To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the problem of drug abuse in sport.

I expect to have a number of meetings this year with the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss issues of mutual concern, including the abuse of drugs in sport.

What does it take to shake the Government out of their complacency about the problem of drug abuse by sportsmen? It is increasingly clear that, although evidence in the past suggested that anabolic steroids, for example, were being used by track and field athletes, the use of such potentially life-threatening drugs is more widespread throughout a variety of sports. Is not it time that the Government did something much more concrete and definite to discourage sportsmen from abusing themselves in this way?

I do not accept for a moment the opening sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been asked to consider the possibility of bringing steroids under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Home Secretary will consider its advice before reaching a decision.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has some of the best drug detection techniques in the world? Do not other sports bodies in the world frequently come here for advice?

I totally accept my hon. Friend's comment. Our reputation is widely praised and my hon. Friend is right about other countries seeking our advice.

Does the Secretary of State recognise, none the less, that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Sports Council, the British Olympic Association and others urge the need to regulate the use of anabolic steroids in particular not only in sport but in gymnasiums up and down the country? I recognise that the Government have a problem in finding a legislative peg on which to hang such controls, but will he join Opposition Members in urging that we have a full debate in order that this serious problem, which affects sport and society generally, is ironed out in the House, which may assist the Government in paving the way for such legislation as asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining the Opposition in concern about the issue. The problem was considered in our debate on sport shortly before Christmas. An Adjournment debate would offer us the opportunity to consider the full facts.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future plans for the Government art collection.

I have no plans to change the status of the Government art collection. It is the Government's policy regularly to review their activities to see whether the management of those activities should be provided by the state, and, if so, how they should be managed. The Government art collection is not excluded from this policy.

The Secretary of State may not have such plans, but he will be aware that it has been extensively reported in the press that the Treasury is trying to force a change on him. Does he agree that the fact that this ridiculous idea is even floated by the Treasury shows the bankruptcy of the Government's economic policies, which reduce them to such stratagems as selling off paintings and raiding British Rail's pension fund at a time when it is not clear whether they would raise the maximum amount of money? Will he assure the House that if the Treasury were formally to approach him with this absurd suggestion he would resist it strongly? Does he accept that this reflects the attitude of a Government who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on 23 November, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was sensible to review Government activities to decide whether they should continue to be provided by the state, and I repeated that in my answer to the hon. Lady a moment ago. The hon. Lady has worked up tremendous indignation about a hypothesis, but I hope that she will next turn her attention to the hard fact that the City of Manchester education committee is selling more than 100 works of art at Sotheby's next month—the decision has already been taken that the sale is to take place.

Will my right hon. Friend admit that the Government art collection is not up to much anyway and that it would not be a very great loss if it were flogged?

I would not agree with my hon. Friend. The Government art collection is approaching its centenary. It represents more than 15,000 works of art which have been chosen over the past century. They are a significant representation of the history of British art in our time.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects funds to be available for distribution from the national lottery.

We hope that the licence to run the national lottery will be awarded later this year, and the national lottery will be operational towards the end of 1994. Funds will be available for distribution shortly after the lottery starts up.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the main objective of the national lottery, which is to improve the quality of life, will not be diluted?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the importance of not diluting the main objective of the lottery. It is true that we seek to have the best national lottery in the world, but, of course, it is also true that concerns have been expressed by small and charitable lotteries, the charities themselves, the pools industry and others. All the concerned bodies are being listened to with great care in Committee, but we are dealing with the problem by ensuring that 20 per cent. of proceeds go to charities and by the enhancement of small lotteries. It will, indeed, be a very British lottery.

When the National Lottery etc. Bill was first published, the Minister pledged that the revenue raised from the lottery would be truly additional and would not be a substitute for Government funding. Does the Minister agree that when hundreds of local arts and sports organisations are being savagely cut because of the revenue support grant, the lottery pledge of additionality rings very hollow and, along with many other Government promises, should be taken with a large pinch of salt?

I do not think that the hon. Lady understands local government finance. Most of the local government equation—priorities within it must be for local authorities —is based on the principle of revenue funding. The whole point of the national lottery is that the vast proportion will be concerned with capital funding.

Could my hon. Friend go a little further and say when he envisages the appointment of the director general of the Office of the National Lottery which will be an important part of the operation? Is he aware that a great deal of expertise is already available in the operation of lotteries, and it is estimated that the national lottery could be up and running successfully by the spring of next year?

Nothing would please me more. I hope that we shall be able to proceed to the appointment of the director general of Oflot as soon as Royal Assent has been granted. In order to achieve that, we must make speedy progress in Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from UNESCO on the work of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom's withdrawal from UNESCO in 1985 has not significantly affected the work of my Department. The question of rejoining UNESCO is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who continues to follow closely developments in that organisation, but has not so far taken any decision on resumption of membership.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the overwhelming majority of informed opinion in the arts and sciences and cultural circles believe that the simple submission to the former President of the United States in pulling out of UNESCO has done immeasurable damage to this country and to the organisation. Will he prevail on the Foreign Office to reconsider the issue before, by force majeure, the new Administration in the United States makes it compulsory for us to rejoin, and to do so at the earliest opportunity, thus avoiding the embarrassment which would follow such a train of events, and repairing some of the damage done to this country and its influence overseas by the earlier decision?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was in 1985. At that time, I was the last British national commissioner for UNESCO. I was, therefore, very familiar with the arguments then. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not total and unswerving support for the objectives of the UNESCO administration. However, UNESCO has many important functions to which we still subscribe and in which we are actively involved—even this very week.

Is the Minister aware that the new President of the United States has spoken most warmly to Dr. Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO? Any benefit that may have been experienced by that universal organisation as a result of our withdrawal because of its bad administration will be dissipated by our remaining out of it. There is a great deal to be said in terms of this country's interests for our rejoining that universal organisation and for ensuring that our cultural achievements are shared and are carried through in its work abroad.

I am aware of that point and I am also aware that many British nationals provide expertise for UNESCO, either because they are directly employed by that organisation or because they are employed on a consultancy basis. I have no doubt that some parts of UNESCO's work are valuable to this country, whereas other parts may be more beneficial to other countries than to Britain.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has held with the Press Complaints Commission on the recent changes made by the commission in its code of conduct.

None.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government's policy is? The Government have said that they do not like self-regulation because it is not working, but the Secretary of State has apparently had no talks with the commission to see whether self-regulation can be beefed up. In the past few weeks, we have seen headlines such as "You bitch" in the "Home Alone" case. Sir Allan Green's late wife was approached by the prostitute in the case and the photograph was paid for—if not directly by the press-indirectly either to the prostitute or to the pimp. We have not heard a dicky-bird from the Press Complaints Commission. What makes the Secretary of State think that self-regulation will work if he has not talked to the commission? All the evidence shows a continuing decline in press standards.

The hon. Gentleman knows especially well that the Government have said that their final response to the recent Calcutt report will come after they have had the opportunity to listen to the debates in Committee on the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill and after we have had the opportunity to hear the views of the Select Committee on National Heritage.

For those of us who believe in self-regulation the tragedy is that the press has always done too little too late. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the newspaper industry should not rest complacently on the latest changes to the code of conduct, welcome though they are? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the newspaper industry should reconsider carefully the code of conduct proposed in the first Calcutt report? It offers a tighter model of self-regulation than that offered by the relatively easy-going code that the newspaper industry has put together for itself.

I am aware that my hon. Friend will contribute to the Select Committee report, to which we look forward. On the developments that have occurred since the second Calcutt report was published, I have welcomed the evidence that the press is interested in reform of its own procedures. There is still plenty of time before we have to come to a conclusion—after the Select Committee has reported—when we can see whether there are further developments.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the question of cross-media ownership.

This and other ownership issues are raised at meetings with broadcasters and in letters from hon. Members and the public. However, there is no agreement about what, if anything, needs to be changed.

I am sure that the Minister would agree that free and well-dispersed media in this country are essential if we are to maintain freedom of speech. Can he therefore explain why the ownership of the electronic media—radio and television—is subject to control while no restraints are imposed on the accumulation of newspapers by certain owners? Can he tell me how much of both media is now owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government should pay attention to the matters he raises. He will be aware of the remarks of Sir David Calcutt regarding the regulation of the electronic media. The matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised were widely debated when the House considered the Broadcasting Act 1990. He will also be aware that the President of the Board of Trade has certain powers in relation to the ownership of newspapers. For the time being, we shall leave matters as they are and allow the Broadcasting Act to settle down.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that cross-media ownership of newspapers and the electronic media occurs in France and Italy? Does he accept that if Britain and the English-speaking world are to compete adequately with those conglomerates, we must have strength in our own media?

My hon. Friend has done the House a service by referring to the international dimension of the issue. I repeat the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Surely, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he would agree that pluralistic press media are at the heart of what is meant by a democratic society. Does he agree that when one man can own three weekday newspapers and two Sunday newspapers, as well as a 50 per cent. stake in BSkyB, that is a totally unacceptable concentration of media ownership? When will he face up to this issue and take some action, or is he simply afraid of Mr. Rupert Murdoch?

The hon. Lady used the word "unacceptable" as the justification for her argument. As I have already said, we keep these matters under review and I do not believe that that adjective can be justified at this time.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for children's play.

The Sports Council will take over the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit's responsibilities for information and playwork education and training from 1 April 1993. This represents a very positive way forward for children's play.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that widespread concern has been expressed because, since the demise of the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit, £500,000, which was formerly dedicated to children's play, has now disappeared within the Sports Council? Does he further accept that there is a widespread feeling that there is a need for a national focus for children's play and that the Sports Council may not be the appropriate forum for that? Perhaps his Department would like to take that on board?

First, let me reassure my hon. Friend that £500,000 certainly has not disappeared. It is up to the Sports Council to decide how to spend that money, which was, of course, considered within its budget. I know of my hon. Friend's highly regarded work on behalf of the National Playing Fields Association. I hope that he will join a number of hon. Members who are coming to see me shortly as part of a delegation to discuss the matter.

What is the Government's policy on the sale of school playing fields? Is he aware that such sales are frequently the only way that schools can afford to get themselves modernised? Those sales cause a great deal of anguish in the communities. Is not it time that we were told what the Government's future policy on this important matter is? Will the Minister also bear in mind the difficulties faced by Connah's Quay primary school in my constituency?

I am not familiar with the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if he takes up the matter with the Minister with responsibility in Wales, I shall seek to liaise with him. The general principle and the policy are clear. Successive Ministers with responsibility for sport have said that local authorities, when deciding whether to dispose of playing fields, should consider how much they benefit the local community. First, we must establish how many playing fields there are, where they are and how big they are. The establishment of those facts is now being undertaken by the Sports Council, which I hope will be able to report on the matter by mid-summer.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the regulations affecting small theatres.

Although the regulations affecting small theatres are not the responsibility of my Department, I have, like my hon. Friend, an interest in their work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, beneath the great success of British theatre is the heartbeat of the small theatre which provides the first opportunity for many writers, producers and actors? However, the small theatre is a tender flower which needs to be protected. It has suffered various problems in the past, including those relating to the 48-hour rule. The small theatre is now moving into the licensing world—which, although not covered by my right hon. Friend's Department, is legislated for in the House-and there is a risk that the cost and bureaucracy of licensing may once again put the small theatre at risk. Will my right hon. Friend keep a close watch on that issue?

As I said in my main answer, I share my hon. Friend's interest and I have been delighted to be able to attend performances in small theatres since I took on my present job. As my hon. Friend is aware, a review of the licensing laws in pub theatres was carried out a few years ago. The then Home Secretary concluded that the public performance of plays should continue to be licensed under the Theatres Act 1968. In making that decision, he was particularly mindful of the fire and safety implications. I am not persuaded that there is any reason to reopen the issue.

The Secretary of State may be aware of the problems that have been created by the local management of schools, particularly grant-maintained status, for small theatre and education companies. Will the right hon. Gentleman study the way in which partnership funding currently works? Will he also consider ways in which the problems can be remedied, specifically by strengthening the funding and the contribution from the Arts Council of Great Britain in order to compensate for the current loss of funding from local education authorities?

The question posed by the hon. Gentleman is more a matter for education Ministers than for me, but I recognise the read-across that he has established. One of the facts that have been brought home to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself during the past year is the extent of the overlap between our responsibilities and those elsewhere. I shall glady look at the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many small and medium-sized theatres such as the Grand theatre in my constituency of Blackpool have benefited from Government support in recent years? Does my right hon. Friend accept that such Government support is much appreciated?

In 1993–94 the Arts Council of Great Britain will allocate more than £40 million to drama and mime companies. In addition, drama companies benefit from the council's touring fund and the regional arts boards. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of mentioning that.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received arising from consultations on English Heritage's plans to reduce its services on unlisted buildings in London.

I have received approximately 80 representations on English Heritage's London proposals as a whole, few of them relating specifically to unlisted buildings.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the majority of representations that he has received are opposed to the proposals? Does he recognise that there are many fine buildings in London that do not have listed status? Does he further acknowledge that, outside London, county councils have the overriding responsibility for, and provide much of the special advice to, the district councils? If the proposals are adopted there will be a mishmash-an unco-ordinated approach in the absence of an organisation with overall responsibility for London. Does not such a policy constitute short-sightedness and short-termism of the worst sort? Will not he and his colleagues be condemned by future generations for the destruction of our architectural heritage and London's character?

That is rather strange, considering the massive growth in the number of listed buildings in the past decade or so. Of course, English Heritage has listened carefully to the representations that it has received. In making the revised proposals, it has taken full account of the responses to its consultation paper. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will endorse English Heritage's final proposals only if he is satisfied that they make proper provision for the safeguarding of London's heritage.

Will my hon. Friend encourage English Heritage in its basic task, which it does well, of preserving and protecting the marvellous heritage of important historic buildings and monuments? That is what future generations will care about.

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the most magnificent —Hampton Court—is in his constituency and I know that he takes a great interest in it. English Heritage has performed remarkably well in the decade since it was founded and I have no doubt of its intention to continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of this year's local government finance settlement on public library provision.

I shall collect information from library authorities about their expenditure plans for the coming financial year. That will enable me to make an accurate overall assessment.

Is the Minister aware that in the city of Salford tremendous cuts in local government expenditure are bound to overflow into the library service? Does the Minister agree that at a time when we are talking about young people and crime, the last thing we want is to see libraries closing?

I am, indeed, aware of the position in Salford. I follow the affairs of Salford with great interest and I do not forget that Salford is the home of the first free municipal library service in the world. Of course, public libraries must deliver a comprehensive and efficient service. No decisions have yet been taken by many local authorities in respect of their general or library budgets, but I am watching the matter closely.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to appoint the next chairman of the Independent Television Commission; and what procedure he will follow.

Sir George Russell's current term of appointment as chairman of the Independent Television Commission runs out on 31 December 1994. Sir George is proving an excellent chairman of the ITC. It is much too early to consider succession issues.

May I put it to the Secretary of State that Sir George is proving a not very adequate chairman of the ITC—[Interruption.] I put that as generously as I can. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread anxiety, both in commercial television and at the ITC, about the failure of that organisation to monitor the disastrous impact of the Broadcasting Act 1990 on commercial television and about the wide gap between promise and performance in the franchise applications?

The second half of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question did not reinforce, sustain or provide a rationale for the first half. He was making a subjective judgment. As he well knows, these are early days. I have every confidence in the ITC.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of the ITC that our constituents expect him to take firm action to stop the constant flow of pornography, violence and degradation into their homes through the television screen?

I realise why my hon. Friend raises that matter. In certain considerations, it obviously falls to the ITC to take action. In others, it is the responsibility of the ITC to offer advice and for other action to be taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will introduce Government proposals for legislation arising from the Calcutt report.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made to the House on 14 January on publication of the review of press self-regulation.

Why does the Secretary of State not call off the protracted farce and admit that he does not have an idea in his head as to what to do, that he is not allowed a policy by the puppet-masters in the Tory press and that it is impossible to do anything without infringing the freedom of the press? His strategy is to wait until the storm passes and attempt to kill off the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith in the process.

The hon. Gentleman, who knows how fond I am of him, dramatically oversimplifies the issue. He knows that his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith would agree that his Bill is directed to a limited part of the issue, whereas we are looking at a wider one.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with most of the occasional excesses of the press is by public criticism and that one of the last things to do is to tie the press up in legislative knots, which would mean that it would lose the power to do good at the expense of trying to stop it doing things that are wrong?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which has much merit and wisdom. He will be aware of the evidence given by our noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to the Select Committee on National Heritage last week. The Lord Chancellor expressed the concern that a legal route would be made overcomplicated by lawyers.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements he has made to monitor the operation of subtitling provisions by ITV companies since 1 January; and if he will make a statement.

The Independent Television Commission is responsible for monitoring the requirements on subtitling both in the ITV licences and in the Broadcasting Act 1990.

The deaf and hard of hearing depend on subtitling for television programmes. The change on 1 January from Oracle to the ITV companies was a disaster because for some days there was no decent subtitling. We must ensure that that does not occur again. Does the Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility in this matter, as well as the ITV companies?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the technical problems to which he refers with the subtitling services on ITV. Those have now been resolved and the new subtitling system should offer much greater benefits in future. I am sympathetic to the needs of those with disabilities and I shall keep in touch with developments which may be of benefit.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Broadcasting Bill, may I tell my hon. Friend that we were anxious to see the maximum amount of subtitling for the deaf and the hard of hearing? It is fair to say that, so far, they have been disappointed and we should all be grateful for the help that my hon. Friend has agreed to give to ensure that the maximum subtitling is available in future.

I compliment my hon. Friend on the attention given to the Bill by that Committee. Section 35 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that channel 3 and channel 5 licensees must provide 10 per cent. more subtitling in their first year of operation than was achieved by ITV companies in the previous year. Thereafter, the ITC would set reasonable targets to increase subtitling. There is a requirement that in 1998, 50 per cent. of the average number of programme hours will offer subtitling.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the number of visitors to the United Kingdom through organised tours during 1992.

Latest figures from the international passenger survey show that there were 1,202,000 visits to the United Kingdom by holidaymakers on marketed package holidays in the first half of 1992-54 per cent. more than in the first half of 1991. They represented 36 per cent. of overseas holiday visits and 15 per cent. of all overseas visitors.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind that millions of people from this country take package holidays and tours overseas, will he take steps to ensure that there is proper co-ordination in this country between hoteliers and those responsible for resorts and facilities so that we may attract visitors on package holidays? To that end, will he ensure that the British Tourist Authority has the marketing funds available, adjusted for the devaluation of the pound, so that the number of visitors to this country is maintained?

Just as important as the British Tourist Authority doing its work abroad—which it does magnificently, whatever the vagaries of the pound—is the necessity to ensure that this country has the facilities to receive package holiday visitors. The organisations concerned are making rapid progress on co-ordination, and individual resorts and destinations, including my hon. Friend's constituency of Harrogate, are blazing a trail in that respect by their approach to joint marketing strategies.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he is making in raising private funds for support of heritage and the arts.

There has been a remarkable increase in private sector support for the arts, from less than £600,000 in 1976 to more than £65 million last year. Our business sponsorship incentive scheme has itself attracted almost £40 million since its inception in 1984. English Heritage is also making good progress in promoting private sector funding.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the effect of the recession is such that many companies now find themselves unable to put into arts and heritage the money that they previously put in, and will he look into this? As he was clearly not over-enthusiastic about my idea of raising money through sponsorship of the royal family, will he look carefully at the recent suggestion by one of the timeshare experts that up to £100 million could be raised by using one of the royal palaces for timeshare? If he is looking for extra money, Trusthouse Forte and Holiday Inns would probably be interested in buying one of the palaces, which are clearly not all necessary.

The first half of the hon. Gentleman's question was obviously serious. As a result of the spread of sponsors and the fact that smaller companies are now sponsoring arts and heritage, the amount of sponsorship continues to rise even though, as he rightly says, some larger companies have had to drop out because of the recession. As to the second half of his question, he does not seem discouraged by my reaction to his previous suggestion. As I said then, I am delighted to see that he is continuing to do research.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission by how much the National Audit Office has increased in real terms the resources devoted to measuring the outcomes achieved by Government services.

In the five year s to 31 March 1993, the National Audit Office will have increased the number of value-for-money studies produced by some 50 per cent., from 33 to 50. Over the same period, the resources devoted to that work have risen in real terms by 45 per cent.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, I am talking not just about value for money or efficiency but about effectiveness. As Government policy is moving towards an audit of policy in terms of quality and not just quantity of service provided, should we not be looking at the effectiveness of surgeons' operations in the national health service-that is, whether they make people better—rather than just the number of operations? Does the National Audit Office have sufficient resources to carry out such outcome studies on effectiveness as well as efficiency?

The Comptroller and Auditor General has frequently reported on the health service and, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will bear out, the reports are concerned with the quality of service. The reports on the NHS from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health frequently produce tests of quality—the number of patients dealt with, and so on—so the reports from the National Audit Office are pretty good.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans there are to increase the resources of the National Audit Office.

The National Audit Office corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98, which was approved by the Commission in July 1992, shows an increase in gross cash resources from £44.6 million to £47.4 million over the next five years. The office also plans to increase its output over the period, mainly as a result of auditing a further 60 accounts following the creation of new next steps agencies.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but could he give the House some sign as to whether the Commission has looked into the latent studies that the National Audit Office could be making? In particular, could he look at the studies being done into defence spending, as I believe that a large number of capital projects approved in the past have not been good value for money?

I am tempted to go down that road, but, as the House knows, the Public Accounts Commission is the paymaster of the National Audit Office and matters of content are for the Public Accounts Committee. However, as the Chairman of that Committee will bear out, the National Audit Office has frequently done good research and reports on defence studies, including those into capital projects by the Ministry of Defence.

I wonder whether the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are also looking into Ministers' perks. Will they be examining, for instance, the Minister of Agriculture's pond, which cost the taxpayer about 4,700 quid? Then things moved on to the security fence. It seems to me that he is building up a farm. Are there any cattle involved, or is a horse-racing stud being built? I should like to know—and I should like to think that the Minister will be paying the bill.

I am sure that the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to whether the Public Accounts Commission will be examining this matter among the many that it has to study already, I do not really know.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of the NAO's current budget is allocated to value-for-money audits.

The National Audit Office allocated 56 per cent. of its budget for audit work for value-for-money activities in 1992–93.

Will consideration be given to more financing for the National Audit Office for value-for-money audits so that we can examine the Government's estimates of the cost of their legislation, such as the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill? The estimated costs of that measure have more than doubled since it was introduced to the House.

That may well be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to investigate. I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor General is studying the hon. Gentleman's letter and that the hon. Gentleman will be receiving a reply quite shortly.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will make a statement on initiatives to improve the financial management of the services of the House.

Initiatives include the start of a new bill-paying and financial information system and revision of the estimates to allocate costs and receipts to House Departments as a firm basis for financial targets and planning. The Finance and Services Committee will monitor and encourage this process, both when preparing annual estimates and in assessing particular services in consultation with the Director of Finance and Administration.

May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new job, which is the latest in a long and glittering parliamentary career? As he may well be feeling a little nervous, I remind him that I have given him notice of my supplementary question—[Interruption.] I want to be kind. Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost to the House, in terms of financial effectiveness, of the delay in the construction of the Jubilee line extension? Until we know precisely what is going on, the construction of new offices over Westminster station is being delayed.

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his many kindnesses and courtesy to me and for giving me notice of his supplementary question. I can assure him that my Committee is working with the Director of Works, the architect and the staff to get all the approvals in place so that arrangements with London Underground can be concluded when a decision is taken. There has been substantial delay, but I hope that the matter will be resolved shortly. If the project is postponed indefinitely, there will be serious implications for the House. That is something which I should think that the House would wish to consider.

What powers does my right hon. Friend have over the House of Commons car park, where I see many cars which seem never to move from their position from day to day or from week to week? It would seem that some people are using the car park when they are not entitled to do so and that they are doing so without making any payment, thus depriving the City of Westminster of much valuable revenue.

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, so far as I know, I have no responsibility for that. Perhaps he will address his remarks to the Administration Committee, which I know is considering the matter. I suggest that he has a word with the Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that he does not allow a vast amount of money to be spent on studies of the Refreshment Department which will meet with no one's approval and cost the taxpayer a considerable amount of cash?

I believe that the Refreshment Department is undertaking a study, with consultants, of a range of measures. I note the hon. Lady's views. No doubt the House will want to take a view about these matters in due course. I am sure that they are designed to save money rather than to spend more. We shall see what happens.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision is being made to extend the office facilities of hon. Members and their staff.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the long-term plans to improve the House's buildings and facilities.

(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Following completion of the phase I building, preparation for the second phase, to provide offices for 210 Members and their staff, is well under way. Some £3 million has been allocated for design work in the next financial year. The tentative occupation date is 1998, but this is dependent on a decision being taken to proceed with the new underground station as part of the Jubilee line extension, to which reference has already been made. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, the House has leased additional space at 7 Millbank to provide offices for 100 Members and their staff, and £7.9 million is earmarked in 1993–94 for fitting-out work.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Does the Commission have a plan which might indicate to the House when, eventually, every Member of Parliament will have, next to the office, used by his or her staff, an office without a bar—(Interruption.] I am sorry —a bath. In the late 20th century, it is about time we caught up with office conditions such as were available in the late 19th century.

It is intended that completion of the new parliamentary building, which should occur by the end of this century, will enable every hon. Member who wants an individual office to have one.

On the important point raised unintentionally by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), may I ask whether there will be cleansing facilities, such as baths and showers, connected with the new offices? Will the right hon. Gentleman also see whether proper cleansing provision can be made for members of the public who come to this House? [Interruption.] Showers, too, perhaps, though I am sure that members of the public, like Members, hardly need showers. Refreshment facilities might well be provided in Westminster Hall—why not?

Detailed arrangements for the rooms in the new parliamentary building are still being considered by the appropriate Committee. However the catering authorities of the House, in the course of the inquiries referred to a moment ago by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), are also considering facilities for members of the public.

How many Members of this House have the use of more than one office?

I have no information to hand on that point, but if I can find any which might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman I will supply him with it.

In assessing office space for Members, is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the disposition of office space in this building? Various offices in the Palace have less need to be in this building than does the accommodation of hon. Members. Is any attempt being made to examine precisely which administrative offices could be moved to outlying buildings so that more hon. Members might be accommodated here?

Yes, and significant progress has been made in that respect with the opening of 1 Parliament street. Further progress will be made by way of the new parliamentary building, to which a number of offices now in this building are expected to be transferred, thereby enabling more Members to be accommodated here.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why hair-driers are being installed in the public lavatories in the Palace and other parliamentary buildings? Is that a proper use of public money and is there a demand for such a facility?

I was unaware of that development, but I will inquire into it.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a further statement on progress in seeking to provide children's facilities in the Palace of Westminster.

The Accommodation and Works Committee has now confirmed its earlier decision that no space for a child care facility can be found in the parliamentary estate before the completion of the phase 2 building. Negotiations are now proceeding to establish whether, and at what cost, the House could participate in a joint venture child care scheme being considered by a number of Whitehall Departments. I expect firm proposals to be put before the relevant authorities and the Commission shortly.

On our first day back, I suggested that the House should make a new year resolution to make this place more children-friendly. The answer that we have just heard—that there will be no place for children's facilities until the phase 2 building has been completed—is a great shame. Will the right hon. Gentleman please take steps, at the earliest opportunity, to meet the women Opposition Members who have been campaigning for such facilities, as well as other interested Members? While he is thinking about this, he should also look into the appalling situation that occurred last week, in which the half-term holiday fell, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) tried desperately simply to obtain facilities at a reduced rate to accommodate hon. Members' children who were visiting Westminster. It was not possible to obtain any reduced rate accommodation. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will look into that.

The half-term holidays for more northern counties are taking place this week, when my children will be visiting the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the implementation of the proposals of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

As I reaffirmed at Business Question Time last Thursday, the prospect of progress with the Jopling proposals depends on our discussions through the usual channels.

I recognise that progress has been made on the Jopling report, especially in the early notice given to hon. Members of recess dates, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable restlessness throughout the House at the general lack of action? Would it be asking too much for him to direct his best endeavours towards ensuring that, even though we may not have a debate on the subject during this Session because of other pressures, there is a statement of intent from the Government on what they propose to do?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. Even if I did not, I would have registered the riot unexpected murmurs—or more than murmurs—of support for my hon. Friend from both sides of the House. I have no doubt that that support has also been registered by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).

I agree with the Lord President's remarks, but does he accept that whatever views may be held about the sitting hours of the House, a large number of Back Benchers on both sides have reservations about the Government's wish, and the proposal in the report, to have automatic timetabling of all Government legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it known, especially to his colleagues, that it does nothing to ease those fears when the Government use our present guillotine procedures to curtail legislative scrutiny on the basis of a timetable which they then discard, as has happened both with the paving motion for the Maastricht legislation and with the Education Bill last week?

The right hon. Lady made a similar point about the Education Bill at Business Question Time last week. I do not want to elaborate further on what I said then. The fact is that a reasonable amount of time was allowed for that Bill. We have to plan its progress in relation to other measures and she can expect its remaining stages to come before the House fairly shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise two points? First, the Select Committee did not recommend the automatic timetabling of all Government Bills; it excluded constitutional Bills taken on the Floor of the House. Secondly, it produced a unanimous report almost exactly a year ago, which was endorsed by 85 per cent. of hon. Members in the debate in July, so the Committee has demonstrated admirable restraint and patience. There is now a growing impatience in the House for something to be done to implement its opinions, which I believe are broadly held to be balanced and in need of urgent attention.

I hope that I have already shown that I well understand the point that my right hon. Friend made in the latter part of his remarks. As to the first part, that important point needs to be understood. To put it in shorthand terms, nothing in the Jopling report would have applied to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.