attract private money to help meet the cost of refurbishing and running royal palaces, which now cost about £18 million per year? Why does not the Secretary of State approach companies such as McDonalds or Euro Disney, to see whether they would put some money into refurbishment? That raises the whole question of sponsorship for the monarchy. I am sure that Crown Paints would be interested, as would Virgin Atlantic. The virgin queen is not particularly original, but at least it has a certain historical cachet. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman use his imagination, get some private money, and save the taxpayer a great big bill?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the breadth, scale and verve of his imagination. As to the cost of restoration, the figure of £60 million widely quoted in the press is one which the Government have never endorsed. There is no reason to suppose that the cost will rise that high. We shall make a more accurate statement as soon as we can.

While acknowledging Her Majesty's offer to pay part of the cost of restoring Windsor castle, which is one of the most important parts of our national heritage, does my right hon. Friend agree that Her Majesty should no more be expected to pay than should my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in respect of the restoration costs of No. 10 Downing street?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to add to my answer of a moment ago. It is clear from offers of assistance of which I am aware that an independent fund is a possibility, though I cannot add to that at this time.

Will the Secretary of State answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about private money being invested in royal palaces and royalty? As the Government apparently believe that private capital and know-how can energise British Rail and improve our health service, why do they stop short of putting private capital and know-how into royalty?

The hon. Lady was concentrating so much on the eloquence of the question that she was about to ask that she apparently did not hear the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). I said then that I was aware of the possibility of a private fund being set up.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to maintain and improve the character of royal parks in outer London.

The Department is committed to maintaining and restoring the royal parks to the highest standards of excellence. A new next steps agency responsible for all the royal parks will be created on 1 April.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the royal parks are national, Bushey park and Hampton Court park are cherished as local parks by my constituents in Teddington and all the Hamptons? They, and I, insist that the trees, the grass, the deer, the birds, the gardens and the open space are all protected. They do not want any large events, car parks or other so-called improvements.

I acknowledge the enthusiasm with which my hon. Friend always embraces his constituents' concerns. Of course, the finest parks in the world are to be found in Greater London, in the form of the royal parks. I am delighted to say that relations with the Friends of Bushey Park are very good, and I know that people care deeply about such details as whether the park gates are open on time in the mornings: we have sought to put such things right.

Does not the Minister recognise that, when the Government proposed the privatisation of the management of the royal parks, they did so in the face of the almost united opposition of all who knew about, were concerned about and cared for those parks? It is not a question of improvement; the parks are well maintained, and have been in the past. Does the Minister recognise the anger and concern that are now felt about a possible fall in standards as a result of cost-cutting, and the introduction of management practices that have already led to many staff members' losing their jobs in Greenwich and other royal parks?

The hon. Gentleman wants it all ways. The fact is that the controversy—which was perfectly genuine—has been resolved very happily. Most of the societies and community groups in the park areas are now working closely with us and with the new agency, and standards have undoubtedly improved.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from representatives of charities and voluntary organisations about the likely impact of a national lottery; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations from representatives of charities and voluntary organisa-tions about the likely impact of a national lottery. They include organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charities Aid Foundation and the Association of Charitable Foundations.

Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of the proceeds of the lottery—if it is introduced —will be collected at local level? Does he accept that that money would otherwise have been spent on local charities, and that a disproportionate amount will be contributed by people on low incomes? Does he agree that if such a lottery is introduced, the mechanism for distributing the proceeds should ensure that local charities and voluntary organisations are not penalised, and can continue to serve the people who need them most?

I do not accept that most of the money that may be spent on a national lottery will come from what would otherwise have gone to local charities. It is precisely because we wish to protect and, indeed, enhance local charities—whether they are private or local authority charities—that we are changing the law in the National Lottery etc. Bill, so that better prizes and bigger turnovers will be allowed for small charities.

When my hon. Friend considers the representations that he has received from charities and voluntary organisations, may I ask him not to allow himself to be seduced by the special pleading of the football pools? Does he accept that prior to the introduction of a national lottery, the nearest thing that this country has ever had to a national lottery is the football pools? Apart from the money that they give to football, they are profitable organisations. They are organising a self-motivated, self-interested special plead-ing to defend their special interests and privileged position.

Yes, of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I respect entirely the very strong representaions that have been made by Members of Parliament who represent constituencies where the football pools are based, but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the football pools, which are extremely profitable, should continue to be profitable under the new arrangements. However, that is profit for the private sector, and what the national lottery will address is the wider public good.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the representations he has received to the English Heritage strategy document, "Strategy for the 90s"; and if he will make a statement.

I have received some 250 representations about English Heritage's new forward strategy since its proposals were announced last October.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I do not know whether that figure includes responses to the proposals for London. I should be grateful if, either now or later, the Secretary of State could let me know. Does he accept that the proposals have elicited a huge amount of distrust and a considerable amount of opposition? Does he agree with the proposal by the committee for the future of London's architectural heritage in its response that, in order that it should not be seen to be a carve up between English Heritage and the Government, there should be, to use the committee's words, a "full-scale and independent inquiry" into the future of England's heritage and that that is the best way to manage it rather than to leave everything to be decided by a quango?

It is my present firm understanding that the letters received in connection with the London region have been included in the answer that I have given. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the consultation process has come to a conclusion in terms of its timetable, though I am sure that other comments would still be received. In collaboration with English Heritage, I shall look closely at the outcome of the consultation.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the strategy for the 1990s will include any proposals to ensure that national artefacts no longer required by their owners, if those owners are in the public sector, remain available to British museums? Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his predecessors kindly invited me some years ago to sit on the committee of the National Railway museum. The assurances that the museum was given in the Railways Bill appear not about to be honoured. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that his Department keeps an eye on that aspect of the national heritage?

I am not sure that I can do a precise read-across to the question that my hon. Friend raised, but I shall look closely at it to see whether there is an immediate application in our own case.

Why should areas in the provinces—for example places in Derbyshire, which includes the Bolsover constituency, such as Hardwick hall, Bolsover castle and a few more, including Creswell crags—suffer from the lack of Government money when the Government could save up to £60 million by telling the Queen to pay for the Windsor castle fire out of her own money? They would then have a bit more to spend on other areas in the provinces. Why does the Secretary of State not do that?

The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the strategy. Its purpose, in the context of a number of the monuments for which English Heritage is responsible, is that management might more sensibly be at local level. I am glad to be able to report to the House that more than 50 bodies have been in touch with English Heritage to discuss the possibility of taking over responsibility for its management.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has had an opportunity to consider the report of the committee on the conduct of the press chaired by Sir David Calcutt; and whether he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Although I accept that the Secretary of State has to consider the Calcutt report, which has only just been published, I believe that many of my hon. Friends share my view that the Press Complaints Commission, if it has teeth at all, has milk teeth. Will my right hon. Friend consider either giving canine teeth to the PCC or setting up a more powerful body that could deal with delinquent newspapers?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. He takes a keen interest in these subjects. One of the benefits of the consultation period is that it offers the opportunity for such suggestions to be ventilated.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he would be on far firmer ground in seeking to resist and restrict gross intrusions into the privacy of ordinary individuals if this Administration were committed to introducing a freedom of information Bill?

It will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that, coincidentally, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has responsibility for these matters, is in the Chamber and will have heard his question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a free press is as important to a free society as a free Parliament, but that so is the freedom of any two law-abiding individuals to have a private conversation, in any circumstances and anywhere, without fearing that someone will reproduce it?

Many hon. Members will share my hon. Friend's view and Sir David Calcutt's report dealt with intrusions into the privacy of everyone in the land.

May I exercise my own right of reply to correct an inaccuracy? A few moments ago, the Minister said that I am in favour of statutory controls. Does he accept that, until we have a freedom of information Act, the only statutory control on the press of which I am in favour is a statutory right of reply? Will he make that clear and not repeat his mistake of trying to perpetuate an inaccuracy?

The hon. Lady must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) for having tabled the question, which enabled her to reply. I am delighted to have that gloss on what she said earlier and I shall go back to see what she said in the first instance.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of a national lottery on the pools industry in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

It is not possible to say what effect the national lottery might have on the pools industry in Merseyside. This will depend on the success of the lottery, on the sources of its revenue and on the management of the pools companies in responding to any changes in their market.

I am surprised by the Minister's response. He did not acknowledge the report that his Department received, which estimates that the national lottery will lead to 1,000 job losses on Merseyside. Does he accept that many in Merseyside fear that up to 6,000 jobs will be lost? What is his comment on that?

It is pure speculation. I cannot comment on a confidential report, which we shall not publish for the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave to the Select Committee on National Heritage. The community on Merseyside has responded remarkably to changes in the past and I see no reason to suppose that the pools industry will not continue to innovate in the way that it has in the past few weeks, after some 40 years of playing the sleeping beauty, and that there will be increasing success in other employment on Merseyside.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff will be employed at the administration centre for the national lottery; and what consideration he has given to basing this centre in south Dorset.

The national lottery will create a good many more jobs than just in its core operation. People will be able to run games under sub-licences by agreement with the main operator and all the games will generate new printing, marketing and retailing business. The location of the administrative centre will be a matter for potential operators to consider, but it is likely that the other operations will be scattered throughout the kingdom. It is not possible to say how many staff will be employed at the administrative centre of the main licence holder, as this will depend on the decisions of the operator.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply—and very informative it was. Will he say when he envisages a company being set up to run the lottery so that I can take my constituents to see it and explain what a wonderful place south Dorset would be to base such a company, both for the wonderful work force that we have and for the wonderful working and living conditions that we can provide?

I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he has already made representations to my Department, as have a number of other areas in the United Kingdom as far apart as Cornwall and Scotland. The timetable will depend entirely on whether the Labour party can heal its divisions, support the national lottery and get it on to the statute book quickly.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the findings of the Calcutt report.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Walsall, North.

It is good to renew my acquaintance with the Secretary of State across the Chamber. Does he accept that although many of us are appalled from time to time by the arrogance and lack of sensitivity of some sections of the tabloid press, that should not be used as an excuse or reason to curb the legitimate activities of the press in exposing hypocrisy and wrong-doing in society, especially if it is perceived as protecting the highest in society?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he began his question. Sir David Calcutt's report, which we published on 14 January, made it clear that the investigation of crime and of individuals in the context of the nature of the job that they do would be perfectly proper defences against the additional offences that he suggested. However, he also made it clear in the report that his concern was the privacy of everyone in the land and that there were a considerable number of cases in which the privacy of private individuals not engaged in the type of jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred was also being intruded on.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of metropolitan district councils to discuss public library services.

I spoke in Wakefield on 21 January at the annual meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities art, recreation and tourism committee, whose remit covers public library services. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage discussed library services among other issues with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities when he met its representatives on 27 July 1992.

Although my authority of Gateshead has managed against the odds to retain excellent library services, is not it a fact that during the lifetime of this Government shops are opening ever-longer hours while public libraries seem to be open less and less? What will the Minister do to assure metropolitan districts and others that their library services can expand in the future?

The number of libraries has expanded by about 1 per cent. in the past 10 years, but library services are changing—they are not static. I wish that people would grasp the nettle in that respect. I have had to learn from professional librarians and the best councils that library services are changing rapidly. It is no longer merely a question of ensuring that their doors are open from nine to five, six days a week; libraries have to meet the demands of the people who want to use them, not only for book services but as resource centres. That often means that libraries will open flexible and different hours—open for some and shut for others. What matters is that there is a flexible response to meet the overall need and maintain overall standards.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great strengths of the library service nationwide in the past few years has been to increase the provision of specialist services, especially in music and children's libraries? Will he join me in welcoming the constructive steps taken by librarians throughout the country, and certainly in my constituency?

I gladly do so and I also acknowledge that professionals in the library service have met the challenge, often in the face of criticism from their own authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with the pools promoters concerning the introduction of the national lottery.

I met representatives of the pools companies on 9 December last year.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of a national lottery, does the Secretary of State appreciate that Britain has 3 million people out of work? It now appears that several thousand more jobs in the pools industry are at risk, including 1,000 in Cardiff. What plans do the Government have to alleviate the position?

I totally understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asks his question. Although it is difficult to calibrate the precise consequences, I believe that one of the consequences of the national lottery will be a considerable expansion in the construction industry because it is envisaged that the majority of the projects on which the money will be spent through the distributors will be capital projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest estimate of the number of tourists visiting Britain.

In the first 10 months of 1992, there were an estimated 15.4 million visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents—8 per cent. more than in the equivalent period of 1991.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those are encouraging figures and that they have probably been accelerated by currency movements since 16 September? Does he also agree that if we are to attract more tourists to London, it is essential that we improve public transport within London, especially the Northern line?

My hon. Friend is right. Some 70 per cent. of all tourists coming to this country start their visits in London and then move outwards. Transport is one of the items discussed by the Cabinet committee on London, a member of which is my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who, I am delighted to say, is in the House today.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of the citizens charter on people of pensionable age; and if he will make a statement.

The citizens charter calls on public services to take account of the needs of all their users, including pensioners. Where appropriate, charters include specific standards for pensioners. The Benefits Agency charter, for example, contains a standard for dealing with claims for retirement pension.

How does the Minister explain Government policies on the financing of local government which result in further cuts in warden services, meals on wheels and home help services? How does he equate the cuts in those services with the promise made by the Prime Minister, when he presented the citizens charter, that there would be an improvement in services to everyone? Will the Minister explain?

Whatever the resources provided—the amount of resources provided to support pensioners has increased substantially under this Government—they can be best applied if they are properly managed. The citizens charter is all about improving the management of public services. The people who most depend on public services are those who have most at stake in the citizens charter.

What would the Minister say to a pensioner who looks through the citizens charter first annual report and who finds scarcely a single mention of the words "pensioner" or "pension"? Is not that yet another example of how the Government ignore the needs of 10.5 million pensioners? In addition, pensioners in this country have lower incomes than pensioners in any other European Community country. What exactly will the Minister do, through the citizens charter, for pensioners or for other groups, such as the 1.5 million people with disabilities? They are totally ignored by the citizens charter.

The hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Labour party, is in no position to lecture us about pensioners. Pensioners' total net incomes under this Government have increased 10 times more than they did under the previous Labour Government. The citizens charter is for citizens, and pensioners are citizens. Pensioners resent being put into a special box by the hon. Gentleman and by people who think as he does. Pensioners want to be treated alongside others. They are users of public services as others are. They may use a given public service more extensively, so to that extent they will benefit from improvements in the delivery of that service. We have to think of the charter as a citizens charter, not as a charter for special interest groups.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new citizens charters he intends to introduce.

We plan to publish a new charter for further and higher education, for Scottish and Welsh heritage and for the Northern Ireland buses and courts services. Existing charters will be revised to raise standards on a continuous cycle.

Does the Chancellor know that more people are robbed and cheated by their own banks and insurance companies than are burgled and mugged by the criminal fraternity? May we have a charter that will protect people against exorbitant bank charges, against fraudulent home income bonds and against poor-value endowment policies and personal pensions? When does the Chancellor intend to act to protect people against the greed, incompetence and dishonesty of banks and insurance companies?

The hon. Gentleman goes much wider than my brief. The citizens charter is about the management of public services and that is a big enough task for now.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that other Governments are now following our lead? Will he consider introducing a new charter—an adopters charter —for couples wishing to adopt, as many couples currently face far too many bureaucratic obstacles?

I can certainly accept the first part of my hon. Friend's comments. At the conference just before Christmas, representatives from a number of countries were interested in our approach and we had much that was positive to discuss. On his second point, I know, from my experience as Secretary of State for Health, that my hon. Friend is a considerable expert and has been a campaigner in respect of adoption. I do not believe that a specific charter would necessarily be the right way forward, but I should be happy to discuss it with him.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the charter programme; and what proposals there are for more charters.

The charter applies to all public services and is reflected in their individual expenditure programmes. Centrally, the charter unit spent £1.6 million in 1991–92.

When is the Minister going to accept that this is a complete waste of public money? The charters are just a public relations exercise: it is rather like putting make-up on a corpse. The best way to make public services work is to invest in them and not to issue glossy pamphlets which are nothing more than a PR puff for the Downing street train spotter.

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the definitive member of the chattering classes. The citizens charter is of more interest and of more use to those who rely primarily on those services. That is why we are putting such political force behind achieving those improvements. The hon. Gentleman might direct his London weight to improvements closer to home—perhaps in some of the services provided by Labour Lambeth council.

May I take my right hon. Friend further on that point? Will he send in advisers to suggest an appropriate charter for the unfortunate people in Lambeth who have, it seems, been so ill-treated recently by their local authority?

A number of Opposition Members, including most honourably the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), would support what my hon. Friend said. Members of the Tribune group are also much committed to that. Tribune recently wrote:

"Labour local government is lacklustre and incompetent. In a few cases it is simply corrupt and nepotistic. This is nothing new."

I think that we will leave the question of lacklustre when it comes to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Would not it be more appropriate to consider whether there may have been any conflict of interest or morally dubious practices in respect of the market testing part of the citizens charter and consider also the London conference, to which the Chancellor has just referred, where KPMG Peat Marwick, which hosted the reception, also received at least 36 contracts last year from Government Departments in respect of market testing? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment today that, in the interests of open government, in his forthcoming paper he will publish the names of those companies which applied for contracts and at what price they were awarded? Surely the British public have a right to know.

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is making a serious allegation of fraud. The contracts were all properly placed according to all the rules of contracting. Those matters are entirely open. If the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the matter, perhaps she had better consider what she says a little more carefully.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what meetings he has recently held with representatives of the engineering industry to disucss the scope of his forthcoming White Paper on science.

I have had a wide range of meetings with engineering interests and have also received a large number of excellent submissions from representatives of the engineering industry, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I shall be publishing a White Paper in the spring which will address not only science but technology and engineering, too.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance of engineering to the national economy, his White Paper on science should emphasise the role of engineering research?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and the White Paper will cover that ground in, I hope, a thorough way.

In the year of the 150th anniversary of the Brunel tunnel under the Thames—the first tunnel under the Thames—from Rotherhithe to Wapping, will the Secretary of State make sure that the Engineering Employers Federation gets maximum support in its objective of maximising the number of young people who go into engineering and are excited by engineering as good training and a good career thereafter? The federation is to run a course and a programme of events in London in the autumn. Will the right hon. Gentleman give it full Government support?

I certainly honour the centenary and a half to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I hope that some of our modern engineering projects are slightly better financed than some of those of that great engineer. There is good news that the number of engineers is increasing—by about 2 per cent. for those on engineering first degree courses over the past five years. That is a recovery from the previous dip. I will certainly study the action in the autumn to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to publish more public service performance indicators as part of the citizens charter campaign.

Extending performance indicators across the public sector into matters such as local government and the NHS is at the heart of the citizens charter commitment to give people more information about the way in which their public services are working.

Does my hon. Friend agree that publication of those performance indicators has resulted in a sea change in the amount of information that local people receive about their council services? Does he agree further that the reason why Labour has been so critical about the proposals is that they have shown up the fact that Labour local authorities, not just Lambeth, but my council, Derbyshire county council, too, provide poor services at high cost?

The league tables of performance of local authorities will, of course, be critical in enabling people to make good choices and sensible decisions about not only what kind of services they want but what they will do when they go to the ballot box.

Would not the many millions of people, particularly women and elderly people, who feel trapped in their homes in the evening feel better about the Government's performance indicators and charters if there were more police on the streets, more street lighting and more manning at railway stations so that they could go out at night and be able to enjoy their lives to the full? Is not that the type of indicator that we should have for the people of this country?

The issue is not just the level of resources provided, but the way in which they are managed. If we look at the way in which Labour local authorities have spent money, we will see that of the top 20 community charge-levying councils, 17 are Labour controlled and the other three are under no overall control, yet they all show up badly on performance. That is what we need to focus on.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the value of the private sector contribution to scientific research within the universities.

In 1990 British education institutions received around £300 million from non-Government sources in support of research and development, about half of which came from business.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the Economic and Social Research Council's report entitled "Turning New Ideas into Business Success"? What role does my hon. Friend envisage for the private sector, in conjunction with universities and other places of higher and further education, in ensuring that the new ideas for which this country is so famous are turned more successfully into prosperity for our people than was the case in the past?

I like to think of my hon. Friend as the Member for the research council because its headquarters is in his constituency. We have looked at the ESRC report on the innovation agenda—it is an interesting paper—and we shall draw conclusions in the White Paper, but it has been one of our themes in the 1980s and through the history of this Government to promote stronger mechanisms of interaction, which is one of the themes of the innovation agenda, between people who use technologies and the people who are developing them. It is not a one-way process of inventing ideas and then transferring them into the marketplace. We need to have a marketplace sending signals back into the communities that produce ideas. That is very much the theme of that paper, the theme of our policy and the theme of our thinking on the White Paper.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will require public servants to disclose publicly membership of secret societies.

No, Madam.

May I put it to the Minister that there is absolutely no point in standing at the Dispatch Box mouthing platitudes about the need for open government if he is not prepared to lift a finger against the greatest secret society, which has an iron grip on many of our most respected public institutions?

I am sorry to disturb the even tenor of the hon. Gentleman's prepared supplementary question. I do not regard it as a platitude to say that we are against unjustified invasions of privacy. I think that that is the point here. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps in a more constructive way, that we already have rules that require individuals in the civil service to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are rules already in place in the civil service code. When civil servants become aware of a conflict of interest, they must remove it and, if appropriate, report it to the senior officer. We are looking again at the civil service code to see whether those provisions need to be sharpened.

Does my hon. Friend have any information about whether the Labour party has any secret societies, especially in local government?

One of the interesting things about secret societies is that one never knows who the members of them are.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he has taken on measures on science and technology agreed at the Edinburgh summit.

Following the agreement on future financing that the Community reached at Edinburgh, member states were able to agree, under my chairmanship of the Research Council, to a top-up of the third research and development framework programme of 900 mecu. That will give stability to European Community research in the period before the fourth framework comes into effect.

Will the Chancellor confirm that, in those negotiations, he insisted on a budget for European science and technology of £500 million less than the original proposal? Does he believe that that is a great achievement for someone who is supposed to be advancing science and technology across Europe?

The finally agreed figure was 700 mecu lower than the highest figure proposed by the Commission. Spain, Germany and a number of other countries did not believe that the figure was realistic at all and nor did we. A reasonable compromise was reached which will protect European science. We value European science and the United Kingdom does well out of it. It was a sensible compromise.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's unilateral decision to cancel the fast reactor programme and pull out of the European collaborator programme was a slap in the face for the development of the European initiative and simply passed a long-established British technology to the Japanese? is he proud of that?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the project. I believe that the right decision was taken.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent contacts he has had with academics and research groups, in the United Kingdom and abroad, to discuss the principles of the citizens charter initiative.

My right hon. Friend and I, and the citizens charter unit, regularly meet a wide range of academics and research groups. The dialogue helps to ensure that the charter stays at the forefront of public service reform.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he noticed that, despite the banter from Labour Members, many on the left have warmly welcomed the principles of the citizens charter? The Guardian, referring to the publication of exam results, said the other day:

"Parents have more information than they had before. No democrat should regard this as a reverse."

My hon. Friend is right. In general, the Government strongly welcome new thinking from the academic community which can help to foster new ways of providing public services. For example, the influence of Messrs. Gaebler and Osborne on the theme of reinventing Government is a positive force in the United States and is having a big impact on the new administration there. We were delighted to welcome Mr. Gaebler to our European Community citizens charter conference last month and Dr. Osborne will be coming here shortly.

"There is much to applaud in the charter. It is genuinely trying to shake the public sector out of a complacency induced by decades of monopoly supply."

Without wishing to put forward too bold a proposal, when the Minister is discussing charter initiatives and the rest, would it be possible to have another charter for the 3 million or more unemployed people in the United Kingdom to be able to work? What about their rights? A genuine charter, not simply cosmetic nonsense, for the unemployed would be useful.

People who are unemployed benefit from the operation of the charter because they make extensive use of Government-provided public services. All those services are operating according to charter standards. The mechanisms of the charter exist to help people to obtain better public services. That is what it is all about.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, increasingly across the European Community, administrations are examining their decisions by comparing them with government across Europe? Does he agree that many countries in the Community, such as Germany and France, want to visit London to see how the citizens charter operates? Will he do all that he can to ensure that our experience is shared with them? [Laughter.]

Despite the jeering from Opposition Members, my hon. Friend is right. The experience of the 1980s was that we led the world in privatisation. The experience of the 1990s will be that we shall lead the world in public service reform. The conference in London to which I referred was attended by people from throughout the Community and the world, who were extremely interested in what we were doing to improve the management of public services.