To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research he has conducted into the popularity of opera; and if he will make a statement.

Opera in this country continues to attract an unprecedented degree of public interest and support. Recent research published by the Arts Council claims that 2.8 million—or more than 6 per cent.—of the adult population attend opera performances.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the orchestra of English National Opera, which at the Olivier awards ceremony received the award for outstanding achievement in opera? Does not that demonstrate that although British opera receives a limited subsidy, there is extremely good value for the taxpayer?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the ENO on its award last night; it does marvellous work.

Yes, but given that there is far more interest in opera as a result of a number of activities over the past couple of years, is not it fitting that there should be greater recognition of that interest, both by the Department and by the Arts Council, in terms of funding?

Opera gets a great deal of support already—£40 million from the various Arts Councils around the country. That is well merited, but it is a substantial sum.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why opera is so popular is that it is funded by the rest of us mugs called taxpayers? If people who went to the opera had to pay the full cost, half of them would not go.

In fact, we are lucky in this country in that a lot of the funding for opera comes from partnership deals—from sponsorship from business, in which we lead the world. The prices of a growing number of opera companies, such as English Touring Opera, are extremely reasonable.

What are the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doing to back up their congratulations with some action? Why is not the Minister helping local authorities to support the excellent education and opera schemes in which most companies are engaged? Why is not he helping local authorities to back excellent touring opera companies, such as the City of Birmingham Touring Opera, Music Theatre Wales or Opera Factory? What is he actually doing? Why is not he even talking to the opera world to discuss the benefit of the schemes—as the Labour party is, with an opera seminar next Monday? Will he stop just talking about opera and use the power that he and his right hon. Friend have to do something to back opera?

I have already said that we are doing a great deal to back opera. Through the various Arts Councils, we are giving £40 million. If any member of the opera community wishes to discuss matters further with me, I shall be delighted.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Director General of the BBC to discuss the renewal of the charter.

I met the Director General of the BBC on 28 February, when we discussed the BBC's plans for its future commercial activities.

At his next meeting with the director general, will my right hon. Friend ask him what is the sense of spending fee payers' money on expensive advertising—on hoardings in tube stations and in newspapers, for example—for particular television channels or radio stations? Will my right hon. Friend comment to the director general that such advertising seems an activity more appropriate for the commercial sector, which the BBC may one day join, and that while the BBC is a public sector broadcasting organisation, it does not seem an appropriate way in which to spend money that fee payers sometimes find it difficult to pay?

I think that I shall see the chairman of the BBC earlier than I shall next see the director general. Whichever of them I meet, I will certainly ensure that I include the subject on the agenda.

In considering the future of the BBC charter, will the Secretary of State bear in mind how irritating it was for those of us who were attempting to watch the historic victory of the English test team last week to have our viewing constantly interrupted by advertisements between each over? In considering the renewal of the charter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that large numbers of people who like to watch sport want to do so uninterrupted by such advertisements? What will he do to ensure that great national events are not confined to minor satellite channels, so that we can all enjoy the drama—be it the English test team or Wimbledon or any other national sporting event?

The hon. Lady will know that the Select Committee on National Heritage is exploring that very issue. There is no question but that the amount of sport being broadcast has greatly increased over recent years. The items that should be subject to the rules were discussed with everybody and agreed at the time of the Broadcasting Act 1990. I take the hon. Lady's point and, as I say, I shall be reflecting on the report that the Select Committee will make shortly.

With respect to the commercial activities to which the Secretary of State referred, which the BBC has described in its document on fair trading as supportive of, and complementary to, its public service commitment, does the right hon. Gentleman view the revenues generated from commercial activities as additional to those generated by licence fees?

Of course I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Indeed, such revenues have always been in addition to the licence fee. The BBC has also made it clear, however, that it will be using the profit from its commercial activities to advance the commercial programme in which it is engaged abroad.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Director General of the BBC to discuss the renewal of the charter, will he remind him that we look to the BBC to maintain the highest possible standards of journalism and broadcasting? In that context, will he draw the attention of the director general in particular to the largely synthetic row that one section of the BBC has sought to generate over the D-day celebrations? Will he remind him that there are many elderly soldiers, sailors and airmen in the country who are looking forward to the 50th anniversary of D-day to do two things: to commemorate those who lost their lives and to celebrate a great and glorious victory?

I did not see the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am conscious that it is the subject of a debate at present. I sincerely hope that the BBC, as is generally the case, reflects opinion throughout the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the autonomy of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom within the BBC.

Since the beginning of 1993, I have received 45 letters about the autonomy of the BBC regions. The BBC's regional policies were also mentioned in a small number of the 6,000 responses to the Government's consultation document on the future of the BBC.

Does the Secretary of State share my great concern and the concern of others about the strong centralising tendency currently prevalent in the BBC? That is evidenced, first, in the centralisation of certain functions, which makes it difficult for the BBC in Wales and in other national regions to make discretionary choices on the nature of programmes and, secondly, in the imbalance of funding of network programmes. I believe that 3 per cent. of network programme funding is spent in the national regions, which serve 17 per cent. of the population. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that when the White Paper appears, there will be measures in it and in legislation, including the charter, to reverse that centralising trend?

I am conscious of the views that have been advanced by the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, which, to some extent, the hon. Member's comments reflect. The director general made it clear in a speech on 24 March that he was concerned to increase the amount of regional production throughout the country. At the same time, however, he said that he did not believe in quotas, which he thought would be potentially too inflexible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC in Cardiff has a high degree of autonomy? Is he further aware that more money is spent on programmes specifically for the Welsh than on comparable programmes for Scotland and in the three BBC regions? Is he also aware that more money is spent on television in Wales by the BBC than is collected in licence fees paid by the people of Wales?

Being familiar with the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, I am also familiar with some of the counterpoints. However, as someone who is half Welsh I would not in any way want Wales to be denied its proper share. The director general has said that he is considering the issue on a national basis.

When giving evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage, both the director general and the chairman of the BBC promised that they would devolve management and programme making to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that pledge and ensure that it is written into the charter when he renews it?

Given that the director general and, according to the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the BBC have made that promise, and as these are management matters under their control, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with what has already been said. However, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the White Paper will touch on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress being made in establishing an accreditation system for outdoor education centres.

The activity centres accreditation committee, established by the English tourist board, has drawn up a draft code of practice for outdoor activity providers, is now devising guidelines for individual activities and is considering appropriate inspection arrangements.

How does the Minister intend to ensure that outdoor education centres that are accredited by the English tourist board operate the highest levels of safety, with staff competent to undertake potentially hazardous activities? In particular, how will the centres be inspected to ensure that they are not putting children's lives at risk?

The central answer to the hon. Gentleman's important question is that the Health and Safety Executive will be monitoring centres over the next two years at the rate of 100 a year. The precise monitoring arrangements are currently being considered by the ACAC.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from holiday parks and the tourist industry generally about the cost of television licences.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from 27 right hon. and hon. Members and seven letters from others.

May I declare an interest in this matter? It has come to my attention that Lewis Bullard, the secretary of the National Association of Holiday Centres, has written to my hon. Friend making three points—first, that the industry is seasonal; secondly, that most families go on holiday together and therefore do not watch their televisions at home; and thirdly, that, as hosts provide entertainment for their guests, they do not necessarily watch television in the holiday centres.

Did the Minister find a question in all that?

I did, Madam Speaker.

I am delighted, because I did not.

On my hon. Friend's first point, I agree that the Select Committee recommended that hotels with more than 50 rooms should pay for each television set thereafter. The same applies to holiday homes and caravan parks. I emphasise that that is the Select Committee recommendation, not the Government's. We are extremely conscious of the need not to place any additional burdens on the businesses described by my hon. Friend. On the question of the EC distance selling directive, the Government are wholly opposed to that directive and will do everything that they can to stop it.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the importance of team sports.

On 16 February, I hosted a seminar on team sports which was attended by about 25 people from the worlds of sport and education. Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received about 70 letters on this issue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that team sports should be encouraged because they improve the health of participants, can be character-building and, in school holidays, may discourage young people from a life of crime? Does he further agree with the old adage:

"Mens sana in corpore sano"?

My response to my hon. Friend's Latin quotation is, "Rem acu tetigisti." I agree strongly with what he said in English.

Will the Minister confirm that, in talking about team sports he is not—as has commonly been represented in the newspapers—talking about male-only sports? Is not he also referring to the value of other sports that are played by many women in this country—especially women's cricket? Does he agree that it is not a matter of team sports versus individual sports? We should be talking about and encouraging sport for all and ensuring that schools can give young people those opportunities.

I agree entirely with what the hon. Lady has said about sport for girls and women. I shall do everything that I can to see that that approach is put into practice. I hope that, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, the we can devise a means whereby more team games are played, although not to the exclusion of individual games.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British sport is highly regarded in all parts of the world? It is—[Interruption.] I accept that there are one or two exceptions. Sport provides an opportunity for us to encourage visitors from other countries to come here to watch football matches, tennis tournaments or whatever. When my hon. Friend next talks to the relevant authorities, will he see what can be done to encourage a greater marketing effort on behalf of sport in Britain? Will he also encourage international events to be held in this country?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's important remarks to the attention of the British Tourist Authority and the governing bodies, but I have no power to make those bodies spend any money on their own marketing.

Is the Minister aware that in most sporting circles his recent emphasis on core team sport is considered to be too narrow and restrictive? Instead, he should be fighting his corner to ensure that sport receives at least two hours a week as an integral part of the national curriculum, so that a variety of sports, both team and individual, can be played. The hon. Gentleman's pious hope that the 5,000 playing fields sold off by the Government should be bought back is an impossible dream as most of them are buried in concrete. Instead, the hon. Gentleman should be pursuing a policy with the Department for Education to scrap circular 909, which allowed the playing fields to be sold off in the first place. There should be a moratorium on the selling-off of playing fields so that schools and the community can benefit from playing fields in future.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the availability of playing fields. My views, in so far as they were correctly reported, do not include buying back the same land; obviously, as the hon. Gentleman said, much of it has been built upon. Instead, we should seek to increase the number of playing fields in urban areas. That should be encouraged. I hope that we shall encourage both team and individual sport in our schools.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the English cricket team is to win in Barbados more often than once every 59 years, and if the English women's cricket team is to win the world cup again, it will be necessary to preserve existing playing fields and provide more, and also to provide the necessary funding to ensure that playing fields are in good enough condition for school pupils to play cricket on them?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I agree with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to require that BSkyB is subject to the same requirements to broadcast British-made productions as the rest of commercial television; and if he will make a statement.

BSkyB is already subject to the requirement in the EC broadcasting directive to reserve a majority proportion of transmission time for European works where practical, and to achieve this proportion progressively.

But why are the Government making no attempt to enforce the regulations? Is not that extremely damaging to Britain's domestic television? Is it part of the pay-off for the Murdoch empire's support for the Conservative party over a long period? That is the only explanation that I can think of.

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his observation that the Government are making no attempt to enforce the provisions of the broadcasting directive. Under that directive we require broadcasters to provide us with the material that is necessary for us to report to Brussels what the proportions are. We are engaged in specific dialogue with the broadcasters who have not met the provisions of the directive in order to verify their progress in connection with it. We are also conscious that the Commission will be asking us the same questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have to watch satellite television because the very hilly nature of my constituency means that they cannot pick up proper signals from the BBC and other commercial channels? Does he agree that it is wholly unacceptable that they should have to pay the full licence fee even though the BBC accepts that they have a substandard signal? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter on my behalf?

That question has been raised with me by another hon. Member who was in the Chamber a while ago, but who has now left. I have been willing to explore that subject with the relevant bodies in the past.

Will the Secretary of State consider waiting until the Commission has made a decision, but will he assure the House that, in his cross-media review, he will include regulation across satellite, terrestrial and cable, so that—whether in terms of production, watersheds or current affairs programmes in peak time such as "World in Action"—a level playing field exists as between the different media where regulation is needed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if he does not do that, we will end up with another short-term, bungled, botched job like the Broadcasting Act 1990?

Seductive though the hon. Lady is, I will not be tempted to explore what the conclusions of the cross-media review will be when we are scarcely halfway through it. As for the hon. Lady's other stricture, I agree with Sam Rayburn that the three wisest words in the English language are, "Wait a minute." The hon. Lady wanted me to wait a year and I am not sure whether the technology will afford us that degree of luxury.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on deregulating the tourist industry.

My inquiry into regulatory burdens on the tourist industry identified some 90 regulations which the industry claimed were burdensome. We are pursuing each of those regulations with the relevant Departments.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the Somerset hotelier who had the extraordinary experience of witnessing three fire officers in one room arguing about the best fire precautions for it? Can my hon. Friend assure me that the deregulation initiative will change not only regulations but attitudes in public service?

As usual, my hon. Friend is extremely well informed about such matters. On that occasion, I believe that the argument centred on whether doors into bars or bedrooms should open inwards or outwards. We are concerned to ensure that such overlapping is brought to an end, thus ending some of the burdens on parts of our tourism industry.

Whatever benefits may be gained by the British tourist industry from the programme of events planned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day, does the Minister accept that frivolous trivialising events can play no part in a dignified tribute to those who lost their lives in the D-day landings? Will he therefore revise his plans in keeping with the views recently expressed to the Prime Minister by the Royal British Legion?

It is very right and proper that we should commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day. In doing that, we are commemorating the brave actions and deaths of those who fought on D-day. We are also commemorating the great good news that followed—the overthrow of the evil Nazi tyranny. It is not up to us to say how people around the country should commemorate those things. There should be serious and solemn events, and there will be. There will also be less serious and solemn events occurring around the country. We believe that a balance should be struck and that we are striking the right balance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although deregulation is the answer to many of the problems of the tourist industry, there are also areas where stricter regulations are needed? Will he therefore accept my constituents' thanks for the part that he played in ensuring that there are changes to the Use Classes Order to curb the widespread and unregulated growth in the number of Department of Social Security hostels in tourist areas?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the use classes order. He is absolutely right; there are regulations that must stay. All that we are seeking to do is discover those regulations that place an unnecessary burden on the industry. We shall continue to retain the regulations that are valuable and to abolish the regulations that are not. The licensing that my hon. Friend mentioned is a matter for the Department of the Environment.

Is the Minister aware that we have two important tourist attractions in St. Helens, horse racing at Haydock park and rugby league at Knowsley road? Is he aware that one of the burdensome regulations placed on St. Helens rugby league club is the requirement in the Taylor report that the club spend substantial sums of money on improving its ground? Unlike football clubs, the rugby league club receives no assistance from organisations such as the Football Trust. Will the Minister accept my invitation to meet the board of directors of St. Helens rugby league club to find some way of assisting it to obey the instructions in the Taylor report?

I saw St. Helens play Leeds the other day. I thought that they put up a terrific performance and were very unlucky not to win. I will be glad to speak to the directors of the club.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with representatives of the film industry about promoting the film industry in Britain.

Last year, I held a series of consultative meetings with all sectors of the United Kingdom film industry to review the state of the industry and hear their ideas about possible further action to raise the level of private investment in film production. I have also received numerous other representations. I shall announce the Government's conclusions as soon as practicable.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Impact initiative, which has received wide support from the film industry, to promote film-making in Britain. In considering the initiative, and in his wider discussions, will my right hon. Friend give full account to the calculation made by Impact that relatively modest fiscal changes could result in a big expansion of film-making in this country? Will he give every encouragement to the seven big American studios, which control 90 per cent. of cinema revenue in Britain, to make more films in this country, rather than just market United States-made films, as the British components of such films almost invariably result in a big improvement in their quality?

I am aware of the proposals that underlie the Impact campaign; indeed, I have been in conversation with PACT—the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—as part of the review. Our preoccupation in the review is to ensure that we achieve what I will describe as the self-renewal of the industry, rather than simply giving it a quick fix. However, I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend about fiscal incentives. As for the American studios, I am delighted that this year some large budget films are being made here by the Americans. The film industry as a whole is profoundly encouraged by the signs of renaissance.

Does the Minister accept that while it must be nice to have large budget films being made here by American majors, it would be pleasant if we had one or two films made by the British? The British have the ability in writing, acting and directing. Would not it surprise everyone if the Minister were to highlight that by giving some support to this very hard-working and necessary industry?

The hon. Lady and I have regular exchanges on this subject across the Floor of the House. She does not always demonstrate total familiarity with the underlying support that the Government are giving. As for the British industry, I am delighted to say that 67 feature films were made last year compared with 47 the previous year, and the amount of money that was invested in those 67 films was £214 million, compared with £169 million a year earlier.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the state of the arts in the county of Suffolk.

It is for the Arts Council and regional arts boards to take the lead in making assessments of this kind. I understand that the Eastern Arts Board regards Suffolk as having a healthy and lively arts scene.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great local interest in the National Racing museum in Newmarket in my constituency, and in the Manor House museum in Bury St. Edmunds? Is he also aware that the renowned Bury St. Edmunds festival starts next month? Does he agree that, with the great flowering of interest in the arts in the past 10 years, it is now possible for people to see fine performances and to go to excellent museums, not only in the cities, but increasingly in rural areas?

Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate the Eastern Arts Board on what it has done towards achieving that splendid aim.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what strategy has been evolved for assistance to the brass bands which previously relied upon collieries, now closed, to support them.

I have a keen interest in the brass band movement, including colliery bands, as an integral part of our artistic and cultural heritage. I recently had a valuable meeting with the British Federation of Brass Bands.

Will the Minister harness his considerable enthusiasm to attacking the bumbling of the Department of Trade and Industry and the insensitivity of the Department for Education, whose policies are helping to destroy junior brass bands, which should be fostered? I do not need a public statement from him—just a hint that he will attack them in the background as he has done successfully with regard to team sports.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his closing remarks and I congratulate him on the persistence and dedication with which he has pursued the question of the band in his constituency. On 18 February, I suggested to him six or seven ways in which he might advance the band. He may also care to have a word with the Voluntary Arts Network which might have some extra ideas, if not cash.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all our hearts are warmed by the splendid sound of brass bands, just as they are by the British Army bands whose high standards of excellence are the envy of the world and who are trained at Kneller Hall, Twickenham? Will he draw the question of brass bands to the attention of the regional arts boards, and say that the whole House is behind them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind support which, given his marvellous musicianship, is particularly valuable. I will do as he says.

Although the Minister may give his overall support to the idea of colliery brass bands, the truth is that, under the Coal Industry Bill, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—the umbrella organisation which deals with colliery brass bands—has had its money reduced by 40 per cent. CISWO must remain intact to look after the brass bands. If the Government can find the money to subsidise opera, they should find the money to ensure that brass bands can continue in every coalfield.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The future of CISWO and related matters are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), I will do everything proper that I can to see that brass bands continue and flourish.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to promote tourism in the midlands.

Government support for tourism is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the English tourist board, support is also made available to the 11 regional boards, including the Heart of England and East Midlands tourist boards.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that overseas tourists should not confine their visits to London and that they should also visit the midlands? Does he further agree that attractions such as Alton Towers and the fine scenery around it in my constituency compare with anything in London?

Yes, I happily agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of Alton Towers, which has the highest number of visitors of any tourist attraction in the country. I also agree about the importance of getting tourists out of London.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants have been made to sporting clubs for the coaching and incorporation of children of school age; and if he will make a statement.

The Sports Council provides support to sports clubs through its grants to various governing bodies of sport and is encouraging those bodies to focus their work on young people. The council also gives regional grants directly to clubs to assist them with junior sections.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have always been keen supporters of team spirit, team work and team games because we know that that is the best way of handling the natural competitive instinctive in all children and adults as we go through life? Will he do all that he can to encourage clubs of every kind—rugby, cricket, hockey and the rest—to include teams of young players so that, if they cannot be coached in schools, they can be coached in clubs? Can we have teamwork between schools and clubs, which we do not have now?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Competitive games are valuable in teaching good sportsmanship, team spirit, dedication, losing gracefully and winning modestly. I shall do all that I can to inculcate that, both within governing bodies and between schools, governing bodies and clubs.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement about the level of funding made available to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of NHS trusts in 1993–94.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 February at column 13.

May I take the matter a bit further? Given the large number of NHS trusts, investigation is sometimes needed in time to influence the results of a decision. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine whether funds are available not just to carry out the investigation but to do so quickly, which is what is needed in the case of Philip Harris house at Guy's hospital? If it is not used for the intended purpose, it will be a complete waste of £150 million of taxpayers' money.

On the general point, the hon. Gentleman knows that hospital trusts are being investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the report is expected in the autumn. On the particular point that he raises, the Comptroller and Auditor General is shortly to reply to his letter and I hope that the response will arrive soon.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been made available by the Public Accounts Commission to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of local authority housing departments.

The audit of local authority housing departments is the responsibility of the Audit Commission and does not, therefore, come within the remit of the Public Accounts Commission.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pressing need for a further audit of local authority housing when, in Hackney, one local authority house in 11 is unlet and when, while it was under Labour control, large rent arrears in Brent reached 48 per cent?

It sounds to me as though those are cogent points to put before the Audit Commission.

Would not it be a good idea to investigate authorities such as Westminster, and Government Departments, which have between 10 and 20 per cent. of their housing stock empty? Where those houses are sold on the private market, they depress the national economic recovery by depressing house prices. Is not there a strong case for investigating those public bodies—the Government and Westminster—which have such a bad record on keeping houses empty for political purposes?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are a matter for the Audit Commission. He is probably also aware that the National Audit Office frequently reports about housing matters to the Public Accounts Commission and the PAC makes reports thereon.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what provision is to be made for the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the performance of the new arts councils of England, Scotland and Wales.

The draft financial memorandum for the new Arts Council for England provides that the statements of account will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In Scotland and Wales, negotiations are under way to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as the auditor of the new arts councils. Under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General will also be able to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which each of the councils has used its resources.

Will the Chairman communicate to the Comptroller and Auditor General the concern of many artists, writers and musicians that the regime of indecision and waste that has characterised so much of the work of the British Arts Council over the past 10 years is not replicated at regional level? Precious taxpayers' money should end up with artists, writers and musicians, not with those who make lucrative careers out of administering the arts.

I will certainly communicate that to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me know whether there are specific matters that cause him concern, I shall refer those on, too.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will liaise with Her Majesty's Government with a view to bringing forward proposals for a more effective audit of ongoing projects and activities of Government Departments and agencies.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 16 December at columns 764-65.

As the new quangos spend vast amounts of public money with precious little accountability, should not there be tough new internal and external audit arrangements and, at the very least, a report on Departments' current policies in respect of these quangos, which spend unduly large amounts of public money?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office by long tradition never report on matters of policy, but do refer to matters when things have gone wrong—as they frequently have. Examinations of public corporations over the past 20 years have revealed many weaknesses and faults. Regrettably, the faults that the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to establish in present corporations are by no means unparalleled—they have gone on for a long time. I echo what the hon. Gentleman says, however, and I remind the House of what an excellent job the Comptroller and Auditor General does on these matters on behalf of the taxpayer and the House.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what new proposals he has for additional funding to change the use of rooms used for hospitality in the Palace of Westminster.

The Commission has received no proposals for additional funding for this purpose. I understand that the Catering Committee has no plans to reallocate the private dining rooms operated by the Refreshment Department.

Would not it be beneficial for funds if the mean and spiteful proposal to ban journalists from the Terrace were replaced by a proposal to double the price of alcoholic beverages? The money received could be used both to benefit the health of Members and journalists and to improve the wages paid to our staff. It could also be used to answer a letter that I sent to the Catering Committee on 13 October asking for improvements in our facilities, not for those who spend every day here, but for the groups of pensioners and children from our constituencies who come here once in a lifetime—so that we can offer them the simple hospitality of a cup of tea.

The hon. Gentleman has embraced a wide range of subjects in his supplementary question. The Catering Committee has made proposals to provide facilities in the visitors centre which could take over the cafeteria off Westminster Hall, but those proposals depend on alternative facilities being provided to replace the lunch and other catering arrangements provided there now.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make financial provision available to improve facilities for disabled visitors to the House of Commons.

Following a report by an architect specialising in this subject, £250,000 was allocated for works in 1994–95. The Accommodation and Works Committee has approved an initial programme to improve facilities for disabled visitors and will examine further schemes contained in the report. Financial provision for future years has yet to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee and by the Commission.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that access for disabled people to the House of Commons is extremely limited? Given the widespread cross-party support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which is progressing through the House, would not it be ironic if the House itself remained so inaccessible to disabled people? Will he ensure that proper funds are available to make the House a model of accessibility for disabled people?

Yes, that is the objective of the Commission and the purpose of the report and proposals that we have been considering.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what funding is being made available for the provision of office accommodation for hon. Members.

The agreed programme of works for 1994–95 includes £5 million for continued design and other preparatory work for the new phase 2 building.

There are more unoccupied bedrooms in the Palace of Westminster estate than there are in the Hilton hotel, Park lane. Of the 66 bedrooms in the Palace, only two thirds have been used in the past five years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for those bedrooms to be converted into offices for hon. Members than to be left as bedrooms exclusively for the use of officials?

There are not 66 bedrooms, but 66 beds for the use of staff who are required to work during late sittings. Some of the beds are in dormitories which the hon. Gentleman might find do not compare very favourably with the accommodation in the Hilton hotel. The House has made a number of provisions for offices for hon. Members, including additional accommodation at Millbank, and of course the completion of the accommodation in the new building will ensure that all hon. Members who want a single room can have one.

Is not it becoming clear that however much money this place spends on trying to improve facilities for hon. Members, we can never provide on this site a modern, democratic Parliament? Is not it time that the House of Commons Commission was given the job of examining the viability and cost of building a brand new Parliament outside London altogether?

Whatever the attractions of such a proposal, the Commission would certainly not embark upon examining it unless it was directed to do so by the House.

Bearing in mind the fact that there are 19 bars in this establishment, is it really essential to take as another bar the Lady Members' Terrace Room, where lady Members have worked since 1945, from the days of Bessie Braddock?

That matter relates to the complex proposals by the Catering Committee which have yet to be debated in the House. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to put her point when they are.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to arrange for a Commons official to be in charge of the arrangements for visits from Members' constituencies.

None, Madam.

Is not it time, therefore, that the Commission considered this question? Increasingly, our constituents wish to come here to see what is happening and that is causing considerable difficulty for hon. Members. It is not that hon. Members are unwilling to undertake the work, but it is becoming increasingly complex to arrange such visits. A central arranging point would greatly assist our constituents' understanding of the democracy that we serve.

I have some sympathy with that suggestion, but I think that it should be considered by the Administration Committee, to which I shall direct the hon. Gentleman's concern.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he is now in a position to make a statement on the provision of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster.

The Commission has now received the report of the survey of demand which was carried out under the supervision of the Administration Committee and has asked that Committee to make a report to the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 10 commercial organisations in the Palace of Westminster occupying 950 sq m and that the gymnasium covers 350 sq m? In addition, we have just heard about 60 bedrooms. In view of all that, surely we can move much more quickly towards the provision of day nurseries than we have moved hitherto.

The Administration Committee has carried out a survey of the likely demand for a nursery and the Commission has made known its view, in terms of its responsibility for the staff of the House, that, if a viable scheme can be devised, it would want it to go ahead. The Commission has asked the Committee to make a report to the House.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received urging the provision of additional funds for providing facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster.

None, since I last answered oral questions on this issue on 21 February, although early-day motion 793 has been drawn to my attention.

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly seized of the fact that there is considerable concern in all parts of the House about the appalling facilities that we provide for our visitors. We call them "Strangers", not visitors, and we keep them standing outside in the most inclement weather. We treat them abysmally. This legislature is probably the worst in Europe in its treatment of visitors. When will something be done about the lack of facilities?

The hon. Gentleman must address his concern to the Committees that deal with these matters. Some of the problems about which he is concerned are addressed in the Catering Committee's report to which I referred earlier and which I expect to be debated in the House in due course.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what funds have been made available to improve lavatory facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

The sum of £150,000 has been allocated for 1994–95 for the programme of lavatory refurbishment and a further £94,000 to provide new lavatory facilities for the disabled.

I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House welcome that news, as will visitors to the Palace of Westminster. Will the new lavatories be more obviously accessible to the public and be properly named—

Illuminated.

Illuminated, as my hon. Friend says —so that visitors will be able to identify them easily?

I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of those responsible.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to take oral questions on Fridays.

I have no plans to do so.

If the Lord President had been present earlier, he would have heard one or two comments about there being so many quangos in Britain today for which the Government are no longer accountable. There are 7,700 of them and they cost about £1,000 million a week. It would not be a bad idea if a Minister were made responsible for answering questions on Fridays about quangos and the use of taxpayers' money. We would then be able to ask all the questions that we are not allowed to ask the rest of the week.

The hon. Gentleman does not do badly on the first four days of the week.

Since oral questions are about the most futile way of Parliament scrutinising the Executive, why not move all questions to Friday?

Probably because only the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be here to ask them.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to confine the sittings of the House to four days a week including one all-night sitting.

I have no plans to propose such an arrangement and I do not believe that I would receive much thanks if I did.

If we did sit all night one day a week, it would be possible to use some of the 66 beds mentioned earlier—two thirds of which have not been used for five years. Would not it be far wiser to convert those sleeping facilities into offices, so that hon. Members who are squashed together like sardines could enjoy better accommodation in the Palace of Westminster?

I will not attempt to embroider the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in response to a similar question earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has assiduously pursued his campaign and has already had some exchanges with the House authorities. I know that they are further considering some of his points. In my judgment, it is right that the matter should be given further consideration.

Will the Lord President give an assurance that if we are compelled to use those bedrooms, none of us will be forced to share one with the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) to save on expenses?

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman never sleeps.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours the House sat in the 1992–93 Session; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79 and 1964–65.

In the 1992–93 Session, the House sat 1,983 hours and 48 minutes over 240 sitting days—an average of eight hours and 16 minutes per day. The equivalent figures for the 1978–79 Session were 878 hours and 20 minutes over 85 sitting days—a daily average of 10 hours and 20 minutes. In the 1964–65 Session, the House sat 1,592 hours and two minutes over 177 sitting days—an average of eight hours and 59 minutes per day.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those interesting statistics. Does he agree that we should amend the way in which we deal with legislation? Although much time is spent in debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we often exert little influence over the civil servants and Ministers who draft Bills. If we revised the way in which we tackle legislation, we might spend our time more productively.

I am sure that there might be ways in which the scrutiny of legislation can be improved, alongside a number of the improvements that have been made in recent years. Having been a Minister in various Departments, I can tell my hon. Friend that he should not underestimate the effect that the probing of the House, both on the Floor and not least in Standing Committee, can have on Ministers and their officials.

Is the Leader of the House aware that nowadays, far from getting better scrutiny, more and more information is being hidden by Ministers, both by referring hon. Members to the heads of executive agencies and by saying that letters will be placed in the Library? That is a reversal of the democratic position and one that is becoming extremely dangerous and all too common.

I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that because the information in some of these cases comes from the person principally concerned with the day-to-day administration of the service, without in any way altering the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the overall delivery of that service, there is any kind of concealment. Of course, answers are made available, in a way for which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) pressed over a long period.