To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the sports bodies in Cheshire to which grants from national lottery proceeds have been made and the amounts given. [22464]

The Sports Council has made five grants in Cheshire: Mobberley cricket club, £2,524; Macclesfield tennis club, £22,200; Davenham cricket club, £16,310; Padgate sports association, £32,402; Moore rugby union football club, £93,400. I understand that a further 15 applications from sports bodies in Cheshire are currently under consideration.

I thank the Minister for that helpful information, and I am sure that everyone in the House would want to wish those clubs every success with the use of that money. The Minister will recall that, on previous occasions, I have drawn his attention to the shortage of resources in and around my constituency, especially for junior football clubs and for athletics. Will he kindly bring to the attention of the committee, when it considers the next tranche, the existence of that difficult position, which needs rectifying in the interests of everyone in our community?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks, and I will certainly draw his comments to the attention of the Sports Council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in Cheshire, as elsewhere, priority should be given to distributing those funds to those sporting initiatives that address as many ordinary folk as possible, rather than to focusing large amounts of money on elitist and somewhat esoteric initiatives?

I am sure that the Sports Council takes those matters very much into account, especially where they benefit young people and deprived people.

The Minister will be aware that the second round of lottery grants from the Sports Council to Cheshire sports clubs was slightly better than the first. Will he nevertheless recognise that the distribution of grants generally is erratic? For instance, the north-west, of which Cheshire is a part, received about £1.25 million in the latest round, whereas the south-west received more than £8 million; the east midlands received 15 grants, the west midlands two. Will the Minister involve himself in giving some direction to the Sports Council so that a fairer distribution may operate, and so that urban areas receive a better deal than is currently the case? Only then will the distribution of grants be considered credible by the public.

No. I will not involve myself in that matter, which is a matter for the Sports Council. The House rightly decided to distance itself politically from such decisions. However, I have no doubt that, as time goes by, there will be an even spread throughout the country. The Sports Council is mandated to ensure that that is so.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the funding of the arts by local authorities. [22465]

I met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 24 January 1995 to discuss a number of issues.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the increasing pressure on local authority budgets and he will be aware that, sadly, non-statutory sectors are sometimes the first to suffer. Is he not worried, especially, about the danger of charges being levied for entrance to museums and similar activities?

The Government's policy has always been that it is a matter for individual museum organisations to decide whether they want to charge for entrance to museums. Regarding the pressure on local authority finance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Audit Commission, when asked to examine the totality of local authority operations, concluded that £500 million was available to be released from excess administrative costs. I look to local authorities to release that resource to improve the quality of all the services that they are responsible for delivering.

When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of local authorities, will he give moral support to Hertsmere borough council in its efforts to bring the world-famous Elstree studios back into film production? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong support among all shades of opinion and all parties in Hertsmere for the idea that the present owners of the site should sell it to someone who is interested in film production?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. I am sure that his hope that the site should continue to be used in the film industry to support the development of the British film industry is an ambition shared by many in all parts of the House. My hon. Friend's point underlines the opportunity that confronts the British film industry. I shall talk about that at greater length when I respond to the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage at the beginning of June.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further measures he proposes to encourage greater participation in competitive sports by children in schools. [22466]

The participation of schoolchildren in competitive sports will be a key element in the sports policy statement paper which my right hon. Friend announced on 23 March. The policy statement will be published in early summer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give particular attention to the importance of providing sporting opportunities for schoolchildren at primary schools such as Hawes Side and Roseacre schools in my constituency? Roseacre school is an exceptionally good school, but unfortunately it has no sports field, and has never had one, as there is no land on which to build one. During his discussions about developing sports facilities for children, will my hon. Friend consider encouraging those responsible for lottery funding to provide support for children at schools such as Roseacre to obtain facilities at secondary schools and sports centres in the area?

I know of my hon. Friend's energetic pursuit of the interests of Roseacre primary school and I entirely agree that everything should be done to ensure that as many pupils as possible have as much access as possible to high-quality sporting facilities. I am glad to say that, from now on, I understand that the Sports Council will consider as eligible for lottery funds the purchase of a van or a minibus to take pupils to such grounds.

The Minister will have noticed that, under the present funding of schools, there has been a considerable decrease in the number of cricket pitches available. Cricket pitches are extremely expensive to maintain. Will the Minister make a special effort to ensure that extra funding is given to the annual maintenance of cricket pitches?

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. It is true that cricket is a more difficult sport to deal with because of the size of the field and the quality of treatment that must be given to the square. I hope that the point that he has raised will be dealt with in the sports policy paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish the results of his review of cross-media ownership. [22467]

The Government are currently reviewing their policy on media ownership. I shall announce their conclusions once the process is completed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is illogical to have a system of regulation that permits one national newspaper group to have significant broadcasting interests yet bars every other national newspaper group from having more than a small stake in broadcasting interests? Will he examine that problem in his review and seek to bring cross-media ownership more within the remit of general competition policy in a way that allows British media groups to compete with their international counterparts?

My hon. Friend raises one of the issues that has been at the core of the debate about the future of media ownership regulation. It would be wrong of me this afternoon to hint at the direction in which the Government plan to go. Our media ownership regulation must have two objectives: first, to safeguard plurality and diversity in our press and secondly, to allow media businesses the opportunity to develop viably and successfully.

Has the Secretary of State taken note of the massive deal that has been made between News International and the American conglomerate MCI? Has he further noted that BT is a 20 per cent. shareholder in MCI? Does he agree that it is plain daft to have a system in which BT, the British telephone company, is allowed to broadcast television to the United States; American telephone companies, as part-owners of cable companies, are allowed to broadcast television in this country; but BT, the British telephone company, is not allowed to broadcast television in its own country? Is it not intolerable that our major telephone company should be prevented by restrictive legislation from becoming a part of the information super-highway in Britain?

The right hon. Gentleman has made that point to me before and I do not agree that it is plain daft. He cogently illustrates why the policy is right. The interests of the American consumer are served by having a choice of distributors available in the American market—that is provided by encouraging British Telecom to invest in it—and the interests of the British consumer are served by having choice in the delivery of the television signal to British homes. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that he does not propose to allow British Telecom into that market at present, in order to allow others to develop in competition with the long-term possibility that British Telecom offers.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the great Ealing comedies? Will he do all he can to see that they are restored by giving support to Ealing—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye on an earlier occasion and was undoubtedly frustrated, but he is way out of order on this question. We shall pass on to Mr. Graham Allen.

rose—

Order. The question relates to cross-media ownership. I saw that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene and was frustrated when Ealing was mentioned on an earlier question, but this is not the question to which it relates.

It is less an Ealing comedy than a Whitehall farce. The delay in the Government bringing forward their proposals on cross-media ownership has led to all sorts of difficulties, not least in the recent Channel 5 round of bids, where bidders were completely unaware of whether they would qualify, were their bid to win. Will the Secretary of State tell the House, and all those who are interested, whether he will reach a decision on cross-media ownership in the near future? Above all, will he put his proposals to the House before we leap into the next major series of changes—digital television? Those in the House and outside need to be clear whether new rules will be in place before the digital revolution allocates new channels, or will the Minister delay and create the Whitehall farce that was alluded to earlier?

I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I hope to bring forward proposals both for the allocation of channels and ownership regulations in the digital world and dealing with media ownership issues among conventional media companies. I hope to bring forward proposals on both those matters within the next few weeks. The hon. Gentleman's charge of delay would hold a great deal more water if, at any time during the past few months, we had heard anything from the Opposition suggesting that they have reached any conclusions on those issues. They are very good at telling us that we have been delaying when we have been considering the issues in a mature fashion. However, we have had almost no advice from the Opposition about the way in which that policy should develop.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the state of the arts in Suffolk. [22468]

It is for the Arts Council and the regional arts boards to take the lead in making assessments of this kind. I understand that Eastern Arts has a high opinion of the quality and range of arts activity in Suffolk.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the great success of the Bury St. Edmunds festival in my constituency. Is he aware that, two weekends ago, the Newmarket festival took place, the highlight of which was a concert under the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts pairing scheme? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now possible to hear the finest music outside the metropolitan areas?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the success of the Bury St. Edmunds festival, which is celebrating its 10th birthday and has been a wonderful success. In respect of the Newmarket festival, the first time that it was held, it was a great success. I agree that the ABSA scheme, or the pairing scheme, which has brought some £80 million of fresh money into arts in the 10 years that it has existed, has been great success. As something like 78 per cent. of the money goes outside London, my hon. Friend is quite right to say that it allows people all over the country to hear the finest music and see the finest performances.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the distribution of national lottery funds to voluntary organisations for the promotion of sports facilities. [22469]

I have received representations from a variety of individuals and organisations on the subject of national lottery funds for sport.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nutbrook cricket club near Ilkeston in my constituency, which provides sports facilities for young people in particular, has recently applied to the national lottery sports fund for money to improve its changing facilities? The Sports Council has, quite correctly, asked local organisations for their views and all have been supportive except Erewash borough council, which said that the club's bid would compete with the council's own bid for sports facilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority should not be able to blight another's bid in that way? What advice can he give to Nutbrook and to the Sports Council about the matter?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her persistence in the matter of the Nutbrook cricket club. She wrote to me on 16 June last year about that subject and I know that she has been disappointed in one or two of her applications to the Sports Council and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in the meantime. I assure her that whatever Erewash borough council says or does not say will not blight the hopes of Nutbrook cricket club. The Sports Council will make its own decision about that important matter.

Will the Minister bear it in mind that some organisations which provide funding for sports facilities are suffering because the money that was formerly distributed to them from pools revenue is falling as the success of the national lottery increases? The Barnsley lawn tennis club in my constituency is unable to secure a grant because of a lack of funds within the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Will the Minister consider equal funding between the various bodies that provide money for sports facilities so as to make up the grants to those bodies which have been affected by the fall in pools revenue?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the duty in order that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts could continue to operate. I believe that that was the right thing to do and I hope that the sports club in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will apply for funding to the foundation, the national lottery, Sportsmatch or any of the other sources of Government sports facility funding.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the part that tourism can play in economic regeneration. [22470]

Tourism plays a key role in the local economy in many parts of the country. Successful tourist development is a powerful engine of economic regeneration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism provides an opportunity for real growth and that major tourist attractions can apply for funds under the single regeneration budget in conjunction with their local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that information is made known as widely as possible, as it is a major embarrassment to the citizens of the Isle of Wight that the Liberal Democrat council did not apply for funds in the first round? That is quite extraordinary.

Oh!

Perhaps that explains where the hon. Lady was for the first four questions of Question Time today; or perhaps the Liberal Democrats have already sold out to Wai worth road—who knows?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. It is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council on the Isle of Wight is unaware of the opportunities that the single regeneration budget presents—particularly, as my hon. Friend said, the opportunities that it presents for the tourist sector. My hon. Friend is correct: the tourist sector creates real jobs. In the past 10 years, tourism in Britain has created 25 per cent. more real jobs. That underlines the extent to which the tourist sector is one of the areas of growth in the British economy which holds out future wealth-creation opportunities.

I agree with the Secretary of State's last statement. Bearing in mind the contribution that the tourist and travel industry makes to the regeneration of Britain, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that unfair taxation is not imposed on that industry, which far too often the Government regard as a milch cow for taxation?

That is an interesting question for the hon. Gentleman to raise. If one compares the taxation imposed on a hotel operator in southern Britain with that of a French competitor, the most striking contrast that one will observe is the increased non-wage labour costs that French taxation and the social chapter impose upon the French competitor. If the hon. Gentleman were really interested in comparing the taxes imposed on British operators with those imposed on continental operators, he would make it clear to his Front-Bench team that he opposed the imposition of such an obligation on British operators.

While it is undeniably true that tourism can economically regenerate many parts of the country, is it not also true that it can environmentally degenerate them unless it is properly controlled? For example, has my right hon. Friend any proposals to put to the Secretary of State for Transport and others about controlling the plethora of tourist buses in central London, which cause serious congestion and air pollution problems?

My hon. Friend raises a serious issue: the tourist industry's impact on the centres of heritage interest that attract tourists. It is obviously a short-sighted policy to promote tourism if that damages exactly the attractions that bring people to Britain in the first place. That is why the Government set up a review of exactly those issues at the beginning of the 1990s, and why my Department has followed, through the English tourist board, a programme of sustainable tourism projects, which we are in the process of assessing. The results of that will be published in the autumn of this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the criteria used for the allocation of national lottery money. [22471]

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will change the methods by means of which national lottery funds are allocated to good causes. [22477]

I have repeatedly made it clear that the Government intend to keep the guidelines to lottery distributors under regular review. The allocation of lottery funds, however, began barely eight weeks ago, and therefore I am not yet in a position to revise the guidelines.

Is the Minister aware that £680,000 of lottery money has just come to my constituency to fund a sports hall, yet that marvellous news was hijacked by the Liberal Democrats, who broke a press embargo 24 hours before the local elections, distributing thousands of leaflets in the constituency and claiming the credit? Is there not a case for reviewing this matter and ensuring that these sensitive announcements are not made during election periods, because otherwise people like the unscrupulous Liberal Democrats will hijack them and use them for electioneering purposes?

In these days of propriety, it would be improper for me to intervene in the arguments between Opposition parties. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that the announcement of the Sports Council distribution to which he referred was made not during an election period, but on the Friday after the election period was over.

We dream of getting £680,000 of the lottery in my constituency. I do not mind if the Liberals want to make the announcement first. I am an enthusiastic lottery punter and I look forward to winning the biggy so that I can clear off to the Caribbean, but a feeling exists in the east end that Camelot is creaming off far more than we are. Would it not be possible to have local committees that could take the money that goes into the lottery locally? We could then allocate some of the resources to good causes for the localities, rather than the money coming up to central London so that a bunch of toffs can allocate it to well-heeled Tories.

The hon. Gentleman's ambition to win the lottery and go to the Caribbean is widely shared on his behalf. On the suggestion that there should be local committees to distribute lottery proceeds, the different lottery distributors have set up structures to ensure that they are offered advice about the local scene before decisions are made. That is why the Arts Council takes the advice of the regional arts board, and why the Sports Council takes the advice of regional sports councils in making lottery distribution decisions. However, a national lottery needs to have a distribution process that culminates in an identifiable national distributor and that is subject, of course, to all the normal propriety disciplines imposed by the National Audit Office.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Cumbria, despite having 20 applications currently under consideration, has so far received nothing from the sport and arts fund? Will he draw to the attention of the great and good who distribute that money that Cumbria is not an offshore island and that it is time that something was done?

My right hon. Friend is an effective advocate of his constituents' interests. I am sure that his point will be taken on board. He will understand that a precise regional balance is not sought in each month's allocation but, taking the distribution programme as a whole, my right hon. Friend is right to say that we must ensure that proper regional balance is observed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far too many reviews? Surely there is no need for any review of the careful, and still recent, decision of the House that one quarter of the lottery's turnover should go to the five sets of good causes—the arts, heritage, sports, charities and the millennium fund. Will my right hon. Friend refuse to listen to the whiners, whingers, complainers and other small-minded and tiresome persons?

I shall certainly try to avoid listening to small-minded and tiresome persons. I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend that we must allow the guidelines time to work before reaching considered judgments in assessing them. I repeat my original reply—that the Government will keep the guidelines under review. This is a new project, and clearly it is important that, as it matures, we learn the lessons of our experience.

Would it not be sensible to remove the existing requirement whereby the main distributive bodies are not allowed to seek applications but must simply sit and receive them? That system leads directly to the sort of disastrous decision taken over the Churchill papers. Surely it would be more sensible to take a more strategic approach, whereby the boards could consult widely with local authorities, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations to identify gaps and a proper pattern of provision.

The hon. Gentleman seems slightly at variance with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was anxious that there should clearly be local input in the distribution process. One of the best ways is to ensure, before a lottery award is made, that there is clear evidence that the proposal has widespread and deeply felt local support. The most effective method is to ensure that lottery money is available to support local initiatives rather than engage in a kind of "goslot", which seems to be wanted by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement as to the way in which grants from the proceeds of the national lottery will be publicised and the speed with which grants are made by the grant-making body set up for that purpose. [22472]

The manner in which national lottery awards are publicised is a matter for each of the 11 independent distributing bodies. Distributing bodies are dealing with applications for funding as quickly as possible, given the need to ensure that their systems and procedures are robust and each application receives due consideration.

I congratulate the Government on a great success story—another one. The public would like a bit more information. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider providing information about how much money has already been raised for good causes? The public would also like to know how much money has been given to good causes. Would it not be a good idea if the regulator published a list every month of all the awards made by the five agencies, so that the public could have a one-stop shop printout of all the awards made, without having to approach all the agencies that give them?

From memory, I can say that £495 million has been given to good causes, of which almost £60 million has already been allocated. As to my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion of collating information about the recipients of lottery awards and their value, if that were to help the House, I would certainly agree. My Department would do that, rather than the regulator. If the House wanted that information, we would certainly be prepared to place it in the Library at regular intervals.

Since much of the publicity surrounding the lottery and allocation from the lottery has not been helpful or in the best interests of this country and how it orders its priorities, is it not time that everything was re-examined? Many charities which have worked for years to raise money and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable in our society are now losing millions of pounds because of the way in which money is provided through the lottery and because many people think that, instead of giving directly to charity, spending money on the lottery is okay and the charities will somehow get it anyway.

On the first point, it is certainly true that there are lessons to be learned from the way in which the lottery is run. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we shall certainly be reviewing that—perhaps after the first year or whatever seems a sensible time. The Charities Board is in fact a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to promote business sponsorship of the arts. [22473]

The Government actively encourage private sector support of the arts, particularly through their own pairing scheme, which has brought in more than £87 million in new money since 1984. The budgetof the pairing scheme was increased by £750,000 to more than £5.5 million in the current financial year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the business sponsorship incentive scheme has been a huge success for the Government, bringing new money into the arts? What steps will he take to extend the scheme and expand the number of businesses participating in it so that the true partnership between public and private sectors may flourish even more?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I completely agree with the emphasis that he places on the issue. The pairing scheme, as it is now called, has brought in almost 4,000 first-time sponsors since it was launched and has been responsible for increasing business sponsorship over the 20 years of its operation from a vanishingly small sum to roughly £70 million a year. Business sponsorship is a vital source of support for the arts in Britain. I intend to continue to give active support to the development of the pairing scheme.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to get businesses interested in the arts is to give them tax breaks for investment? I refer particularly to the film industry, in which Britain is seriously disadvantaged compared with the rest of Europe and much of the rest of the world. Labour has put forward concrete proposals, and so has the film industry. Will the Secretary of State speak to that other great philistine in the Cabinet, his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and provide the British film industry—before the Cannes film festival—with the leadership that it needs so that it may develop?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting a film tax question into a question on the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts pairing scheme. As the House knows, the future of tax relief for film makers was raised in the Select Committee report on the film industry, to which, as I have already said, I intend to respond at the beginning of June.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many tourists from abroad visited the United Kingdom for the last year for which figures are available. [22475]

In the 12 months between March 1994 and February 1995 there were an estimated 21 million visits to the United Kingdom by tourists from abroad.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those visitors want to visit villages around the country because they are quiet and beautiful? Does he agree, therefore, that those drawing up structure plans ought to think twice before trying to build thousands of new houses in villages such as Whittingham and Calderstones in Whalley in my constituency which would detract from their beauty? Does he further agree that another village in my constituency might now attract many more visitors because it contains the training ground of Blackburn Rovers? Will he send his congratulations to Jack Walker, Alan Shearer, Kenny Dalglish and the rest of the team on winning the championship yesterday?

Order. The last part of that question was rather out of order.

If it is in order, Madam Speaker, I add my congratulations to those offered to Blackburn Rovers on winning the league after 81 years. That is a fine achievement and Blackburn Rovers deserve the credit.

With regard to the 21 million people who the Minister says visit these isles, will the Minister consider the importance of developing tourism in west Yorkshire, particularly in relation to the Yorkshire mining museum? Will he do all that he can to ensure that we have our fair share of tourism in west Yorkshire so that people can see the heritage of the Yorkshire region?

Yes, I am glad to say that the percentage of tourists travelling out of London has been increasing. I very much support the Yorkshire mining museum and I am looking forward to visiting it again very shortly.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what plans the commissioners have to respond to the recent report of the Social Security Committee on the operation of pension funds, the Church Commissioners and Church of England pensions. [22494]

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the findings of the Social Security Committee in its second report of Session 1994–95, HC 354, in respect of the operation of the Church of England pensions provision. [22497]

(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners welcome the view of the Select Committee on Social Security that a pension fund into which contributions are payable needs to be established and that that will help to protect the continuing scope of the commissioners to contribute towards the pay of clergy in the poorest parishes. That is consistent with the principles for future arrangements, on which discussions with diocesan boards of finance are well advanced. A report is to be made to the Church of England General Synod in the summer, following which the necessary legislation will be drafted.

The Select Committee revealed some very serious problems in terms of Church of England pensions—£800 million losses, secrecy, recklessness and foolishness. When shall we reports and accounts for the 44 subsidiary companies, all of which are loss-making? When we deal with the matter further in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman support the notion that it should be dealt with by means of a full Bill which is discussable and amendable, rather than by a 90-minute take-it-or-leave-it statutory instrument?

On the last point, I am sympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman's idea, but it must be something to which the Church of England would agree as it has the majority interest in the issues being discussed. With regard to the pension side of the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the assets of the Church Commissioners, which are now in the region of £2.4 billion, are very comfortably able to cover the whole of the past actuarial responsibilities for pensions and future pensions up to the point which is now likely to be cut off by a new contributory fund.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to reflect on the full and searching debate which took place in the Chamber on Thursday night, in which it emerged that virtually every mistake in the book had occurred in the management of the Church Commissioners' funds? Does he agree that it is now urgent to establish a properly funded pension scheme so that past members of the clergy will be relieved of any anxiety that their pensions will not be properly paid?

I can assure my hon. Friend that past liabilities are very comfortably covered, as actuarially computed, by the £2.4 billion of assets in hand. My hon. Friend also referred to the future pensions liability. He will be aware that we have announced that there is to be a new contributory scheme to take account of that.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what consideration the Church Commissioners give to local opinion when considering offers of purchase and change of use for churches. [22495]

The commissioners' policy is governed by the Pastoral Measure 1983. When a Church of England church is closed for worship, the Measure lays emphasis on the diocese seeking a suitable use and that is what is most commonly achieved. Each case is decided by the commissioners on its merits, taking into account the advice of their statutory advisers—the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches—the nature of the building, the options available and the views of the diocese. Dioceses are sensitive to local opinion in seeking uses. Formal objections made to the commissioners about proposed uses are most carefully considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent can see no evidence that the commissioners are seriously taking into account their views in relation to St John's Hanley, which the diocese wishes to sell to a company wishing to establish a climbing centre in a handsome church in the middle of the city? Whose interests are being served there? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the local views which have been expressed coherently and sensibly with well thought out alternative ideas are taken into account?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the climbing centre proposal was a good deal further ahead than the Friends of St John's community centre proposal. However, the climbing centre proposal has not gone ahead and it is still fully open to the Friends of St John's community centre project to be considered fairly alongside it. No final decision has yet been taken, and the hon. Gentleman's own preference may in the event win the day.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further measures he proposes to control the granting of legal aid to prevent those who should not be entitled to legal aid from receiving it. [22503]

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is proposing to exclude wealthy individuals from legal aid entitlement. [22506]

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about the proposed changes in legal aid for the apparently wealthy. [22511]

The Lord Chancellor has announced the measures that he intends to take forward following the consultation exercise on the granting of legal aid to apparently wealthy applicants.

Will my hon. Friend take further the welcome consultation on legal aid for the apparently wealthy by urging that a further look be given at cases in which legal aid is granted to those who have a long record of previous criminal convictions when those people are taking civil cases which are often entirely unmeritorious and constitute a serious nuisance to the law-abiding people who are often the defendants in those cases?

I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's remarks on to the Lord Chancellor. Three of the proposals are that there should be a special investigation unit to handle complex cases, a discretionary power to include the assets of friends, relatives and children where these appear to be material to the life style of the applicant and the power to require an applicant for legal aid to transfer ownership to the legal aid authorities of any assets which he fails to declare in the application.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in many cases apparently wealthy people have their assets frozen by injunctions during protracted and complex litigation? Can more be done following the hopefully successful end of that litigation to extract more money back from the beneficiary of legal aid by way of a statutory charge or other means?

I am sure that that is a fruitful line of inquiry to pursue.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a source of great anger that wealthy parasites such as Ernest Saunders and Roger Levitt should receive legal aid while many people with more modest life styles are refused it? Any action that my hon. Friend takes on that front will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and across the country as a whole.

My hon. Friend makes his point clearly, as he has done before. I am well aware of his views.

Does the Minister recall a question that I asked him recently requesting that he list the top 10 barristers and top 10 solicitors' firms gaining the most from legal aid funds? As that information must exist, does the Minister think that his departmental officials are being economical with the truth when they say that they cannot produce the information for him and for the House?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me about that. [Interruption.] I am keen that he should be satisfied about the matter, and I shall return to the Dispatch Box to put my answer on record, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) would like it to be.

How on earth can the Government justify handing out large sums of taxpayers' money to wealthy people such as Saunders, Selig, Levitt, the Maxwell brothers and Asil Nadir, when someone in my constituency who needs to fight a civil claim in respect of an accident at work was told by one of those tinpot solicitors that he would be looked after and get legal aid, but then halfway through he was told, "Sorry, but the case is not strong enough to win"? Not only are those wealthy people making a small fortune out of the taxpayer, but barristers and all the rest of them are raking it in because they can make a ton of money backing the wealthy but they will not make a great deal looking after some poor constituent with a civil claim.

Hang all lawyers.

Barristers can claim what they like, but they will get what is assessed.

I declare an interest as a lawyer, and I wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to hang me. Will the Minister not rush headlong into what could be a catastrophic situation which will cost the country money? Much is said about large cases, but in efforts to reassess legal aid will the Minister bear in mind that it is sometimes more economical to grant legal aid at first instance in the magistrates court on the very first day of charging so that a matter is speedily disposed of, rather than to wait over several hearings for legal aid to be granted, with additional cost to the taxpayer and other sources, and achieve the same result in the end? Surely expedition is sometimes profitable.

But we cannot disregard the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee in determining the circumstances in which legal aid is granted in magistrates courts. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have no reputation for headlong rushing, but he need not wait long for the Green Paper on legal aid. It will be out later this week—on Wednesday.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last discussed the legal aid recovery procedure with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board; and if he will make a statement. [22504]

I discuss all aspects of the legal aid scheme with the board's chief executive from time to time.

Has the Minister discussed the recovery of payments with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board? Will he take on board the situation involving a constituent of mine? When the recovery people attended the home, because no one was at home they started making inquiries of neighbours and informing them of the situation. That was totally deplorable and unscrupulous of those agents who are employed by the recovery section of the Legal Aid Board. Will the Minister impress upon the chief executive that such practices must cease and that people should not be subjected to such humiliation in front of their neighbours because agents acting on behalf of the Legal Aid Board behave unscrupulously?

I will gladly look at that case if the hon. Gentleman will give me the details. I am not entirely sure whether he is referring to recovery by the Legal Aid Board of costs out of winnings, contribution as agreed at the onset of the grant, or the statutory charge which operates after a case has been concluded. Solicitors are under a duty to explain to their clients how the statutory charge works so that they are left in no doubt. The application form is required to be signed by both the solicitor and the applicant on that score to say that it has been explained and understood.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish an analysis of the net income levels of those receiving legal aid in the last financial year. [22505]

I have no plans to publish the analysis that the hon. Gentleman requests.

Will the Minister reconsider? I suspect that any analysis would confirm hon. Members' suspicions and the suspicions put to me constantly by the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent that a great number of applications for civil legal aid are being turned down, limited or otherwise impeded. People of quite modest means are being prevented from pursuing rightful cases because of the way in which the civil legal aid system works. That cannot be right, and I suspect that it is of general concern to all hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman refers to net income levels, but it would be very difficult to produce the analysis required because net income is disposable income and in the determination of disposable income many allowances can be made which will depend on the enormous variety of individual circumstances of applicants.

On the other hand, has my hon. Friend observed the type of case that I have come across in my advice surgeries recently, involving people who have previously been reported to be wealthy but who have passed the income assessment and been legally aided by the Legal Aid Board for civil cases? That cannot be right.

If an individual case, as my hon. Friend puts it, cannot be right, anyone can challenge a grant of civil legal aid, including my hon. Friend.

If the Minister has no plans to analyse the income of those currently denied legal aid, does he have any plans, belatedly, to deal with the issue of restrictive practices within the legal profession? Is he aware that there has been an increase of some 600 per cent. in the cost of legal aid to taxpayers while restrictive practices within the legal profession on the part of the Law Society and the Bar Council go unaddressed? Is it not time to redress the balance of legal aid in favour of the taxpayer and the consumer?

That must be an ever-present intention, but the hon. Gentleman should know that the number of people helped under the legal aid scheme—3.5 million in 1994–95—will increase by 25 per cent. by 1997–98. As for restrictive practices, he will know—and I invite him to welcome the fact—that under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 monopolies of various kinds of legal practice are being steadily eroded. He will find, I dare say, that among the legal aid proposals will be that legal aid funding will be available to law centres and citizens advice bureaux supported by him. The Green Paper will be out on Wednesday—more then.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the procedures and criteria by which papers are transmitted to the Public Record Office. [22508]

The Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 provide for the transfer, under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records, of those public records which are to be made available at the Public Record Office normally when they are 30 years old. The procedures and criteria are detailed in the "Manual of Records Administration".

May I ask a question of which I have given the Lord Chancellor's Secretary notice? As the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) certainly acted in good faith in March 1989 when he was Secretary of State for Transport, could his background papers relating to Lockerbie be expedited to the public view, along perhaps with those of Sir Charles Powell and the then Prime Minister? Could the Lord Chancellor have a word with his colleagues in the Crown Office, who are not answerable to the House, and tell them not to be so childish in respect of the ridiculous defamation of potential witnesses?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice that he wished to mention the Lockerbie bombing. However, all I can say in answer to his question is that it will be for the relevant Government Department, as advised by the Public Record Office, to decide at the appropriate time which records should be selected for permanent preservation.

Will my hon. Friend encourage Government Departments, through the Public Record Office, to make as many documents as possible available not only on paper but on CD-ROM, microfiche and microfilm so that researchers do not always have to travel the inconvenient distance to Kew to inspect these documents?

My hon. Friend may like to know that by the end of last year some 25,000 additional records had been released as a result of the open government initiatives. As for the advance of information technology of the type to which he refers, it is not merely inevitable but welcome.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the cost of the Courts Service becoming an executive agency. [22512]

The total cost of the Court Service's move to agency status is approximately £900,000, spread over three years.

At a time of crisis in the Courts Service, with long delays and more than 10,000 complaints under the courts charter, is it not a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money when there is no evidence that it is improving access to justice?

Far from being a scandalous waste, it is money well spent. The Government believe that generally the more businesslike focus of the agency will lead to greater efficiency, as well as higher standards of service.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice is offered to judges in terms of their comments made in open court. [22513]

Each judge is independent. However, the Judicial Studies Board is responsible for the training of the judiciary. Its courses emphasise the need for care, consideration and sensitivity in court.

Does the Minister recall a letter that I wrote to the Lord Chancellor arising out of something in the Fleet News? A Crown court judge, Recorder Mr. Nicholas M. Atkinson, told two people who were being convicted at Winchester Crown court—I paraphrase rather than quote—"I would jail you if you were wearing Chelsea kit." That was a propos nothing because, so far as I was aware, they were not in any way connected with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). How can a recorder say something as outrageous and insulting to all decent Chelsea supporters as that? How does the Minister intend to call that individual to account?

It is indeed within my knowledge that the hon. Gentleman has raised that case with the Lord Chancellor and I read those press notices as well. I am instructed to say that the Lord Chancellor will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.