To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to encourage competitive sports among young people.

A priority of my current proposals for restructuring the Sports Council is to ensure that sports governing bodies develop and implement structured programmes for young people. My Department and the Department for Education are also looking at a number of other initiatives to ensure that young people take part in competitive sports in schools, and an announcement will be made in due course.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the English cricketers on their magnificent victory, and wish the English rugby players every luck on Saturday so that they can show that they are good Europeans by trouncing the French? Does he agree that the message would be even better if in primary schools a greater emphasis was placed on competitive sports instead of on sports such as aerobics?

I certainly echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to the England team; it was a magnificent performance. On the question of competitive sports in schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education are currently working together to produce what I hope will be some happy proposals.

Does the Minister agree that the best place to encourage sport of all sorts—whether competitive or not—is within the schools, and that that can be done only by mobilising the enthusiasm, expertise and time of teachers? Does he agree, however, that the time when teachers could be exploited to take part and do those things in their own time, without being paid, has long gone, and that therefore he must look at a structure that will ensure that they are properly paid for the work that they do?

Yes, I certainly agree that the best place for young people to learn is in schools, and I certainly agree that the co-operation and enthusiasm of teachers is extremely important—in fact, it is absolutely essential. As far as payment is concerned, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

The Minister knows very well that the lot opposite do not believe in competition in anything, whether it is public utilities or school sports days. Can the Minister assure me that we will not have competition in volleyball and other sports like that, but real competition in football, cricket and rugby, so that we might build on the success that we had in cricket this very day?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is quite interesting to consider that, of the schools attended by the England team, in Adelaide this week, half of them no longer play any cricket at all—it may be more; I will have to check that. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of proper competitive games in schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Yorkshire and Humberside regional arts board about improving arts opportunities and facilities for the disabled.

The Government are committed to access to the arts for people with disabilities—as members of audiences, as performers and as employees. My Department works with the Arts Council in pursuit of that objective and the council liaises closely with individual regional arts boards.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he consider the work of Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today as extremely important and very good value for money? In those terms, does he agree that its grant of £43,000 last year was miserable?

I agree that the work of the ADAPT trust is extremely important. Its grant last year went up by 10 per cent., which is something for which we should all be grateful.

The Minister cannot be proud, however, of the fact that many arts facilities in Yorkshire, Humberside and elsewhere are not, as yet, fully accessible to disabled people. Nor can he be proud of the fact that the disability unit within the Arts Council was ended last year, as a direct result of Government cuts. Will he now give a guarantee that when the ADAPT grant comes up for renewal in June of this year, it will at the very least be kept at this year's level?

I look forward to hearing what the various members of the trust have to say about the grant; we shall consider that on its merits. What the Arts Council did with its unit was entirely a matter for the council itself. It decided that, instead of one unit examining the issue of disability in the arts, all its departments should consider the issue. That is what is now happening, and I think it a very sensible way to proceed.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he proposes to publish his White Paper on the regulation of the press.

The White Paper on privacy and media intrusion will be published when we have completed our consideration of the issues raised by the proposed criminal and civil remedies.

I commend my right hon. Friend's caution, but does he not think that the time has come for the White Paper to be published, especially in view of the low standards currently applied by many newspapers?

I certainly agree that the time for consideration must be drawing to a close. No purpose is served by indefinite delay, and I very much hope that we shall be able to present proposals in the not too distant future.

Is the Secretary of State saying that we really have reached the stage of drinking-up time in the last chance saloon?

No; I am saying that we are thinking about it.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that, when the Select Committee on National Heritage considered privacy and the media two years ago, the Lord Chancellor personally gave evidence to the Committee and said that we should recommend the appointment of a press ombudsman?

My hon. Friend mentions one of many current proposals. As a member of the Select Committee, he will know that many ways of improving the performance of the press in respecting individuals' right to privacy have been suggested. It is not a matter of controversy in the media; indeed, it is written into the Press Complaints Commission code. The question is how that undertaking can be given more tangible form.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet groups representing disabled people in the near future to discuss access to buildings.

Ministers in my Department meet groups representing disabled people regularly. The most recent such meeting was between my noble Friend Lord Astor and the Holiday Care Service on 25 January. The Government's White Paper, "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People", makes it clear that disabled people will be consulted on the detailed implementation of its proposals. My Department will play an active part in that consultation process.

Is the Minister aware that access means not only the provision of ramps but the availability of information in Braille, audio descriptions and allowing people to take guide dogs to arts venues? Is he aware that training and employment opportunities in the arts for disabled people are also important? Does he agree that the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill is woefully inadequate in all those contexts?

I agreed with everything that the hon. Lady said until the last sentence. I do not agree that the Government's Bill is inadequate in dealing with the issues that she has correctly raised. She is right to emphasise that a disability policy in the area for which I am responsible must consider the rights of both employees and potential audiences; it must consider all the ways in which disabled people come into contact with sport, the arts and the national heritage. That is my Department's commitment.

Is the Secretary of State aware of what some theatres, galleries and museums in London have done to provide tape guides, Braille signs and audio aids? Does he accept that, none the less, access to buildings, performances and exhibitions remains inadequate? Does he know, for example, that six out of 10 drama schools have no physical access for people with disabilities, and that some 40-odd colleges are little better in that regard?

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned progress made by the museums sector in London. He might also have mentioned progress made by the national museums sector in the north-west. Museums and galleries on Merseyside, which are part of that sector, have set up a disability access group to implement priorities there, and the museum of science and industry in Manchester—which I visited before Christmas—has taken a number of steps to improve access to exhibitions of artefacts and processes. The progress is not confined to London, nor should it be.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he will take to safeguard the future of Astley castle in Warwickshire.

Discussions on the future of Astley castle are taking place between the owner of the building, the local planning authority, English Heritage and the Landmark Trust. My officials are monitoring developments but I see no reason to intervene at this stage.

While I accept that discussions are going on with a view to finding a private sector solution to the problem of Astley castle, which is falling into dilapidation and is of national historic importance, does the Minister agree that private sector solutions have failed in the past, that it would be wrong for the burden to fall on the council tax payers of north Warwickshire of a castle that is of national importance, and that the Government must consider whether it is appropriate, if the private sector solution fails, to exercise their statutory ability to intervene and save that castle?

As the hon. Gentleman knows there are powers in the hands of the local authority and there are reserve powers vested in me to ensure that listed buildings are maintained to an acceptable standard that reflects their national importance. Local authority powers and those vested in the Secretary of State are intended to be reserve enforcement powers because the law makes it quite clear that the primary responsibility for maintaining listed buildings rests on the owner. It is to secure that outcome that negotiations are proceeding between the district council and the owner of the castle.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to establish further training centres for national sporting excellence in cricket and other sports, along the lines of the Australian Cricket Academy.

I am concerned that sporting structures should exist to enable our young sports men and women to reach their potential and I shall certainly be sharing the results of my recent fact-finding visit to Australia with the appropriate sporting bodies, including the cricket authorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given that today we are all celebrating our team's wonderful fightback and victory, does my hon. Friend agree that, if we, like the Australians, had a cricket academy, we might have won the first three tests as well and not simply be celebrating a victory after the opportunity of winning the series has gone? I thank my hon. Friend for his encouragement to the team as reported in The Daily Telegraph, because it has obviously been successful.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The way in which the England team has conducted itself after appalling injuries and the kind of vicious criticism to which it has been subjected is remarkable. I congratulate Mr. Atherton on his cool concentration and confidence. My hon. Friend asked about cricket academies. The cricket world is rather divided as to whether they help. There is already a cricket academy in Yorkshire and the MCC helps young cricketers in London. I shall certainly consider what Mr. Rod Marsh and others showed me in Adelaide to see whether we can use it to advantage.

Why does not the Minister pay a special tribute to the two Derbyshire players, Malcolm and DeFreitas? Will he bear it in mind that there are training centres in every coalfield for competitive and individual sport? They are run by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, but with the privatisation of British Coal, every single village that has produced cricketers and footballers for England and for many clubs and counties throughout Great Britain has been placed in peril. I ask the Minister again whether he will guarantee that CISWO will be safe from the hands of those who have privatised the coal industry and whether he will ensure that those sporting areas are kept in our villages.

The hon. Member raises an extremely good and important point. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have done everything I can to protect those facilities, and I continue to do so. I hope that an announcement will be made shortly. I had the pleasure of sitting between Mr. Malcolm and Mr. DeFreitas at the test match in Adelaide. They said that the most important single thing that I could do would be to ensure that cricket was played in schools again, and I agreed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the sporting structures to which he refers already exist in Lancashire schools, which have produced players of the calibre of Atherton and Crawley? Will my hon. Friend please note and take heart from the fact that a number of young cricketers are coming up in those fine schools in the footsteps of Atherton and Crawley? Will my hon. Friend please urge other schools to take example from the excellent coaching that takes place in Manchester grammar school and Lancashire Royal grammar school, and to follow their example?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of Lancashire players and to the good things that happen in so many schools in Lancashire. We want even better things to come from schools everywhere.

Does the Minister agree that, in the pursuit of excellence in sport, we should not leave out football? Although the incident involving Mr. Eric Cantona last week may have been shameful, we should not forget that football is the national game of the United Kingdom, and that it gives a considerable amount of pleasure to many people Saturday upon Saturday throughout the season?

Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. Many people look up to footballers. I hope that the football authorities will deal in a proper manner with Mr. Cantona and others who are tempted to behave like him.

Before the Minister proposes centres of sporting excellence along Australian lines, will he consider again the narrow focus that he proposes for the new sports councils of two or three dozen core sports? Surely centres of excellence can become effective only when set against the other Australian aim of sport for all—their aim should not, as he proposes, be sport for the few. Otherwise, he will marginalise many sporting groups, not least those for the disabled.

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we are trying to achieve in the Sports Council. I do not want the Sports Council to spread itself too thinly—I think that it recognises about 117 different governing bodies of sport—but to concentrate on sport for young people and on elite sport and excellence. That does not mean that we shall not do a lot about other matters as well, but a little concentration by the Sports Council on those matters should help everyone.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people, including those who have served in the teaching profession, believe that coaching and supervising competitive sports are an integral part of the job and do not deserve extra pay?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will consider that view closely.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his plans to promote tourism to London.

London's performance in tourism is important both in itself and as the gateway to the rest of country. I therefore announced on 29 November increased funding for London, to be matched by the private sector.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the general policy of the Government to promote and to encourage the dispersal of visitors to all parts of the United Kingdom? If that is still the case, will he use his best endeavours to encourage bodies that are charged with responsibility for the promotion of tourism in parts of the United Kingdom outside London, to advertise and promote what they have to offer to visitors when they are in London, on the basis that it is a great deal cheaper to tell Americans about the rest of Britain when they are in London than when they are dispersed in America and the rest of the world?

My hon. Friend has taken an interest in the subject for a long time and he has got the point precisely right. The biggest audience of overseas visitors to the rest of the UK is people who, as part of their visit—it may be their first visit or part of a visit to London and the provinces—are in London. London as a tourist destination is an essential part of the success of our tourist industry. That is why, as the first stage in the development of our tourist strategy, we are seeking to reinforce the marketing of London as a tourist destination.

Does the Minister share my view that it is important that visitors to London should be encouraged to see sights on the fringes of London? Is he aware that 100,000 people a year visit the Thames barrier, which has been described as one of the eight modern wonders of the world and which is a superb advertisement for British engineering skills? Is he further aware that the National Rivers Authority proposes to close the visitors centre? Will he ensure that resources are made available not only to refurbish the exhibition there—it is now 10 years old—but to ensure that the centre stays open?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about the visitors centre at the Thames barrier, I shall be glad to examine the matter. The hon. Gentleman is of course right about promoting the development of tourist destinations on the London rim. Places such as Hampton court and Greenwich are major tourist attractions which are outside the centre of London, and the more visitors we can attract to them, the better pleased the Government will be.

Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to persuade visitors to London to stay on the outer rim rather than concentrating on hotels in Mayfair? They would be made welcome and comfortable in Northolt, Hanwell and other parts of the borough of Ealing and would find it easy to get into London during off-peak hours. Would not all involved benefit?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which he makes in his own way. The key message for Londoners to take on board is the importance to London's economy of the tourist sector as a whole. Roughly 200,000 jobs in London depend directly on tourism, which contributes nearly £5 billion to the city's economy. It is therefore an important sector for us to develop.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to improve access by disabled people to cinemas.

The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill was introduced to Parliament on 12 January 1995. It seeks to introduce a right of access for disabled people to goods, facilities and services, including cinemas.

Is the Minister aware that, in a recent survey of 96 cinemas in London, only 22 were found to be accessible to disabled people, and that many disabled people now face the humiliation of being told that they are fire risks? Many of my hon. Friends share the view that the Disability Discrimination Bill does not go far enough. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that assessment, what plans does he have to influence his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that the Bill allows disabled people to enter London cinemas in the near future?

I was not aware of the exact statistics, but the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the majority of cinemas do not have the facilities that we would like. In fact, only 25 per cent. of all cinemas around the country do, but a survey of facilities for disabled people is currently being updated by the Cinema Exhibitors Association and when we have the results, which we hope will be shortly, we hope that they can be fed in to consideration of the Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to impose an upper limit on the amount of money available to individual prize winners in the national lottery.

None.

Why is not the Secretary of State prepared to regulate winnings? Is it not better for 17 people to win £1 million than for one person to win £17 million? Does he not feel that it would be better to spread the benefits to give individuals a greater chance of winning?

No, I do not agree with that at all. The hon. Lady is focusing on the wrong issue. The key issue is what structure of lottery prizes will raise the largest sum of money for good causes. There is a wealth of evidence from around the world to suggest that the approach taken in our lottery is better targeted at raising money for good causes than that suggested by the hon. Lady or, it must be said, by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dogma that people should be rich but not too rich is one of the many things that the new and old Labour parties have in common?

One of the entertaining things about listening to spokesmen from different parts of the Labour party is learning where different spokesmen draw the line on where true riches really begin—they cannot seem to agree.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has made to the Department of Health regarding provision for athletes with disabilities in the Disability Discrimination Bill.

The Department of Social Security is in contact with all relevant Departments, including the Department of National Heritage, in taking forward the Government's policy in this sector. In addition, the Sports Council responded to the consultation document issued by the Department of Social Security in July 1994.

Is the Minister satisfied with the level of provision for disabled sport in the Bill? Will he reassure disabled sportsmen and women, in the light of his failure to mention them at all in his statement on the restructuring of the Sports Council, that his plans and the Government's plans, as presented in their Bill, include disabled sportsmen and women and do not marginalise them?

We are strongly aware of the need for the Sports Council and other bodies in sport to take into full consideration the needs of people with disabilities. The Sports Council gives out more than £500,000 every year. In addition, the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, the Sports Aid Foundation and the sports match scheme all take fully into account the needs of people with disabilities. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, when the lottery letter went out last year from his predecessor, it specifically mentioned the need to take into account people with disabilities.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous opportunities that are already being given to many disabled athletes by the Ludwig Guttman sports stadium at Stoke Mandeville in my constituency? Will he confirm that it will be open to the operators of that stadium, or any other sports body, to seek funds under the national lottery provisions to improve their facilities to help disabled athletes?

It is a marvellous facility, and it would he eligible for lottery funding.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the West Midlands regional arts board about improving arts facilities for the disabled.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney).

The West Midlands regional arts hoard has an excellent record of promoting disability arts. Will the Minister study its policies, which not only give access to the disabled, but help the disabled to get jobs in the art world? Will he then promote those policies through his position in Government?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in congratulating the West Midlands regional arts board on what it does. It spends something like £94,000 a year on improving the lot of persons with disabilities in the arts. I know that, in its latest corporate plan, it specifically put forward ways in which it could help further those with disabilities. It sets an example which could well be followed by many another.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures have been undertaken in recent years to attract more visitors to Britain; and how successful those measures have been.

My Department has provided funding of £33.2 million this year to the British Tourist Authority to conduct marketing campaigns through its 20 overseas offices to bring people here. Early estimates suggest that, during the first 10 months of 1994, 17.5 million visitors came to the United Kingdom, up 7 per cent. on the same period in 1993, which was itself a record year.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in areas where British exports are booming, especially in the far east and Latin America, not only is knowledge of the excellence of British goods and services available, but the tourist potential of Britain in those expanding market places is fully known?

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the opportunity for this country to extend its tourism marketing effort beyond some of the more mature markets towards some of the emerging markets. My hon. Friend identifies two promising candidates.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the staff in his Department are disabled; and what proportion this represents of the work force.

The latest available figures show that 13 staff employed by my Department, excluding our two agencies, identify themselves as disabled. That represents 3.6 per cent. of all staff.

If 3.6 per cent. is the correct figure across the Ministry, at least the hon. Gentleman's Ministry is doing a proper job on the quota. Why, therefore, are the Government to abolish the quota in advance of the provisions of the new Disability Discrimination Bill being bedded down?

I am happy to accept the congratulations of the hon. Gentleman on what the Department of National Heritage has achieved. The second part of his question should be discussed as the Bill progresses through the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what benefit to the tourism industry he estimates will accrue from the Victory in Europe commemoration.

The tourist boards estimate that events to commemorate VE day may attract up to an additional 10,000 visitors from overseas and perhaps as many as 1 million additional domestic visitors.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept the view held by many people in this country, including ex-service men and women's organisations, that the difficult and delicate decision to include German representatives and exclude Japanese representatives at VE and VJ commemorations is absolutely right?

Yes. I can well understand that there is obvious sensitivity around those matters, and not everyone will feel wholly at home with the decision that has been taken. However, I believe that it is the right decision.

Will the Secretary of State accept that many people would regard it as an unattractive way to respond to the VE celebrations for the Conservative party to be divided about the future of our relationship with the European Union?

It is breathtaking that the hon. Gentleman should seek to make party political capital out of a VE day celebration. The argument about the future of the European Union is clearly an argument between different points of view about how the Union should develop. It has nothing to do with the act of national commemoration which will be at the heart of VE day.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of British actors and dancers to meet the needs of British theatre.

My Department takes a close interest in the well-being of the performing arts in this country. We are aware of concerns over the funding of training for dance and drama students. That is an issue that is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, in consultation with my Department and the Arts Council of England.

My hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome is the obvious priority that the Government are attaching to resolving the question of discretionary grants. May I urge him to press the matter with the utmost speed? I am aware of case after case in my constituency of young people who cannot use their skills to train for drama and for dance schools because the local authority does not have the money.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the persistence and knowledge with which he has pursued that important point. We are currently considering the findings of the Gulbenkian survey with the Department for Education, and I very much hope that we shall be able to fulfil my hon. Friend's request for a speedy answer.

The Minister will be aware that the matter is now urgent because practically no discretionary grant is handed out to people who want to study dance or drama. This country has a high quality of representation in both those arts. If we are not to lose them, it will require rather more vigour on the Minister's part than has been shown so far.

That is primarily a matter for the local education authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for a national cricket academy; and if he will make a statement.

The establishment of a national cricket academy is essentially a matter for the cricketing authorities. If a suitable project were put forward, I see no reason why it could not be considered as a candidate for lottery funding.

Despite England's excellent victory in Adelaide yesterday, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for a cricket academy which could well be funded from the millennium fund or from national lottery funds, provided, of course, that there is the essential structural link between the existing game and any such academy?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The fact that we won the latest test match does not mean that we should consider the matter any less closely. However, the cricketing world is sharply divided over whether we should have a central national cricket academy or whether the matter would be better handled by the individual counties.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the excellent Yorkshire cricket academy, which produced Darren Gough, the great find of this tour, is a success. However, it will not continue to be a success unless the schools that feed into it have the funds to put into grounds on which they can play cricket. That is an extremely important point, and I urge the Minister to stress its importance to the Department for Education.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the great importance of having proper sports grounds. Of course, it would be open to schools and to those who wish to put forward a plan with them to apply for funds under the lottery for the acquisition of such playing fields, provided that the playing fields were open not just to schools but to the rest of the community. Just to show the hon. Gentleman that I do not merely echo glibly what he says about the importance of the Yorkshire cricket academy, let me say that I shall see representatives of the Yorkshire cricket academy later this very week.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is to be a national cricket academy, the proper location for it would be Lancashire, which continues to provide the real backbone of English cricket?

I had the pleasure of visiting Old Trafford recently, and I saw what was being done there by the Lancashire county authority. I certainly agree that its plan is splendid, but other counties might have different views.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received on the viability of the pension fund.

Clergy pensions are currently funded from the Church Commissioners' investment income rather than from a separate pension fund. Following actuarial advice, a number of options for the future funding of pensions are being discussed with the dioceses. They focus on the collection of pension contributions for future service.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect a statement to be made on the future funding of the pension fund, following the representations that he has received? What action is being taken concerning the serious losses incurred by the Church Commissioners pension fund on irresponsible investments in out-of-town shopping centres in the past? Will future pensions be increased in line with average earnings or in line with inflation, or can the right hon. Gentleman give no guarantee at all as to future pension payments both to clergy and to lay employees of the Church of England?

The specific question of when a definitive statement is likely to emerge about future pension arrangements—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will approve of this—will depend to some extent on when the Social Services Select Committee's report on the issue comes out and when the various diocesan consultations have taken place. There cannot in any case be a fundamental change without legislation, so I doubt whether any new arrangements will be in place before 1998.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representation the Commission has received regarding value added tax on repairs and maintenance of historic church buildings.

The commissioners have no direct responsibility within the Church of England on the issue, but they have supported representations by the Churches Main Committee to the Government about the heavy VAT burden which churches currently have to bear.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Right Rev. Michael Baughen, Bishop of Chester, that such a reduction in VAT would help to protect our historic church buildings? If the European Commission brings forward the proposals that have been suggested, should not the Government accept such proposals as a way of protecting those buildings?

Yes, I very much hope that any changes recommended by the European Commission in this matter will be reflected by changes in the Government's approach to VAT. I endorse what Bishop Michael Baughen has said about the heavy burden represented by VAT, but it should not be overlooked that the Government have been supportive of charities in the past, not only by the long-standing exemption from income tax from their direct income, but by introducing gift aid and relaxing the regulations on charitable deeds of covenant. They have increased the ability of English Heritage to make grants to cathedrals and other places of worship in use. We should not underestimate the extent to which the Government have sought to help charities, but I agree that there is more land to be possessed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for National Heritage recently kindly met a deputation from the Historic Churches Preservation Trust to discuss that and other issues? Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Secretary of State about the matter and ensure that vigourous representations are made, as the measure places a crippling burden on many smaller, and particularly rural, parishes?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has a peculiarly attuned and sensitive ear and is capable of hearing anything which is bruited around the House. He will have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said, and he will reflect that I have had occasion to write to his Department on the matter. I hope that there will be a benign approach to any changes proposed by Brussels on VAT.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he plans to restrict the scope of legal aid.

The Lord Chancellor does not plan to restrict the scope of legal aid. New proposals for legal aid will be the subject of a Green Paper later in the year, as anticipated in the Lord Chancellor's recent speech to the Social Market Foundation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of how welcome are the proposals which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has outlined for setting up limited budgets to many hard-pressed taxpayers? Given the considerable powers which officials in area legal aid offices have, and given that those powers are likely to be extended, is there not a strong case for having some voluntary oversight?

The board can refuse legal aid on the grounds of merit and, if so, an applicant can appeal to an area committee, whose members are independent legal practitioners not employed by the board. In addition, complaints about the board's administration are susceptible to investigation by the ombudsman.

Does the Minister agree that it is important that people who rely on legal aid to obtain justice should have the same level of representation as the Crown Prosecution Service at any appeal to a court or to the Lord Chancellor? Will he ensure that there will be that equality of representation?

I want to give a serious answer to a serious question, but I should have thought that most advocates in the private sector would consider themselves to be every bit as good as the advocates in the Crown Prosecution Service.

Can my hon. Friend confirm press reports that the Legal Aid Board has granted legal aid to Winston Silcott to enable him to sue the police? Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Silcott has received £17,000 compensation from the Home Office within the past six months? How can it be that people can give money away to friends and relations, as Silcott has done, and then claim to be too poor to pay their own lawyers' fees? Does not that make a mockery of the legal aid system?

Although I cannot comment on the details of any individual case, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Silcott's application has been dealt with any differently from anybody else's.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to deal with abuses of the legal aid system; and when he will bring them forward.

The Legal Aid Board has made a number of proposals in relation to the green form scheme, which are being taken forward now.

The Minister will be aware that the Lord Chancellor has suggested cash-limiting the legal aid budget on a regional basis. Is the Minister aware that where that has been tried, in the social fund, hundreds of thousands of genuine claimants have been refused aid because the money has run out? Does the Minister agree that it would be intolerable for that to happen in justice? Will he ask the Lord Chancellor to think again? If the noble Lord wishes to persist, will the Minister ensure that there are proper safeguards to protect innocent people?

That matter is so far only the subject of a prelude speech by the Lord Chancellor. A Green Paper will be issued. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question will be taken into account. For the moment, raising the spectre of cash running out is scaremongering and we certainly want to ensure that that does not happen.

When considering changes to the legal aid system, will my hon. Friend consider those cases in which someone assisted by legal aid can pursue a civil claim against a business, which is not able to claim such aid? The case can bring the business almost to the point of bankruptcy and, even when the business eventually wins, it is unlikely to be awarded any compensation by the courts.

It is part of the original sin of legal aid—if that is the correct expression—that, in civil cases, one encounters disputes in which party A has legal aid and party B does not, whether the latter is a limited liability company or another citizen. As long as resources are not infinite and there has to be a cut-off point, as there does with many such welfare schemes, it is almost inevitable that one party will be legally aided while the other is not.

We have heard a lot from the Minister about cuts that affect the consumers of legal services. What are he and the Lord Chancellor doing to deal with the scandal of restrictive practices within the legal profession? Have they met the Bar and the Law Society to deal with how lawyers might put their own house in order, so that more consumers can benefit from legal services at a time when those are being cut?

That was an interesting question. I am no more in favour of restrictive practices than the hon. Gentleman, but he knows as well as I that the legal professions are self-regulating. Obviously, we view any abuses of public money with the greatest possible concern because that is what the House would want us to do. Meanwhile, I think that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that the Lord Chancellor wants to widen the categories of people who dispense legal advice. It need not be solicitors and barristers only, but could include citizens advice bureaux, as supported by me, and law centres, as supported by him.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further changes are planned for the legal aid system.

New proposals for legal aid will be the subject of a Green Paper later in the year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the great concerns about the system has been the large number of people on modest incomes who have not been eligible for legal aid? That was one of the concerns highlighted in the excellent debate in the House last Wednesday morning, to which my hon. Friend replied. Will he reconsider the position of the so-called MINELAs—middle income, not eligible for legal aid?

Yes. I am probably in that category. I want to share with my hon. Friend the emergence of the regime of conditional fees—no win, no fee. Many cases, especially personal injury cases, will be susceptible to that scheme. Although the idea is in a fledgling state, there is also a possibility of people obtaining legal expenses insurance, as many of us do in respect of our motor policies.

Given that the Lord Chancellor removed legal aid from 14 million people in 1993, is it not about time that he and his Department started to make the legal system more accessible to ordinary people and more efficient, rather than clobbering them time after time?

I have never understood how 14 million people could fall out of a scheme used by 3 million people. We want to widen access and some of my suggestions to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) were along those lines.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the provision of legal aid to the apparently rich.

The Lord Chancellor and I have received a number of representations on that subject and it was for that reason that the Lord Chancellor issued the consultation paper "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy" on 20 December 1994. Responses are required by 1 March.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is unprecedented public anger that people such as Mr. Ernest Saunders, Mr. Roger Levitt, Mr. Gordon Foxley and Mr. Hashim should get legal aid? Does not that roll call of wealthy parasites, including Mr. Asil Nadir, underline the need to deprive the apparently wealthy of access to the taxpayer's money?

To his credit, my hon. Friend was successful in securing a debate on that subject on the Floor of the House last Wednesday morning. He was eloquent then and was equally robust and clear in the point that he has just made. I am grateful to him.

What is the answer, then?

Does the Minister want to go further in answering that question? If so, I must allow him to do so.

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, because it was clear from sedentary interventions that certain hon. Members thought that my reply did not hit the nail on the head. The answer is, as some hon. Members know already, that we have produced a consultative paper entitled "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy" which deals, among other things, with exactly the points about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is concerned.

Is the Minister aware that not only did Asil Nadir get legal aid but it has now been proved that the money handed over by Asil Nadir to the Tory party, amounting to £440,000, had been stolen? The Tory Minister dealing with the matter at that stage said that if the money were found to be stolen, he would ensure that it went back to its rightful source. Has that been done?

Do you know, Madam Speaker, the extraordinary thing is that there is nothing in my file about that?

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about privity of contract; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend will know the latest state of play from the meeting that I had with him last Thursday.

Will my hon. Friend urge his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to complete their consultations as soon as possible with a view to the Government introducing a reform Bill without further delay?

I am always prepared to assist my hon. Friend by any conversations that I can usefully have with the Department of the Environment, but I should put it on record that the Government had agreed my hon. Friend's Bill when he introduced it. While I am pleased that the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation are agreed, they have agreed to something else, and that sets us back a bit. I am concerned, above all, about the small tenant.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the press coverage of trials.

The administration of justice should, so far as possible, be public. Subject to certain statutory safeguards, including the law relating to contempt of court, the coverage of trials is a matter for the press itself.

Why did not the Lord Chancellor's Department act in the case of the Taylor sisters, where the court decided, partly on the basis of press coverage, that they had been wrongly convicted? Has the Lord Chancellor considered the alternative of requiring newspapers to cover both the defence and the prosecution equally, so that prosecutions are not based on salacious claims that later turn out to be false?

The Lord Chancellor would not intervene in a judicial capacity—he would not act in an appellate function. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of that subject because, some time ago, he introduced a private Member's Bill that dealt with it. I do not know whether we should consider obliging the press to cover each side equally, as they do in general elections. [Laughter.] That proposition does not seem to have found a favourable reception. I shall reflect on the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about equality of coverage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sub judice system in the United Kingdom is the envy of other parts of the English-speaking world? Does he further agree that the O.J. Simpson trial is making a mockery of the United States' judicial system?

I watched some of that on television last night. The sub judice rule has served us well and should be reconsidered only with the greatest possible care.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from legal aid lawyers in Rochdale, in the past six months, regarding proposed changes to the legal aid system.

I am not aware that the Lord Chancellor or I have received any such representations directly from Rochdale solicitors or via the hon. Lady. The Rochdale solicitors have been particularly helpful with a non-solicitor legal aid experiment conducted with the Rochdale citizens advice bureau. I wish all parties to those arrangements every possible success.

Is the Minister aware that many solicitors are finding it increasingly unprofitable to perform legal aid work? What assurances can he give my constituents in Rochdale and elsewhere that the services will not decline?

We owe it to the House to keep an eye on the levels of expenditure on legal aid, as it constitutes part of the public purse. I believe that, by and large, legal aid practitioners know how to work expeditiously and to a high standard, and many of them are acquiring franchises by so doing. I think that the best of them will work well and find standard fees extremely congenial with their skills.