To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to promote the competitiveness of the British film industry.

British film makers, actors and technicians are world leaders. It is important that that strength should continue. Earlier this year, I held a series of 10 consultative meetings with all sectors of the film industry, representing production, film financing, facilities and studios, film and video distribution, cinema exhibition and television. We discussed how the level of investment in film production might be raised to strengthen the infrastructure, increase activity and thus encourage competitiveness. I plan to announce my conclusions on the consultations in the new year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be competitive, the film industry must have the studio capacity to attract film makers? Is he aware of the efforts being made by Hertsmere borough council to save the studios at Elstree—a name synonymous with excellence in British film making? Will he join me in wishing Hertsmere borough council well in its efforts to save those studios, which are so very important for the future of our film-making industry?

Studio capacity in Britain must be maintained at an appropriate level, but it is determined by market forces. I am well aware of the situation regarding Hertsmere borough council and happily join my hon. Friend in wishing it well in its efforts. I am very much aware, as the whole House will be, of the significant part played by Elstree studios in the history of British film making and hope to see it play an equally distinguished part in the future, but I do not think that the matter is one in which I should intervene.

Before announcing his conclusions on the film industry, will the Secretary of State look at the adverse effect that withholding tax on foreign entertainers is having on their participation in British production? Does he recognise that if that tax were abolished—that may be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it could substantially increase the revenue take by the Exchequer and help the British industry at the same time?

I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, a matter in which I also take a keen interest.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to market forces and his reluctance to spend Government money subsidising the industry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The Government provide quite significant financial support for the industry, but it was noticeable during the consultation period that the representatives of the industry who came to talk to us were looking for things other than financial subsidy.

Given that the latest figures shows that the United States now controls more than 80 per cent. of European film distribution, why do the French Government—but not the British Government—recognise the cultural and industrial importance of our film industry and fight our corner in the GATT negotiations? What is the Secretary of State going to do to invest in and boost the film industry?

I hesitate to rebuke the Opposition spokeswoman, but I do not think that she is up to date on what is happening in the GATT negotiations.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the success of British broadcasters in the international broadcasting market.

Exports of programmes made by United Kingdom broadcasters were estimated at more than £150 million in 1992, and further opportunities are opening up world wide to provide programmes and services.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that BBC World Service television is increasingly popular and in some parts of Asia is now watched by more people than CNN news? Coupled with the British broadcasting industry's recent success in the Emmy awards, does not all that confirm that Britain is still making the best programmes in the world?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating BBC World Television on its achievements. It has expanded its operations into an increasing number of countries since it began broadcasting two years ago and, as she said, it is making a particular impact in Asia. British programmes are renowned for quality and originality throughout the world and I recognise the creative skills and craftsmanship that go into making them.

Would the Secretary of State like to amend that answer to make it clear that British programmes "have been" known for their high quality? Unless he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are prepared to treat the industry seriously, original production will begin to suffer. We have done well out of independents, but is it not clear that the Government's laissez-faire attitude to television production is the same as their attitude to film production, and that that will destroy the brilliant work that has been done and is being done now?

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) drew attention to the six Emmy awards won by the United Kingdom on 24 November. It is slightly churlish of the hon. Lady to say that, as of 25 November, the situation has changed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the style and clarity of reporting of the BBC World Service have built an enviable reputation for Britain? Will he look at every possible way to ensure that we transform that skill into the presentation of news by television on a worldwide basis?

When the BBC embarked on World Service Television, it was conscious of the reputation that it enjoyed throughout the world as the result of the World Service. It is particularly concerned that the eminence of the brand name of the BBC should be preserved by the quality of what it does on the television side.

Is not it the case that while a large number of quality British television programmes are sold around the world by the front door, much more money is being spent via the back door by satellite and cable broadcasters on foreign films and television programmes? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, for example, that a healthy trade surplus from television film sales a few years ago is set to become a deficit of £640 million by the year 2000? Will he consider the introduction of European programme quotas for satellite and cable broadcasters similar to those met by terrestrial broadcasters to help trade, to help to sustain our production base and to safeguard our popular culture?

Again, I hesitate to cross swords with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. However, European broadcasting directives already set quotas for satellite television programmes in the United Kingdom. Therefore, that condition already exists.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy for the future of the Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.

Under the arm's-length principle, the Arts Council is responsible for providing a strategic policy framework for the arts, for managing grant in aid and for the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. It is important that it does so within a stable framework that provides clear accountability and is administratively effective, to allow the maximum funds available to go to the arts. I have recently announced proposals for improvements in both those sectors. We shall continue to monitor the council's efficiency through the annual planning process.

May I invite my right hon. Friend to give us his response to the lengthy article that appeared last week in the Evening Standard, written by his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who urged the abolition of the Arts Council? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public dissatisfaction with the Arts Council's behaviour in respect of London's orchestras and that that controversy is unlikely to subside until the council clarifies its policy and shows some real leadership?

I have no intention of abolishing the Arts Council, but I am anxious to ensure that the arts funding system as a whole runs smoothly and effectively. I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex that audiences and performers are the people who matter most, and that is why we want to see more of the money that the Government provide feeding directly into the arts. As to the orchestras, the situation is still evolving and the full meeting of the Arts Council has not yet come to its conclusions.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the Arts Council was to provide a stable framework. That is exactly what it is not doing, particularly for the orchestras and the regional theatres. If the Arts Council is failing in one of its central duties, as explained by the Minister, surely we must ask what is its function. Surely the Minister needs to bring the Arts Council closer to his way of thinking, which might be a sensible way to proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time and knows the nature of the arm's-length principle between the Government and the Arts Council. We have had discussions in the House in the past year about the way in which the Arts Council might be more accountable to its public for its decisions. The Arts Council has made suggestions and recommendations on how that course might be pursued.

Whatever criticism some hon. Members may have about the Arts Council, is my right hon. Friend aware that at least one of his predecessors thinks that it would be sheer folly to abolish the Arts Council and to expose the Department of National Heritage—and himself in particular—to having to take individual decisons between artistic organisations? I do not know who will advise him on that. Does he agree that if he were to go down that road it would be what Sir Humphrey would call a very brave decision?

My first words in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) were that I have no intention of abolishing the Arts Council. I am grateful for the support and reassurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

Will the Minister now address the crisis of confidence and credibility in the Arts Council that has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House? He further damaged confidence and credibility last week by his cut of £3.2 million, which will lead to the council's having to cut £7 million from its clients. Confidence and credibility have also been damaged by the Arts Council itself in the shambles over the orchestra decision and the problems with the regional theatres this summer.

The hon. Gentleman derived a series of questions from a series of running stories in the press, which do not all go in precisely the same direction as the central thrust of his question. The distinction between the responsibilities of my Department and those of the Arts Council have been clear throughout the almost half century that it has existed. I have reasserted those responsibilities at a time when there was concern that there might be some shading occurring within the past six months.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the current operation of the Press Complaints Commission; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are reviewing the effectiveness of press self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, but have not made their final assessment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite one or two flagrant breaches of the Press Complaints Commission's code in the past few weeks—in particular by the Daily Mirror—self-regulation remains infinitely preferable to any form of statutory intervention? Does he accept that self-regulation must be seen to be effective? Does he agree that, to achieve this, the Press Complaints Commission should have powers to enforce its decisions and to punish newspapers that transgress the code?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission being perceived and transparent. I also agree with him on the desirability of self-regulation being maintained, if it possibly can be. Obviously the PCC is aware of what has been said to it during the year not only by the House, but by other sources. The Government will publish their White Paper early in the new year.

As the Secretary of State conducts his review will he bear it in mind that, despite a few high-profile cases on privacy, the vast bulk of complaints and public concerns relate to actual accuracy? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman accepts, in principle, my contention that the citizen has a right to expect news to be reported accurately, but will he take some advice, perhaps from his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), and give the PCC real teeth, as the Advertising Standards Authority has, so that it can enforce factual accuracy, just as the ASA enforces accuracy in advertising?

The subject is one in which the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen and long interest. There is agreement among observers that the improvement in the work of the PCC regarding accuracy and the speed of its response to complaints has been notable in the past two years. Much of the attention centres on the privacy cases. The important thing is to ensure that we do not produce a machinery that is more cumbersome than what we are seeking to improve. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continuing interest in the matter.

Does my hon. Friend accept that a policy of enforcing decisions is not the right way round, because it suggests some kind of prior restraint, which should be avoided? I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable that the press should have roughly the same freedoms as Back Benchers, who make misstatements and who may occasionally be awkward, but who are an essential part of democracy.

My hon. Friend has given an extremely good account of himself not only in that question, but on many previous occasions. I agree with him, without wishing to make absolutely precise the analogy between himself and the national press, that that role is a useful one to have played in our society.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the current total of public money paid to support and maintain royal palaces.

The estimated cost in the current financial year for the occupied and historic royal palaces is £28.4 million.

Has the Minister seen the estimate that suggests that if the royal palaces were put to full commercial use they could yield an income of £100 million a year? In these hard times of cuts in the meagre incomes of pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and the homeless, why is it necessary to loot the public purse of that huge sum of money in order to keep five palaces going to ensure that one single family can live in extravagant luxury?

I disagree with just about everything that the hon. Gentleman has implied. I have not seen the story to which he referred, but, as for improving the contribution to the upkeep of the palaces, I can tell him that as a result of the opening of Buckingham palace earlier this year and the policy of charging for entrance to Windsor, about 70 per cent. of the money needed for Windsor will be generated.

As £28 million works out at about 50p per head of population per year is not that extremely good value for upholding that vital part of Britain's heritage? The royal family and our traditions draw a large number of foreign visitors to our country and their spending on hotels, restaurants, internal travel and shops generates employment and a tax return to the Government. That represents very good value indeed.

My hon. Friend is, as always, wise, lucid and persuasive.

Is not it time in a modern democracy for one particular palace or home to be provided for the Head of State, the cost of which could be met by the public purse, while the rest of the palaces are either handed over to other public agencies to promote tourism or made the sole financial responsibility of the wider royal family, who should not be subsidised by the ordinary taxpayer?

No, I do not agree with that.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had about the presentation of exhibits at the science museum; what will be the total expenditure on capital projects during the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement.

Under the National Heritage Act 1983, those are matters for the board of trustees of the national museum of science and industry. However, the allocations that I announced on 30 November include an additional sum of more than £2 million over the next two years to the museum for a major capital project at York.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that the staff of the national museum of science and industry will be fully involved in discussions about the future structure of the museum, that there will be a period of stability and that the museum will continue to make all its collection available to the public?

Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend will know that all the redundancies have now been achieved voluntarily. My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter over the past few months on behalf of his constituents and I congratulate him on that assiduousness and give him the assurance that he seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had recently with representatives of the BBC to ensure the improved reception of Radio Gloucestershire in the Cotswolds.

Officials in my Department have discussed local radio reception difficulties with the BBC. I understand that the BBC has put forward proposals to improve reception in a number of areas, including one part of Gloucestershire, and it is continuing to consider the options for the Cotswolds area.

My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties that my constituents in the Cotswolds have in receiving Radio Gloucestershire. Will he ensure that officials from the Radio Authority hold discussions with the BBC so that the problem can be overcome? I gather that it is a difficult, technical problem of fewer FM frequencies against the BBC providing more low-power transmitters. Whatever the eventual solution, will he encourage discussions so that my constituents do not continue to be disadvantaged by the problem?

I am well aware of the considerable disadvantages under which some of my hon. Friend's constituents labour. I will do everything that I can that is proper for my Department to ease those problems.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he intends to take to restrict the exposure of children to violence in the media.

The regulatory authorities have acted to tighten the guidelines on violence which broadcasters must follow. They have my full support and I am especially pleased that the Independent Television Commission has called for a reduction in violence and is committed to monitoring whether that reduction happens.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that there can be no question but that the imagery portrayed on television affects behaviour? If that were not the case, British business would be wasting £2.5 billion in advertising on television each year. Does he agree that although the first responsibility for censorship to protect children from scenes of excessive violence must rest with the parents, there is also a role for the Government to play in tightening the existing regulation, especially in the areas of satellite, cable and video?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In terms of the causal link to which he alluded when referring to the effectiveness of advertising, I have read that advertisers are confident that advertising has an effect, but never quite confident which part of that advertising has the effect, which would, on the whole, seem to endorse research done over the years that has not found a conclusive link. However, I should be the first to agree with my hon. Friend that common sense suggests that such a link must exist.

Will the Secretary of State consider some of the satellite pictures of bull fighting in Spain that are now received in homes here? That would be illegal in this country under other legislation and it seems appalling that the slaughter of those creatures can be seen freely on satellite television. Will he consider the matter and propose some action?

I was not aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but it is something about which I shall make some inquiries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that BSkyB has a responsible attitude towards the broadcasting of films on television and that it strictly applies the codes for the 16 to 18-year-olds used for the cinema? Will he agree that the causal link to which he referred in answer to an earlier question applies not only to fictional broadcasting but to the terrible images that are shown on television news? Much research has shown that television news has a greater influence on the young than violence shown in films or other fictional programmes.

I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he knows, the Independent Television Commission has asked BSkyB, and BSkyB has agreed, to look carefully at the evening scheduling on its film channels. As for my hon. Friend's specific question, which has temporarily slipped my mind—will my hon. Friend give me a single clue?

News.

I am most grateful; it was the switch in subject which was responsible for my forgetfulness. If my hon. Friend reads the report which the Broadcasting Standards Council published last week, he will find that, although two thirds of viewers believe that there is too much violence on television, more than half believe that the violence seen in news programmes is more justifiable than other violence on television.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from regional theatres regarding the proposed cuts in funding.

I have received a large number of representations both from and about regional theatres over the past few months.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of those representations must have come from those who benefit from the performances of our regional theatres, which are expressing grave disquiet at the possibility that their theatres will disappear? If we wish to protect our children from video violence and video nasties, surely one of the strongest safeguards is to encourage children to go to live theatre. That cannot be possible if the proposed swingeing cuts are made in what is, in effect, the nursery of not only our creative artists but our audiences of the future.

I agree with the hon. Lady about the role that regional theatre fulfils, the apprenticeship which it provides for actors and actresses, enabling them to advance, and the value that that provides. She will be encouraged by the statistics over the past six years, which show that twice as many theatres have opened as have closed; so the news is not altogether bad.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a question of apprenticeship? Such theatres provide a platform for many touring companies, such as Touring Glyndebourne and the Welsh National Opera, which bring a high degree of excellence to many of our provincial centres. Does he further accept that we are talking about a very small amount of money? Will he please go back to his Treasury colleagues and try to get a little more?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Arts Council's decisions about the regional theatres were taken against its budget at that time. It made certain determinations. However, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) about the importance of that art form.

Did not the Arts Council lose a great deal of public confidence by acting the fool over the regional theatres earlier this year? Are not the Government now acting like a knave by introducing cuts that might produce the same deleterious effect?

The chairman of the Arts Council referred to that issue when he spoke recently about the Arts Council's annual results. As for funding for the Arts Council, I was delighted that I was able to make more money available this year than had been stated. I acknowledge that the amount had been cut in the previous year.

I recognise that professional theatre is all-important, but will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Foundation for Sport and the Arts on the grant that it recently made to many theatres, including one in my constituency in Todmorden where, on Saturday night, I was pleased and delighted to see a wonderful performance of the "The Wizard of Oz"?

I am absolutely delighted to join my hon. Friend, not only in his congratulations but in his enthusiasm.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the threat of funding cuts to theatres in Greater Manchester.

I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about theatres in Greater Manchester.

Does the Minister agree that, in the very year when Manchester will be designated the city of drama, it is ridiculous that the Library theatre and others in the area should be under threat? Does he agree that that is partly due to the fact that the Secretary of State did not secure the necessary funding in the public expenditure round and that local authorities have been forced to make cuts in their grants, because of the lack of money from the Government?

No, I do not agree. The Library and the Forum theatres in Manchester are supported by the local authority, which meets this week to decide their future. I very much hope that it will decide to continue its support for those theatres.

Is not the recent fiasco of Arts Council funding for regional theatres in Manchester and elsewhere futher evidence that the council is simply losing its grip? This afternoon, the House has already addressed the funding of the London orchestras, which concerns me greatly, as my hon. Friend knows.

My right hon. Friend has a tight grip on the Arts Council and has managed to give it an extra £800,000 that it did not expect to get—[Interruption.] That is 1.7 per cent., which is not much in these circumstances. My hon. Friend will know that the London orchestras are being discussed by the Arts Council this week.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding deregulation and tourism; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a great many representations on this subject from the national and regional tourist boards, from trade and professional associations and from individual business men and women in the tourism and leisure sectors. I reported my initial findings to the House on 27 July and I am taking up with ministerial colleagues the issues raised.

My hon. Friend will understand the importance of tourism to the borough of Poole. Does he also understand the vital necessity of withdrawing the regulations that are impeding progress and, frankly, are unnecessary? I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the additional support that they are giving to the tourist industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for the kind remark at the end of his question. I am indeed aware of the importance of tourism to Poole, and he may be interested to know that last week I met a delegation from the British Resorts Association, which is forging a new and helpful relationship with the Department. Of course, we are acutely aware that tourism is one of the largest industries in this country and that it has perhaps not always been given the attention that it should have been, but it will be given it in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make additional funds available to maintain the current number of London orchestras.

I recently announced the level of grant in aid to the Arts Council for 1994–95, which includes an increase of £800,000 in the previously planned figure for next year. Within that global total, it is for the Arts Council to determine its artistic policies and priorities and the allocation of funds to individual arts organisations. Decisions on the funding for the London orchestras are, therefore, a matter for the Arts Council.

The Secretary of State is a very urbane Pontius Pilate; none the less he is a Pontius Pilate. The selection of London orchestras has been an appallaing scandal and no other city would have handled it in such a way. It is incumbent on the Government to give the London arts scene the support that it requires to sustain five orchestras.

The House and the audience constituency must decide whether they want the arm's-length principle to be observed. The Arts Council's decisions, which have been subject to commentary, were absolutely within its right and purview. In that respect, it was a matter for the Arts Council to decide. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), the matter has not yet been concluded, as the Arts Council still has to make a decision.

Although I understand and support the arm's-length principle governing my right hon. Friend's relationship with the Arts Council, could he make it a condition of his overall grant to the council that it does not engage in the humiliating process to which London orchestras have been subjected in recent weeks? Orchestras that have illumined London's concert-going for decades have had to go through a Eurovision song contest to get funds for next year.

I will reiterate, as I did in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that it was a proper procedure for the Arts Council to follow in terms of its responsibilities and disposition of funds. My hon. Friend may be right if he surmises that the Arts Council has learnt some lessons from its experience.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the National Audit Office.

The National Audit Office's estimate for 1994-95 of £36.5 million was considered and approved by the Public Accounts Commission on 7 December. That is £0.8 million less than what was proposed in the corporate plan approved in July.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The National Audit Office is one area of Government activity that should be increasing its expenditure to keep a check on the waste which I have identified, just by reading a range of newspapers, as amounting to some £9 billion. Is he aware, for example, that it is estimated that the £15 million increase in the telephone bills in Whitehall have resulted from calls to the 0898 number, which is what people telephone when they are desperate for information on the cricket scores?

The National Audit Office is already busily engaged with its programme, but I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Will the Chairman acknowledge the fact that the National Audit Office plays a crucial role in ensuring that there is no slippage in Government administration towards what one can only call an Italian mode of government?

I do not know what instances the hon. Gentleman has in mind—

The Welsh Development Agency.

That matter has been dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, which I am sure will want to consider it again. The National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General will have a continuing interest in the matter.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what finance will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of Government agencies.

The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 billion for 1994–95 includes provisions both for financial audit of Government Departments, executive agencies and a wide range of other public sector bodies and for value-for-money investigations. The forward investigation programme of the National Audit Office is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

I am grateful for the Chairman's answer. Given the current debate on the subject, will he ask the National Audit Office urgently to look at the cost benefits of the Child Support Agency? Will he ask it quickly to evaluate whether all the money spent on the agency and its work is worth it, in terms of what is beeing recouped and from whom? He will be aware that the Government are reviewing the issue. It would be helpful if the National Audit Office produced a report to inform the Government's decision.

The National Audit Office does undertake the financial audit of the Child Support Agency. That includes an examination of the accuracy of maintenance assessments. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that, as part of the normal strategic planning and marketing process, developments at the agency are being monitored with a view to a possible value-for-money investigation.

Will the National Audit Office examine the work of the Prescription Pricing Authority in the light of allegations that dispensing general practitioners have been overpaid value added tax?

The Prescription Pricing Authority is a very small body, whose accounts are audited by the district audit service on behalf of the Audit Commission. The audited accounts form part of a summarised account that is reviewed by the National Audit Office before final certification by the Comptroller and Auditor General. No value-for-money work is planned, but if the hon. Lady would care to write either to me or direct to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the matter will be considered.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the accumulated surplus of the House of Commons Refreshment Department; what plans there are for its use; and if he will make a statement.

The accumulated surplus of the House of Commons Refreshment Department trading fund was £2.7 million at 1 April 1993. As mentioned in the 15th annual report of the House of Commons Commission, it is intended to use that surplus to help to cover the cost of the Refreshment Department's modernisation programme.

Could some of that modernisation extend to more home-made puddings in the Members' Cafeteria, instead of apple pie made by machine? Exactly what are the refurbishment plans envisaged for that £2.7 million? There have been so many press rumours that it would help the House to know what is proposed.

My hon. Friend should address the first half of his question to the Director of Catering Services or to the Chairman of the Catering Committee, and I shall ensure that he knows about it.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what expenditure has been authorised to improve access to Parliament for people with sensory disabilities.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what facilities are currently available for disabled visitors to the Palace of Westminster and to each of the parliamentary outbuildings; and what financial provision has been made to improve them.

Details of the facilities available for disabled visitors to parliament are set out in a leaflet that is available from the Serjeant at Arms and which has been incorporated into the Members' handbook. A sum of £250,000 is included in the proposed programme of works for 1994–95 to improve those facilities. The Accommodation and Works Committee is conducting a comprehensive review of the issue, and funding in future years will be determined once the Committee's conclusions are known.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I direct his attention to the needs of those with hearing difficulties. Within the programme to which he referred, what action is intended to take account of the six action points in the paper, which I know he has received, from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf?

That paper has gone to the Accommodation and Works Committee, which I understand is consulting following a substantial report from the specialist architect, which it is also considering and which will form the basis of a report in due course.

What steps are being taken to make it easier for those who have difficulty walking to pass through a number of the entrances and exits in this building —for example, the Norman Shaw building and the main St. Stephen's entrance? I know just from pushing my baby daughter in a pram how difficult it is to move around this building. Those with difficulty walking must have a terrible time. What steps are being taken to deal with that?

That is the sort of work which, among other things, we hope the £250,000 will cover. Because of the period when the building was built, some of the entrances are especially difficult to adapt. However, hon. Members will notice that in the newer buildings, in particular, adequate provision has been made from the start and many adaptations are taking place or are planned.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee if he will make a statement on the future of the parliamentary works budget.

Since the transfer to the House in April 1992 of the vote for works services, a 10-year rolling programme of work has been developed in consultation with the Treasury. That will provide the basis for future works budgets and takes account of the requirements of the House, such as the provision of office accommodation for Members and the need to remedy the backlog of maintenance on the Palace and outbuildings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when so many of our constituents are feeling the pinch and lack the spare cash to do up their homes, Parliament must be doubly careful to set an example of frugality when doing up its premises?

I am sure that my hon. Friend underestimates her physical and mental powers, but in general I agree with the important points that she makes. I expect that my hon. Friend realises that hundreds of people work at 7 Millbank, so it was inevitably an expensive project. She is right to say that such matters are now carefully scrutinised. Reasonable recommendations are often received from domestic committees, and work often has to be done on grounds of safety and, above all, of fire protection. My hon. Friend's point is well taken and I assure her that we will examine all budgets with great care.

Could not part of the budget be used to solve a problem that was identified at a recent seminar for civil servants with severe disabilities? As it is impossible for such civil servants to enter the Chamber in a wheelchair, there is a bar on their promotion, because they cannot occupy the invisible Box in the corner.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) dealt with the issue of disability a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will see that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements are in place to ensure that companies taking over regional television franchises fulfil the under takings in respect of meeting local and regional needs given by their predecessor.

The Independent Television Commission is responsible for enforcing the requirements on every regional licence holder to provide regional programmes. Those licence conditions apply regardless of changes of ownership.

The Secretary of State will be well aware that many of the bids by companies that subsequently won franchises promised regional programmes and the creation of jobs within the regions in which those companies would operate. If Yorkshire Television's franchise, for example, were taken over by another company, that would obviously have a significant effect on the jobs in Yorkshire promised by that company when it originally sought its franchise. What will be done to ensure that regional employment is not lost as a result of the decision to allow the acquisition of franchises?

The licence holder remains the licence holder even if another company controls the licence following a takeover. In the case cited by the hon. Gentleman in the Tyne Tees area, the licence holder would continue to be answerable to the ITC for discharging the licence that it was granted.

Did not we hear the same scare stories from the Opposition when the present ITC regime was introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commission has proved effective in making sure that companies observe their obligations and that there is no need to doubt that it will prove effective in future?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The ITC said that the transition to the new arrangements was undertaken more smoothly and with greater stability than previous transitions.

In the light of the move by London Weekend Television to fend off Granada's predatory bid by jumping into bed with Yorkshire Television, is not the Secretary of State the least bit concerned that Tyne Tees Television could be a casualty in these shenanigans? Will he assure television viewers in the north-east that Tyne Tees Television's commercial viability and regional programme output will be entirely secure, whatever change in ownership takes place?

As to the regional discharge of licences, I gave the answer to the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) earlier. As we discussed in the House last week, the fact that Yorkshire Television controls Tyne Tees, and the consequences that that has in terms of a takeover, are factors which would weigh in the mind of anybody considering such a takeover.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss funding.

I regularly meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss a range of issues.

In reply to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman said that the task of the Arts Council was to provide a stable framework. Does not he agree that the thing that is clear about the Arts Council is its unpredictability? Are not the regional theatres, and Manchester in particular, suffering from that unpredictability, as are the orchestras in London?

The Arts Council has the overall responsibility for the allocation of funds to various art forms and, when the decision is taken about which art forms, to particular institutions. It cannot be the case that those proportions are always set in concrete. The Arts Council made a decision at its recent meeting at Woodstock to allocate a larger proportion of funds in certain areas and a smaller one in other areas.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the order and method of Prime Minister's Question Time.

The only representation I have received has been from the Procedure Committee in its report into parliamentary questions—House of Commons No. 687, Session 1992-93. Its recommendation was:

"On balance, we do not recommend any changes designed to alter the present balance between open and closed questions to the Prime Minister."

Given that "Erskine May" states that the purpose of a parliamentary question is to seek information or to press for action, what steps does the Lord President propose to take to prevent time-wasting at Prime Minister's Question Time by hon. Members who are seeking neither to obtain information nor to press for action but simply to show loyalty to the Prime Minister?

My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee was not able to be here, but I will draw his attention to the hon. Lady's remarks. If she gives me the undertaking that no Opposition Member will seek to make political points during Prime Minister's Question Time, I might consider her request.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to amend the system for the tabling of oral questions.

I have no plans to alter the system for the tabling of oral questions.

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the difficulties that some hon. Members have in tabling oral questions for a Monday due to their constituency engagements? Will he suggest to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that those hon. Members be permitted to table oral questions for a Monday on the preceding Thursday? Failing that, will my right hon. Friend suggest to him that oral questions be taken until 6 o'clock on Monday?

There has been some consideration of that matter, and I refer my hon. Friend to the further report of the Procedure Committee, following the Government's response. Of course, I will draw the remarks of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Is the Lord President aware that there is still concern on both sides of the House about the implications of the workings of agencies, particularly the Benefits Agency, for the tabling of questions and whether replies are offered? All too often, hon. Members who seek to table questions to the relevant Secretaries of State find that answers cannot be obtained. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the matter?

The right hon. Lady will know that some changes have been made in the way in which those matters are dealt with—for example, to ensure that replies from chief executives appear in an appropriate way for hon. Members to be aware of them. There are no further plans to change the arrangements at the moment. However, I would not reject out of hand what the right hon. Lady has said.

To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many days the House will have met during 1993.

On the basis of the House's agreement to rise for the Christmas recess on 17 December, there will have been 165 sitting days in 1993. Allowing for weekends and bank holidays, the number of non-sitting days will have been 88. Those figures compare with the averages for the calendar years since 1979, which are 166 sitting days and 88 non-sitting days respectively. If election years are excluded, those figures become 172 and 82 respectively.

Does the Leader of the House recognise that there will be no consensus about changing the hours and sitting days so long as the Government treat the House with the contempt that they are showing this week? Does he realise that the manner in which the House is being treated with contempt will mean that there will be parliamentary warfare well into 1994 and that the responsibility for that lies entirely with the Government and the contemptible manner in which they are treating the business of the House on Tuesday and Wednesday?

I do not, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about contempt, but no doubt we shall have opportunities to debate that tomorrow. However, quite apart from the averages that I have mentioned, there were two non-election years—1986 and 1991—within the past eight or nine years in which the figures were almost exactly the same. In 1991, the figures were exactly the same as those that I have just given for 1993. In view of the reference to the Jopling report, the following is a direct quote from that report:

"Compared with the legislative bodies in other large democracies the House of Commons continues to sit for more days and for many more hours in a year than any other."