To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what briefing he has received from the English tourist board on the regulations which might be removed from tourist businesses.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the English tourist board on the regulations which could suitably be removed from tourism businesses.

The English tourist board has contributed information suggestions to my inquiry into the effects of regulation on tourism and to the retail tourism and other services task force established by the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, I have had many representations from trade associations and individuals in the tourism and leisure sectors. I am taking up with ministerial colleagues a number of the concerns that they have raised.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on that response and remind him that he was chairman of a committee of Conservative Back-Bench Members who considered matters of deregulation? The tourist industry is the biggest foreign exchange earner in the country and therefore looks to him to make its job easier. Will he undertake to pursue that task with all vigour?

Certainly, I will pursue it with all vigour. My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are about 18 million foreign visitors to Britain every year who spend £7.8 billion. That is a vast industry, which in the past has been severely underrated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in one noisy disco in Birmingham an environmental health officer instructed the barman to wear ear muffs? Is he further aware that when it was pointed out that the barman would not be able to hear customers, the officer said that it was not his problem? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for regulations that produce such daft decisions to go and does he further agree that all environmental officers should be well trained in the understanding of the bottom line in business?

I certainly agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on how well informed she is on those matters. One of the main problems with all regulations is that they are not applied in the same way in different parts of the country. It is often extremely difficult for people running tourism-related businesses to know how environmental and fire regulations officers and others will apply regulations. That is one of the problems that we are seeking to address in the current campaign.

Is the Minister aware that one of the tourist attractions in the mining areas are the miners' brass bands and that where Government decisions have closed pits, many brass bands are placed in jeopardy, which affects the tourism trade in places such as Bolsover and elsewhere? If privatisation of the coal industry takes place, will he, as he suggested to me previously, consider the position of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation to ensure that those who have the capacity to finance the brass bands in the pit areas will be able to do so and function as before?

I take extremely seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I remember that he also raised it on the announcement of the abolition of the United Kingdom Sports Commission. I hope that when the national lottery is up and running and the Sports Council is attributing funds, such areas as the old sports grounds run by the miners' welfare associations will be eligible for help. I shall gladly discuss that further with him. The brass bands are an extremely important part of our artistic and cultural heritage and I will do everything that I can to see that they, too, are supported.

Is the Minister aware that he has a reputation in the tourist industry as someone who wishes to deregulate anything and everything? Will he recognise that some regulations, especially in the areas of health and safety, are necessary in the industry? Therefore, before rushing headlong into a spate of deregulation measures, will he take time to differentiate the good from the bad? The package travel directive certainly comes in the latter category. As the Minister hinted earlier, the industry needs clarification of existing regulations and consistency in their implementation.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Some regulations are unnecessary and over-bureaucratic; some are extremely important. We seek to distinguish between the two.

Did my hon. Friend benefit from his recent meeting with the Eastbourne Hotels Association? Will he do everything that he can to try to remove unnecessary burdens from hoteliers and guest house owners, especially on matters such as electricity at work, and the regulations relating to the preparation of food and to the disposal of waste?

I well remember my meeting with the Eastbourne group and an especially valuable meeting it was. I give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the assistance given by his Department to the sport of rugby football.

Most Government funds for sport are distributed through the Sports Councils, which allocate them according to their own policies and priorities. In 1992–93, the Sports Council of Great Britain provided grants of £20,000 to the Rugby Football Union, £2,250 to the Rugby Football Schools Union, £160,000 to the British Amateur Rugby League Association and £7,500 to the English Schools Rugby League.

Many of those involved in rugby league and in rugby union welcome the Minister's personal interest in improving the relationship between the two codes and wish him well in his forthcoming visit to what might be regarded as the Jurassic Park of British sport, the Rugby Football Union at Twickenham. Will he impress on the Rugby Football Union the great anger about its continued discrimination against rugby league players? Will he make it clear that the anger relates to the fact that the RFU's amateurism principle resembles the emperor's new clothes? Can the Minister give any assurance that the Rugby Football Union will be dragged towards the 20th century before it is too late, bearing in mind that the split between the two codes occurred almost 100 years ago?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for arranging my extremely enjoyable and educative visit to Wakefield on Friday night. I enjoyed it very much indeed. I take extremely seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the division between the two codes. I do not like that division. Both are marvellous games and it seems idiotic that, after 100 years, such things should still prevail. As it happens, this very morning my officials have been in touch with the office of Mr. Dudley Wood at the Rugby Football Union to set up a discussion at which, among other matters relating to the Rugby Football Union, I want to discuss the relationship between rugby league and rugby union.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the high standards of crowd behaviour at rugby league grounds, including Cougar park in Keighley where crowds have quadrupled in the past couple of years, with many families being attracted? Will he note that any requirement to bring standards up to those that apply in association football grounds, because of crowd problems there, would impose great burdens on rugby league clubs?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. When I was at Wembley a week last Saturday, I was very struck by the fact that, although there were huge crowds there, there was not one spot of trouble among 35,000 people, and very impressive that was too. I understand that rugby league grounds have considerable problems in finding the finance to meet the requirements of the outspill of the Taylor report and other findings. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I have said to Mr. Rodney Walker, the chairman of the Rugby Football League, and to Mr. Maurice Lindsay, the chief executive, that I hope that we can have a meeting to discuss ways in which we can find the funds to ensure that the grounds come up to standard.

May I congratulate the Minister on wearing a Wakefield rugby league tie—although, given the way Wakefield are playing at the moment, perhaps they might offer him a contract rather than a tie. In the summer, the parliamentary rugby league group sent him a dossier about discrimination against the sport by senior officers of the Ministry of Defence. Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to make a statement to the House about the discussions that have taken place and about whether the Ministry of Defence has taken action to stop the discrimination?

I thank the hon. Member for sending me that extremely interesting file about what goes on in the armed services and rugby league. I have read the file and I have asked that a meeting be set up as soon as possible between myself and the relevant Minister at the Ministry of Defence. That meeting will take place in the next few weeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the proposed grant in aid to the English tourist board for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

Grant in aid to the English tourist board totals £13.9 million in the current year. The planned figures for the next two financial years are £10.8 million and £9 million respectively.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the reduction in funding to the ETB that he has just announced, following the withdrawal of section 4 development grants in England, has had a demoralising effect on the English tourist industry, not least in the unassisted areas such as my own? What encouragement can he provide for coastal resorts to resist decline and to compete more effectively against continental rivals with better climates than ours?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about coastal towns. Some of them have recently received assisted area status. I understand that the tourist industry does not like the fact that the grant to the English tourist board will be cut, but the grant to the British Tourist Authority—which tries to suck foreigners into this country so that they can then be dispersed around the United Kingdom—has remained at about £30 million and will increase in cash terms during the next three years. Although I take my hon. Friend's point, he can be assured that the BTA money is secure.

The figures that the Minister has just given are to be regretted. Has he made representations to the Treasury to look at VAT on holidays? Some of my constituents are alarmed that VAT is charged on holidays in this country at a different rate from that charged in continental Europe and that we are not working on a level playing field. With the reduction in grants, will the Minister make representations to ensure that the VAT level is equal?

The hon. Member makes an important point. Since I last spoke in the House on the subject, I have visited all the regional tourist boards in England and that argument was very forcefully, and rightly, made at every one. I have as forcefully communicated that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish his proposals for the future of the BBC; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of the BBC.

I hope to publish a White Paper early in the new year which will set out the Government's proposals for the future of the BBC.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate John Birt and his team on the progress that has already been made in reducing overheads and bureaucracy in the BBC, but does the Minister agree that there is still considerable scope for making savings to increase efficiency, and that the best way to achieve those is to maintain pressure through the licence fee?

In line with the arrangements that were announced by my predecessor, I invited Touche Ross to examine the progress that the BBC had made in relation to the recommendations that Price Waterhouse made in 1990. Touche Ross reported that the BBC is ahead of the progress that Price Waterhouse was urging. I, too, congratulate the BBC on that progress. The powerful incentive that the BBC has for making those improvements in efficiency is the ability to reinvest in programmes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC, which has an enormous amount of talent and ability in its ranks, is fully able to take its place in the commercial world where the competition would bring about the economic advantages that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale)? Does he also agree that it is wrong these days that elderly people should pay a charge of £80 —which could easily be eliminated—to watch television, and that the whole structure that leads to quasi-police vans driving round the streets hunting down people who do not have a licence is out of date and inappropriate in our type of society?

My hon. Friend has always been a doughty opponent of the licence fee principle. There are, however, more people than myself who think that there would not be sufficient funds in the commercial world to finance the BBC as well as everything else.

Is the Minister aware that public service broadcasting is one of the few real jewels left in the cultural crown of this country and that any attempt to destroy it would have a very deleterious effect? Is he aware that there is already clear evidence that the pressure on producers within the BBC is leading to a direct loss of original material and of children's broadcasting? Is he proud of that?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the testimony and tribute that she has paid to the BBC, but she is underestimating the number of things that this country still does remarkably well. On the second half of her question, the Government made it clear in the Green Paper published last year that they foresaw a continuing need for public service broadcasting, which would probably, but not certainly, be financed by the licence fee.

Has the Minister noticed the warning that Mr. John Birt gave in his speech to the Royal Television Society that although the BBC is making welcome economies and expects to make considerable further economies next year-13 per cent. of central overhead expenditure and 7 per cent. of unit costs—it would be damaging for its productive output and programme making if those savings were to be reflected in any further pressure on the licence fee? He has asked explicitly that the fee be retained and linked to the retail prices index until a further settlement is considered in the charter review. Will the Minister give that undertaking today?

The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the public statements made by Mr. Birt at the Royal Television Society convention have also been made privately in communication and correspondence with myself. I shall make an announcement about the licence fee shortly.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee on National Heritage will shortly produce a report on the future of the BBC—a report which may well include some interesting and challenging findings? Could he await that report before his ideas crystallise too much for the White Paper?

The whole House is in the debt of the National Heritage Select Committee for conducting that examination and inquiry. I look forward to hearing what it has to say and assure my hon. Friend that we shall not publish a White Paper until we have heard from him and the rest of the Committee.

Regardless of the job that I do, I have an on-going interest in the need for more open government and for making greater information available to the public. I shall, therefore, be interested if the Secretary of State will tell the House why he will not publish the Touche Ross report that he mentioned in an earlier answer, keeping confidential those pieces that are commercially confiden-tial. Surely it would increase the open and frank debate on the future of broadcasting if he allowed the rest of us to have the information that he has.

I know that the whole House would wish me to welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in the capacity in which she comes today. We shall treat her with the courtesy that anyone who has been shadowing the citizens charter would expect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is so relieved that she will no longer be opposing him at the Dispatch Box that he has come to the House to make sure that it is really true that she has left him.

Will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to the BBC that it should cede the Greater London Radio, GLR, frequency to which very few people listen, and give it to the London Broadcasting Company, LBC, which is a much more popular station in London?

There may be some minor complications in my hon. Friend's suggestion. Decisions about frequencies are made by the Radio Authority, rather than by channels taking the decision between them.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has undertaken on the impact of the spending plans for his Department in 1994–95 on the structure of future arts provision.

This question could be interpreted in a number of ways. I have interpreted it as referring to the effects of decisions taken by the Department in respect of allocations of funds to the arts. I confirm that the indicative planning figure given to the Arts Council for its grant in aid in 1994–95 is £220.9 million—a reduction of £4.7 million or 2 per cent.

All that waffle means that the Secretary of State is not answering my question. Will he confirm that the Treasury's philistine axe will savage the right hon. Gentleman's budget by as much as £5 million? That will be a double body blow, coming on top of millions of pounds of cuts forced on local authority budgets. It will mean, in particular, that discretionary awards to students of dance and drama, which are virtually impossible to obtain at present, will become even more difficult to make. Does not the Secretary of State realise that Britain's high reputation for arts and culture will be destroyed by the undermining of the ability of our young people to contribute to them?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down clear questions to me, I shall be delighted to give him clear answers. He referred in the latter part of his question to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, into whose budget the provision for discretionary awards flows through local authority spending, has confirmed that appropriate resources have been available for those awards to be made up. Discretionary awards are, by their very nature, for local authorities to decide.

Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Arts Council about the apparent mismanagement of its property portfolio?

I believe that my hon. Friend refers to the lease that the Arts Council took at the height of the property boom on premises in Yarmouth place, to provide overflow space behind its headquarters at 105 Piccadilly. After the council's move to Great Peter street, it was unable to find a tenant to take over the lease. It has now found a buyer for the property and has divested itself of the lease at a cost considerably less than continuing to pay rent until the end of the lease. That will mean more money for the arts in future years.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to change the structure of the board of governors of the BBC.

None at present, but the role of the governors is one aspect of our consideration of the BBC's future after 1996.

Does the Secretary of State share my alarm at the part of the Thatcher memoirs that describes the appointment in 1986 of Marmaduke Hussey as BBC chairman as an "improvement in every respect"? Does he agree that that view is not widely held? Since 1986, there has been a progressive and serious decline in morale at the BBC as budgets have been cut, programmes threatened and staff lost. The BBC needs not mad Thatcherite economics but a commitment to programme makers, viewers and the values of public service broadcasting.

I have not even taken the first step that many politicians have made, of looking up my own name in the index to the Thatcher memoirs. Therefore, I certainly have not reached the stage of reading any other part of them. Happily, the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman made reference is still the BBC's chairman, and I much enjoy working with him. I repeat the answer that I gave to an earlier question. The admirable feature of the efficiency gains that the BBC has been securing—to which the hon. Gentleman may have been referring adversely and obliquely—will go into programme improvements.

When the renewal of the BBC charter is considered, the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to make some important changes to the way in which the BBC is governed. Will he consider replacing the present BBC governors with an independent board of trustees, which would monitor performance promise on behalf of viewers and listeners? Would it not make the BBC more openly accountable if representative organisations nominated potential trustees, who would be examined by a Select Committee and then appointed by a broadcasting appointments commission? That would end the situation in which the Government are seen as appointing their cronies as governors.

Some of what lay behind the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about the role of the board of governors and how it should work in the future, is reflected in the Green Paper. As to how the board of governors should be appointed, if one of the preoccupations is to ensure total political insulation, I am not wholly confident that that would come about if the House were involved in nominating.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the amount of public funds allocated to sports coaching; and if he will make a statement.

The National Coaching Foundation is the lead body providing coaching support for sports organisations. In 1993–94, the foundation will receive a grant of £1,340,000 from the Sports Council, an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous year. This reflects the importance which the council attaches to this area of work.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. If he compares the amount of sport played by children out of school time nowadays with when he was at school, he will see that much less sport is played. Is that not a tragedy? Does it not mean that financial assistance must be given to clubs, at all levels, in all sports, to enable them to welcome and coach children? That would overcome this difficulty and give our children a chance.

My hon. Friend was kind enough to refer to my schooldays. He engages in a wide variety of sports, and that does him tremendous credit. There is a common feeling in the House, among those interested in those matters, that we have to find new ways in which the young can become involved in sport. It is a preoccupation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself and I am encouraged by the fact that my hon. Friend takes an interest in the subject. In so far as it relates to the national curriculum, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

When allocating public funds to sports, will the Secretary of State have regard to whether their governing bodies or members are discriminatory, particularly on sex grounds? Golf clubs in particular discriminate against women, either by not allowing female members or by discriminating against women who are members.

The hon. Gentleman well knows—this applies north as well as south of the border—that the decisions about the allocation of central Government money for sport are made through the Sports Council. I am certain that the Sports Council will read the hon. Gentleman's question.

My right hon. Friend is justifiably proud of the increased funding available for coaching, but he should not forget that thousands, if not millions, of volunteers, parents and teachers give up their Saturday mornings to coach our youngsters. On a similar basis, will he encourage some of our famous sportsmen and sportswomen who, through their sports, have become personalities and millionaires, to give voluntarily of their time so that the excellence that we all seek may be passed on to our youngsters?

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who give up their free time so gladly to assist with the coaching of the young and to share the enjoyment that they experienced earlier in their careers. I also pay tribute to the sports personalities who provide such heroic role models for those returning to the field. The more of that, the better. I commend my hon. Friend for his interest in the subject.

To ask the Secretary of state for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the signposting of tourism sights.

I have received numerous representations detailing wide-ranging concerns about regulations restricting the use of tourism signposts. I am discussing these complex issues with ministerial colleagues.

I am delighted to learn that my hon. Friend is engaging in such discussions. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet about who chooses the tourist sights to be signposted and considerable dissatisfaction about the fact that some sights do not appear to be allowed to advertise their existence? Will he also bear in mind that, in my part of Kent, people could not see a tourism signpost if they tried, because of the bollards on the M20?

My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important matter. The problems of securing proper signposting for tourist attractions have been with us for a very long time. As I have said, I am now engaged in discussions with the Department of Transport. which is responsible for such matters in Whitehall, but I must point out that county councils can be extremely difficult in this regard. If my hon. Friend cannot see too many tourist-attraction signs in Kent, perhaps he should have a word with his county council as well. He may wish to discuss the matter with me, however: I should like to obtain as much evidence as possible, to sort out this important matter once and for all.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of viewers have a valid television licence in the United Kingdom (a) as a whole, (b) in Scotland, (c) in Northern Ireland, (d) in Wales and (e) in England.

I understand from the BBC that the percentage of viewers with a valid television licence, as at 31 March this year, is estimated to be, for the United Kingdom as a whole, 92.3 per cent.; for Scotland, 92 per cent.; for Northern Ireland, 69.7 per cent.; for Wales, 92.7 per cent.; and for England, 92.9 per cent.

I thank the Minister for those figures. I am sure that he appreciates that many of my constituents would be horrified if there were any thought of BBC programmes being interrupted by advertisements; at the same time, however, many of them—particularly pensioners—feel considerable resentment about the present licence fee system.

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It has been estimated that £173 million a year is lost through evasion of the fee. That is a substantial sum, and reinforces the hon. Gentleman's point. I certainly undertake to examine the matter again, although I cannot undertake to say that we will cut the licence fee for pensioners.

If my hon. Friend is considering alternatives to the licence fee, will he note that, when Michael Grade gave evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage only last week, he said that allowing advertising on the BBC would mean the end of Channel 4? Will he also note that, when Nigel Walmsley came along —he is the managing director of Carlton and the former managing director of Capital Radio—he said that it would also mean the end of ITV and independent radio? There is not the advertising money to go round.

As my right hon. Friend said in answer to a previous question, we are aware of those beliefs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the details, and I assure him that they will be taken into account.

I have been advised to preface my question by saying that I have paid my licence fee.

The Northern Ireland figures are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, shockingly different from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and they may be a result of terrorist activity. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he is having with members of the United States Government about the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.

I met Vice-President Gore and key members of his staff on 18 October. We discussed the United States Administration's national performance review initiative. The Vice-President emphasised the similarities between the recently announced United States programme and our citizens charter. He was grateful for the help his team had already received from British civil servants and he wanted this dialogue to continue. Members of his staff will be attending the "Service for the Citizen" conference in London in December.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Vice-President Gore's national review includes setting standards, market testing and reducing unnecessary regulation? Does he agree that the United States Administration are following Britain's lead and adopting our principles and our citizens charter to improve their public services?

In this matter, the answer clearly is yes. Both Governments are faced with the same problems of rising expectations and the search for greater efficiency. Both Governments have come to similar conclusions, and I am happy to say that Britain is some two years ahead.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of the United States on open government? If he has taken such advice, will he consider resigning in view of the fact that, in a previous post, he was affected—whether deliberately or not—by one of the greatest cover-ups of which we have heard recently?

The hon. Gentleman would be wise to wait for the end of the inquiry. It is not incumbent on members of a party which was not trusted enough by its leader at the time to be told about the Chevaline project to give us lectures on the subject.

Does not the fact that Vice-President Gore's review has come to the same conclusions as my right hon. Friend show that my right hon. Friend's policies of market testing and compulsory competitive tendering are the way forward for the delivery of public services? Is not that the right way to bring about a cultural change in the delivery of this country's public services so that an enormous amount of money can be saved, particularly in the delivery of local authority services?

The principles behind what both we and the Americans are doing lead to those conclusions. It is better for public services, and better for those who work in public services, to know that waste is being winkled out. They do not want to waste taxpayers' money, any more than taxpayers want that money to be wasted.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made to date under the citizens charter.

Excellent progress is being made. There are now 37 charters, and 411 organisations applied for this year's charter mark competition. We shall announce the winners on 27 October.

Will the Minister comment on the progress of one of those 37 charters, the taxpayers charter, which is, as I am sure he will agree, an important one? How will the public's access to the mysteries of the payment and administration of taxes be helped by the wholesale closure of tax offices all over the country, including in my constituency?

A new adjudicator has been appointed to work on the taxpayers charter, which was the first to be implemented. There has been a significant improvement in the service to individuals who are pursuing their tax concerns. We have received letters complimenting us on the effect of the taxpayers charter.

Is it not the most natural thing in the world that it was the Conservative party which introduced the citizens charter in this country? Were we not the party which gave ordinary council tenants the right to buy, the party which gave parents their rights and also the party which gave trade union members on the shop floor their rights?

As ever, my hon. Friend puts things in perfectly clear terms and is absolutely right. The citizens charter is now such a success that both Opposition parties are now claiming to have invented it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has undermined progress both on the citizens charter and on open government by the way in which he has handled his own Department? Either his civil servants were not open with him and did not give him the relevant information on the arms to Iraq affair, in which case his incompetence to run a Department is proven, or they did give him the relevant information, in which case he has given neither Parliament nor the Scott inquiry the full truth. Is it not abundantly clear, either way, that on grounds of integrity and honesty he ought now to resign?

It falls to me to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. Last time I exchanged words with him across the Floor of the House it was about the dock labour scheme, of which he was an avid supporter.

Answer the question.

I shall answer the question in a second. I had hoped that in the meantime the hon. Gentleman had perhaps gained rather more respect for good management and value for money. The hon. Gentleman, like all of us, will have to wait for the outcome of the Scott inquiry.

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes his judgment half way through the case and shows just how much respect he has for judicial procedures. He should wait for the outcome of the Scott inquiry, when I suspect —in fact, I am certain—that all that he has to say will1 be proved wrong.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what has been the effect of the public relations campaign to broadcast the existence of the charter mark scheme? How many applications have been put in this year and how does that number compare with last year? Can my hon. Friend tell the House something about the quality of those applications?

There have been 411 charter mark applications this year, all of very high quality. There has certainly been a net improvement in quality over the year. The scheme is proving to be an excellent incentive in the improvement of public service throughout Britain.

:. To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department has spent on publicity and public relations activity related to the citizens charter.

The Charter Unit has no separate publicity budget. However, media, production and distribution costs for projects carried out by the Charter Unit was just over £1 million in each of the first two years and, in this financial year, just under £500,000 by the end of October.

At a time when many public services are teetering on the brink of closure because of underfunding and when many others are facing the prospect of their budgets being savaged by the Chancellor next month, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a better use of that publicity material—of that publicity budget—to persuade the Chancellor that the delivery of proper and efficient public services depends on investment in those services? If the right hon. Gentleman had sat with me and many colleagues at lunchtime today listening to the appalling story of London Transport's betrayal by the Government, who promised funding but have now withdrawn it, he would surely recognise that it is nonsense to talk about improving public services without the requisite investment in them.

I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is a proper part of any public service that its users should be given proper information about how to use it and about their rights, and in connection with their expectations. One cannot expect to run a proper public service unless one does that, and to have a small central unit encouraging that is very worth while.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have followed the Scott inquiry admire the open and frank way in which he responded to all the questions? In old-fashioned parlance, he behaved like a gentleman.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Given the emphasis that the Government are now putting on tackling the problems of crime, in the context of the amounts being invested in publicity for his citizens charter, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster examine the amount of money that goes to victim support, and the action that he can take on victim support, as many of the groups that provide support are under enormous financial pressure and do not feel that they are getting from the Government the support that they need to help victims of crime?

That programme falls to the Lord Chancellor's Department. As a long-standing supporter of the Bristol victim support scheme, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is not so much a matter of publicity; it is a matter of finding funds for a worthwhile service.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sums to which he referred as being spent on promoting the citizens charter pale into insignificance when compared with the amount that many Labour local authorities, particularly in London, are spending on promoting their propaganda and covering their incompetence?

My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of what Labour authorities get up to in neighbouring boroughs to that which he used to administer. It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that I answered the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) by saying that my Department's budget for publication was £1 million a year. Our public expenditure is £244,000 million a year. It does not seem like an incorrect balance to me.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what factor the savings arising from his Department's market-testing programme exceeded its costs.

The savings arising from market testing by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Departments since 1 October 1992 exceed costs by a factor of more than four to one.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, as it underlines the importance of the market-testing programme. It is widely reported that £750 million-worth of business opportunities is available in information technology. What proportion is going to in-house bids and what proportion to external suppliers? Of the latter, what proportion goes to small businesses?

I suspect that the £750 million to which my right hon. Friend referred applies to the whole programme, not just to the Department for which I am responsible. It is rather early at the moment to assess that. There is a huge amount of information coming in, which is being collated. To give my hon. Friend an idea of the order of magnitude, my first impressions are that about half and half is going inside and outside the public sector, which I think is a good indicator.

Does the Minister agree that the British civil service is still the least corrupt and even now the least politicised of any civil service in the world? Is not there a grave danger that, by market testing, contractorising and privatising the civil service, we shall end up with a civil service, such as those in many countries, run by Group 4 and Mega-greed plc? Is not it true that the savings made in the 1980s on civil service changes have come almost entirely by cutting the wages and conditions of low-paid staff?

As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree entirely. We have a superb civil service of enormous integrity. As to the second part, it is perhaps best answered by the fact that the First Division Association, which knows our civil service as well as anybody, has said quite clearly that it is not against market testing. It sees market testing—as do many impartial observers—as the best route forward for reducing costs and improving efficiency in our service.

Without market testing, would not it be impossible to know whether the organisations that have traditionally provided those services were as efficient and up to date as it is possible to be? Is not it clear that not only does market testing sometimes bring in outside organisations, but time and again the traditional suppliers still win the bids, and improve their service and the quality of what they produce and give the taxpayer better value for money?

My hon. Friend is right. The typical savings on market testing, irrespective of whether the service stays inside the public service or goes outside it, are 25 per cent. That is an enormous saving for the taxpayer and an enormous improvement in value for money. In addition, the whole process of market testing sets both standards and levels of quality and measures them in a way that has not been done before.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received concerning the science and engineering White Paper.

I received more than 800 representations during the consultation period for the White Paper. Since its publication, there has been much interchange between my Department and scientists and others in relation to the programmes initiated by the White Paper.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to some recent articles, the proposed introduction of technology foresight has been given a warm welcome by individual companies, business organisations and all those who have a direct interest in the well-being of British science?

My hon. Friend is right. The New Scientist, for example, has argued that the technology foresight programme gives a real prospect of bringing academia and industry closer together. That is one of the principal objectives of the White Paper.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had representations on the science White Paper that concern chemical warfare and chemical weapons? Does he remember, when he was in the Foreign Office, meeting me, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and representatives from Kurdish organisations and from anti-chemical war bodies and telling them that he was concerned about Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds in Halabja? Was he not at that time approving arms to Iraq? Should he not be releasing into the public domain all the documents about that situation, and should he not resign?

The Scott inquiry will deal with those matters and the hon. Gentleman will find that, in his enthusiasm to throw mud, he has got it almost exactly wrong in every respect.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, by the time a child has reached the age of 11, he has in many cases already decided whether his interests fall into the arts or science divisions? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is looking seriously at promoting science and engineering in primary schools, where the impact will be the greater?

Last week, I met the Association for Science Education—an admirable organisation—which has, with the Gatsby organisation and others, done much good work in secondary schools. We talked about the importance of the subject that my hon. Friend mentioned.

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to see the New Scientist article on technology foresight—clearly his civil servants are on the ball. Does he agree with the views expressed by Dr. Fiona Steele of the CBI, that concerns are being expressed about the future of the technology foresight exercise and how valuable it will be? Is he aware that what is at stake here is not the substance of the exercise itself but what is done with it thereafter? What further plans does he have for expanding and developing his ideas after technology foresight has taken place?

I met the CBI which, jointly with us, held a seminar on the subject after the article appeared. It made a public statement saying that it very much approved of the exercise as long as—we are thoroughly in agreement with it on this—it was market led. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party will support us on that.

Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from the Atomic Energy Authority, or as it is now known AEA Technology, about the excellent work that it is doing to move Government-funded scientific research into the private sector and to develop the AEA Technology centre at Winfrith in my constituency? Can he tell the House what his Department is doing to encourage that excellent initiative?

I attended an excellent meeting, on the fringes of the Conservative party conference, sponsored by AEA Technology in which it put forward a strong case for showing that it will thrive in the free market and carry through exactly the kind of technology transfer that the Government and the country want.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to meet the representatives of the magistrates in Bolton to discuss his criteria for appointing magistrates; and if he will make a statement.

I visited Bolton on 30 March when I met members of the Bolton Forum. I last had discussions with Bolton magistrates during November last year. I hope to visit Bolton again next year.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will soon find an opportunity to visit Bolton again. Will he find an opportunity to turn his courts charter into a real charter against crime and incorporate as many as possible of the Home Secretary's 27 points against crime in that charter?

The Conservative party and the country as a whole are strongly behind my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. The courts charter has less ambitious but important objectives—to diminish delays in the courts, make the courts more accessible and to help witnesses and others who must attend court understand the processes of the law. The courts are now committed to those valuable objectives.

Since the House reassembled following the summer recess, far too many Members who put questions on the Order Paper have absented themselves without withdrawing their question or giving me so much as an apology. I am sure that the House shares my view that good manners cost absolutely nothing and standards will have to improve.