To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many professional football clubs she or Ministers in her Department have visited over the past 12 months to discuss the viability of professional football. [21892]

My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the governing bodies, and with many other groups and individuals involved in football, to discuss matters of concern to football and have visited both professional and amateur football grounds.

Is the Minister aware of the remarkable success story of Southend United football club which, in co-operation with local authorities, has provided remarkable services to Southend's young people, but which, like other clubs, has a problem finding an alternative site for a massive redevelopment? I appreciate the enormous burdens on the Minister's time, but might it be possible for him to visit the successful Southend United football club and, in establishing priorities, to bear it in mind that, when I became the Member of Parliament, Southend United was at the foot of the fourth division and is now, happily, near the top of the first division and likely to go higher?

I am aware that Southend United is seventh in the first division and that it has a splendid record in liaising with schools, as the document "Raising the Game" hoped would happen. Southend's liaison with schools is a model for many clubs. On Southend United's moving or relocating, I read in a newspaper about possible relocation to Fossets farm. I would be happy to learn more about that from my hon. Friend, either here or in Southend.

Will the Minister consider the effect on professional football's finances of the huge disparity between the money available to the premier league, because of its television contracts, and the money available to the Endsleigh league's first, second and third divisions? The effect is that, generally speaking, it is much more profitable for a player to play, for example, for the second team of a premier league club than for the first team of an Endsleigh league first division club. It also means that, when clubs are promoted from the Endsleigh league first division, they always run the risk of being rapidly relegated because they simply do not have the finances of premier league clubs. Is not that distorting the whole game? Is it not time that that was examined?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important problem, but the tremendous increase in income to football clubs through television sports rights has affected matters dramatically in both the premier league and other leagues. The Football League has recently negotiated a contract worth about £125 million over the next four or five years. I hope that that will make a difference to the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we ensure that school fields are available for school children who, in future, become interested in sports, including football? Does he further agree that it is important to condemn left-wing local authorities that have continued to seek to ban or to discourage competitive sports, and that we will see splendid successes, such as that being shown by Blackpool football club, currently top of division two after a splendid 1-0 win over Brentford on Saturday, only if plenty of school children have the opportunity to participate in football and other sports at school?

On football and schools, I congratulate the football authorities on what they have done. Since we produced "Raising the Game" on 14 July, no other sport has done more to encourage sport in schools. For example, the Football League, Sportsmatch and Auto Windscreens have a new six-a-side competition in secondary schools and Coca-Cola has sponsored the schoolboy European championships. We have consulted on the fact that the Sports Council should be consulted before any school playing fields are sold. I agree with my hon. Friend, therefore, that much has to be done and that much has been done.

Had the Minister visited more football clubs, he would know of the many concerns facing professional football. As one who has visited more clubs, may I assist him by asking him to take on board some of those concerns as addressed in our charter for football—which, as he knows, has been universally well received by the football world? One such concern is about a lack of co-operation between his Department and the Department of the Environment. The Minister really must get tougher with that Department and insist that planning policy must work in favour of relocation rather than against it.

On the hon. Gentleman's point about co-operation with the Department of the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-operates fully with it in all planning matters of that sort. On his point about a reduction in pools income, that is a serious problem that the Government met in the most recent Budget by increasing the money available to the Football Trust by 0.5 per cent. As for Southend, I shall make my own arrangements to learn everything that needs to be learnt there.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes in London have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [21893]

Awards totalling £315 million have been made to 444 projects in London.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, and in particular for the major flagship projects in London that have benefited. Will she pay tribute to the many small organisations that have benefited from the national lottery, in particular the Croydon victim support scheme and the Croydon refugee project? Do not those projects show the lottery's value to a variety of good causes, not only in London but throughout the country?

I pay a special tribute to the National Lottery Charities Board, which has done a magnificent job in a very short space of time in providing grants to organisations involved in care in the community. In London, the board has provided around 225 grants, concerned with old people's welfare, volunteer bureaux, Mencap, toy libraries, under-fives projects and all manner of schemes to help support others in the community.

The Secretary of State is aware of the apparent regional competition for the allocation of lottery money. Will she consider doing two things to ensure that the situation is understood? First, will she allow the provision of formalised regional figures that would compare a region's allocations with its population? Secondly, and more important, will she allow the identification of grants that are clearly for local projects—such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon)—and those which are clearly for national projects, such as money for the Tate or the Earth centre in Doncaster, which are located in one region, but are for national and general benefit?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are some myths and misunderstandings about distribution of lottery money. Nine out of 10 awards have been outside London and four out of five awards have been for amounts less than £100,000. Frequently, large flagship projects draw attention and give a somewhat misleading impression but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, some flagship projects in London are leading to major opportunities in regeneration. Certainly the projects in his constituency—the £50 million Bankside project, the Globe theatre and others—mean that we can hope for a cultural quarter in London such as they have in Paris.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of overall funding provision for (a) the arts, (b) sport and (c) heritage. [21894]

The areas for which I am responsible benefit hugely from a rich tapestry of funding. The partnership between public money—in the form of central and local government support—the lottery and private money, through sponsorship, provides well over £3 billion for arts, sport and our heritage. That partnership supports all our sectors on a scale never enjoyed before.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning on the establishment of talent funds financed by the national lottery? It is extremely important that we provide good funding for youngsters talented in the arts and, in particular, in sports, because that funding will further strengthen Britain's performance in the great international competitions.

The announcement made this morning to the effect that we are now able to extend the remit of the Arts Council and the Sports Council using national lottery money to invest in talent is, I think, widely welcomed. We want to promote participation to encourage youngsters to get involved in the arts and in sport and we want to go for gold by training our excellent athletes of the future.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we have always accepted that, for Britain to advance, it is important to help those who need assistance yet, every day in Parliament, a Tory Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says, "Leave it to market forces and the talent will come up from the bottom—don't give them any money," but now that the Government have their sticky fingers on the lottery, they are saying, "Subsidise and intervene because market forces do not work for sport"?

Anyone who had any doubt about new Labour need only listen to the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the past year, the national lottery has made 5,500 awards, which are leading to regeneration, promoting opportunity and developing social cohesion whether in the arts, sports, heritage or the environment. They are very much a force for good. They are a success, and I well understand that the Labour party cannot abide success.

Does my right hon. Friend realise how much my constituent, Mr. Spencer Duval of Lichfield, the national steeplechase champion, will welcome the news about talent funds? Will she confirm that he is just the sort of person to receive money from the talent fund? Will she wish him luck as he hopes to represent this country in the Olympic games? Will she also wish his father, Mr. Derrick Duval, luck—he is my election agent for the next general election?

I cannot say that lottery money will be available for the father but, as part of the next stage, I shall certainly pass on the concern that steeplechasers should be able to benefit from lottery money. The Sports Council has done a remarkable job. It has put money into around 40 sports and made 1,492 awards in just over a year. The move towards supporting talent, coaching and promoting international participants in sporting activity is one which the Sports Council sought and is proceeding with. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments about his constituent.

I welcome today's statement by the Secretary of State that she intends to introduce talent funds. She is right to say that her announcement will be widely welcomed. We certainly welcome it because she is implementing Labour policy—[Interruption.] I put the idea to her in the Chamber in a debate on 25 October last year, and I am pleased that she has taken it up. May I also welcome the associated announcement on the arts and historic buildings, which will also be welcomed? As it is now the case that individuals receive not only lottery cash but revenue funding, is not it important, from the point of view of access, fairness and probity, that any decisions are properly monitored and checked? What arrangements is the Secretary of State putting in place to ensure that the money is effectively and properly spent?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I shall not spend too long on ownership of the concept of talent funds, which will result in great benefits to many youngsters and others. In addition, the support announced for touring means that all parts of the country can benefit from some of the artistic excellence which is otherwise confined to the great city centres.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to highlight the attractions of the River Thames for the millennium. [21896]

A range of initiatives has been put forward to highlight the attractions of the River Thames for the millennium. We are working closely with the London tourist board, the Government office for London and private sector partners to ensure that full advantage is taken of the excellent opportunities offered by the river for the millennium and beyond.

My right hon. Friend will recognise that the River Thames is arguably the least well-used river of the world's major capitals. Will she assure the House that she will seize the opportunity presented by the millennium celebrations to sweep aside all problems—financial or tidal—to ensure that the River Thames takes its rightful place as the pride of London and the country?

I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. His Thames advisory group has done some very important work. Last week's news about the royal naval college is further encouragement. Up and down the Thames, projects are receiving investment on an unprecedented scale. My objective is precisely that of my hon. Friend: that the River Thames should retain a vital role in London.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) will be echoed by all hon. Members who represent London constituencies and, I know, by the Secretary of State herself. Does she agree that there needs to be proper co-ordination of the new river services to the two millennium sites at Greenwich—perhaps north of Greenwich, too—possibly under the aegis of the Port of London Authority? Does she also agree that Londoners would not appreciate development of a service oriented primarily to create a marine equivalent of the tourist hop-on hop-off buses, and would prefer it to be properly integrated with London's public passenger transport services?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know of his keen interest in the subject. Discussions are under way on proposals for the millennium festival at Greenwich. As the year progresses, I think that more public and private authorities will co-operate on taking the opportunity to invest in the capital. I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's thoughts about river transport are passed on.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the powers available to the operator of the national lottery to change the rules governing the amount and distribution of winnings. [21897]

Rules for payment of prizes from any game that forms part of the national lottery can be changed only with the prior consent of the Director General of the National Lottery.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the recent rule adjustment relating to the £10 payout for forecasting three correct numbers was made at the behest of the Director General of the National Lottery only to cover what would be an extremely unlikely eventuality? Will she also confirm that, of all the bidders to run the national lottery, Camelot came forward with the lowest operating costs, and will in fact take in profit less than 1 per cent. of all the money staked?

My hon. Friend precisely describes the situation. As far as I have been able to establish, the lottery has the lowest operating costs of any national lottery anywhere in the world. It is extremely efficient and very well regulated. The recent announcement about the match-three rule resulted from the decision of the Director General of Oflot, who took a particularly scrupulous view of the matter, although, as he said, the chances of such an eventuality were about the same as meeting Elvis on the moon.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anger that Oflot's announcement has caused? Can she name one other lottery that pays out less than the allotted prize money, which is what has been proposed?

I do not think that there has been widespread anger. People have continued to play the national lottery, and I expect that, once again, a very large number of people will play it for the roll-over on Easter Saturday. I accept that, at the time of the announcement, there was some misunderstanding, but people have since seen it in its proper proportion. People have received their £10 on every occasion since the lottery started and I expect that they will continue to do so. When I am in Cambridge this week to open the Arts theatre, I shall discover whether there is great anger about the rule change. There is more likely to be great celebration that the Arts theatre is one of 147 theatres in the country that has benefited from the national lottery.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the puritans of the left who want to interfere with the roll-over that, when there is a roll-over, many more people play and the beneficiaries are the good causes for which the lottery is designed?

My hon. Friend is precisely right. There is an increase of about 20 per cent. in the number of players when there is a roll-over. More people play the national lottery than vote in a general election. When we manage to achieve the same participation rate as the national lottery, I shall think that we, as elected parliamentarians, are beginning to succeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to meet the English Football Association to discuss arrangements for the staging of the European championship. [21898]

My right hon. Friend and I have been meeting the football authorities on a regular basis to discuss the organisation of Euro 96. We will meet them and other interested parties again shortly.

May I say en passant to the Minister that I was very disappointed that he did not present the Coca-Cola cup at Wembley and that the Secretary of State got the job? We all know how much she knows about football—the Cabinet's answer to Alan Hansen. Then again, I suppose that life is a bit of a bucket of cold spit; the Minister does get the topless dancer tossing the caber.

The hon. Gentleman is right and I hope that there will be magnificent games of football. However, many people are worried about possible outbursts of hooliganism and so on. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has now reached agreement with all the European countries that we can do everything possible to spot foreign hooligans and our own resident hooligans at matches.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of hotel companies propose to increase their room prices substantially during the competition and that that may have a damaging effect on the tourism industry generally? Is he further aware that charter airline companies are now talking of visitors to Britain for the football competition coming only for the day? Is there not, therefore, some sense in discussing the matter with the hotel companies to ensure that what they propose does not damage the tourism industry this summer?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the point about opportunities for tourism generated by the European championship. We expect another 250,000 visitors as a result and another £100 million-worth of income to our tourism industry. The English tourist board sits on committees that are involved with the matter. I know that the board is worried that hotels may price themselves out of business and that it is taking all sensible measures to prevent that.

When the Minister meets the English Football Association, will he discuss with it the great anger and concern in Scotland about the very small allocation of tickets for Scottish fans for the game between England and Scotland at Wembley on 15 June? Will he try to ensure that the allocation is increased because, otherwise, Scottish fans will get tickets that mean that they will mix with English fans, which may cause some difficulty?

I shall do everything that it is proper for me to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what quality criteria will be used in judging applications to operate digital television multiplexes. [21899]

Applications for multiplex licences will be judged on their likely contribution to the successful development of digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom. A key criterion will be the variety of programming that applicants intend to provide. Existing terrestrial broadcasters, who have been meeting programming quality thresholds, are being offered guaranteed capacity on digital multiplexes.

Will the Minister accept the Independent Television Commission's desire to include quality among the criteria for judging applications by digital television multiplex operators? Surely quality has to be an essential part of the criteria because, otherwise, we are in for a diet of yet more American-type tat on television.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are quality thresholds for BBC1, BBC2, channels 3, 4 and 5, and S4C, and the criteria of taste, decency and impartiality will apply to everyone. The Government are currently satisfied that those are sufficient, but we shall no doubt return to the matter during our debates on the Broadcasting Bill.

Does my hon. Friend agree that over-regulation is the enemy of good quality television and of employment opportunities? Would not it be better for Britain and for our great television industry to cut regulation and allow our companies to compete for, and win, markets around the world?

My hon. Friend makes the other side of the case very well. It is important that a proper balance is struck between the quality of television and encouraging the expansion of our new digital television industry—not only programmes, but the equipment that British companies can manufacture and sell at home and abroad.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals she has to improve the accountability of her Department. [21901]

My Department's aims and objectives, performance and future expenditure plans in the annual report were published on Monday 25 March. The content of that report is kept under review.

Would not the Department be made more accountable if the Secretary of State discovered why places such as Hampton court and the Tower of London—unoccupied royal areas—are so popular? Would not there be an enormous boost to jobs and tourism if more royal palaces were unoccupied and freely open throughout the year to tourists? Will she follow the campaign of my hon. and, I understand, royal Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has said that he is willing to live in Caerphilly castle and—when he is monarch or president—that he will be happy to rule under the campaign title, "One monarch, one palace"?

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the great popularity of royal palaces, and I commend Historic Royal Palaces for ensuring that they are more responsive, open and accessible.

Will the Secretary of State now account to the House for one of the most damaging and self-destructive actions that she has taken—the Government's withdrawal last November from the Council of Europe's Eurimages scheme? Does she appreciate that the £2 million subscription leveraged between £45 million and £50 million a year of European co-production money to the advantage of our industry? In the absence of any Government policy for restarting and reinvigorating the feature film industry, will she now do a U-turn—one that we would welcome and support—and rejoin Eurimages?

It is clear that Labour approaches every issue as if it were on a wish list—it never says no and says yes only to any spending commitment. The responsibility of the Government is to make difficult choices and to set priorities. Film has benefitted from 70 awards and £20 million from the national lottery, and that is an important boost to the industry. I shall take due note of the recommendations of Sir Peter Middleton's committee on film finance. We have no intention of changing our position on Eurimages, but we have every intention of pursuing that committee's recommendations.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had on the future funding position of the D'Oyly Carte theatre company. [21902]

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last had a meeting with the chairman of D'Oyly Carte to discuss future funding arrangements. [21906]

I regard the D'Oyly Carte company as one of our national cultural institutions. I recently met Sir Michael Bishop, the chairman of D'Oyly Carte, who set out the company's current position, and I very much hope that the negotiations, which are continuing, about the company's future can soon be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved, so that D'Oyly Carte can continue to flourish and delight audiences for years to come.

Hear, hear. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Arts Council spent a little less than £56 million on the Royal Opera house and stopped subsidising chopped-up sheep, it would be able to help D'Oyly Carte? If he is having any trouble persuading the luvvies at the Arts Council, could he remind them of the words of W. S. Gilbert:

"But the privilege and pleasure

That we treasure beyond measure

Is to run on little errands for the Ministers of State."?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knowledge of Gilbert and Sullivan. I shall make certain that the chairman of the Arts Council not only receives a copy of what my hon. Friend said but is told of the tone of voice in which he said it and the support that he received in the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that D'Oyly Carte is in the great tradition of light opera that has delighted the British for many hundreds of years? D' Oyly Carte in particular has delighted my family for at least three generations. Will he ensure that the Arts Council spends less on dead sheep and sleeping models and a bit more on ensuring that this great, beloved tradition receives the funding that it deserves?

I certainly agree that the D'Oyly Carte company, which has been going for more than 100 years, and Gilbert and Sullivan are among our great musical and literary traditions. The Arts Council does much good work and it would be a great shame if one or two eccentric decisions took away from the appreciation of what it does.

Is not the real test of the Minister's stewardship of the performing arts whether he can whet the appetite of young children at school? Is not the test for the Government not to favour one or two of the competing claims lobbied for here this afternoon but to ensure that young men and women and our kids at school have access to the finest performing arts—the operas and the ballets— which they are currently denied? We are a philistine state when it comes to promoting arts culture among our school children.

One of the interesting things about Gilbert and Sullivan is that there is probably no better way of getting young people interested in music, opera and literature than this extremely accessible form of art. That is one of the reasons why we are so keen to see that D'Oyly Carte continues and flourishes.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to retain in the United Kingdom those works of art which meet the Waverley criteria. [21903]

When an object is found to meet the Waverley criteria, a decision on the export licence application will be deferred for a period to allow time for funds to be raised to make a compensating offer to purchase. If there is such an offer, the object will be retained. It is for potential purchasers to determine whether to make a fund-raising attempt.

Does my hon. Friend agree that retaining the finest objects of this country's heritage is an appropriate use of national lottery funds? Will he make it clear to the national heritage memorial fund that one of its highest priorities should be to retain Waverley criteria items in this country?

Yes, I do agree with that. I agree that the lottery should be used, and indeed it can be used for that purpose. On 20 December the national heritage memorial fund contributed some £8 million to the purchase of a Seurat by the national gallery.

Do any of the pictures owned by the Government meet the Waverley criteria? Why have so many gone missing from Government Departments, but worst of all from the Ministry of Defence? Will he take some action to make sure that generals, admirals and top civil servants cannot just walk off with the Government's paintings?

I am sure that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question—whether some Government paintings fulfil the Waverley criteria—is yes. As for his second question, he will know that some of the paintings went missing when embassies such as that in Iran and elsewhere were subject to seige by the people of the country. It is true that we need to know why certain paintings which have been in the holding of the Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence are missing. I shall certainly be asking my right hon. Friends to account for them.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received from Border Television with regard to the Broadcasting Bill. [21904]

Since publication of the Bill, Ministers in my Department have discussed the Bill's provisions with the chief executive of Border Television, both individually and as part of a delegation from the holders of the licences for the five least populous channel 3 regions.

I have expressed before my concern that the Broadcasting Bill will allow the takeover of Border Television and result in a loss of jobs in my constituency and the loss of quality programmes. Many of the small ITV companies carry programmes that are subsidised by the high-cost network schedule programming system. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that system will continue until at the very least the end of the licensing period or beyond?

It is, indeed, an important issue about which many hon. Members will be concerned. It is important to protect the position of the smaller ITV companies and the element of regional identity that they give channel 3's output. I pay tribute to companies like Border Television, which often exceeds its required regional programming output and sustains the loyalty of viewers throughout its varied licence area. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Broadcasting Bill already allows the Independent Television Commission to require any new owner of a channel 3 licence to maintain existing levels and standards of regional broadcasting. We intend also to amend the Bill to require the ITC to disallow any change to the ITV networking arrangements which would jeopardise any company's regional output.

What view does my right hon. Friend take of Rupert Murdoch's decision to make Sky Sport's subscribers pay extra to watch the recent Bugner fight? [HON. MEMBERS: "Bruno!"] Does she regard that as the start of payment in the slot for television?

Order. That question bears no relation to the Broadcasting Bill.

We are about to embark on an extremely complex Broadcasting Bill. By the time that we complete it, perhaps there will be greater clarity among all hon. Members about its provisions and the opportunities. There has been a massive amount of sport on television in recent years—it has developed rapidly. The extension, not only to subscription, but pay-per-view television is something that the new channels will make possible. What is important is to safeguard sufficient sport for the terrestrial television channels, which everyone watches. I think that their Lordships have safeguarded that in the amendment that they passed in another place.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Border Television, which covers parts of England and Scotland, does not give Scottish politics adequate coverage, particularly Scottish questions in the House? Is she aware that many Scots living in the Border Television area are deprived of seeing Scottish Members of Parliament in action at Scottish Question Time? May I refer in particular to my mother, who is most concerned, as she lives in Galashiels, that she does not have the opportunity to see me on Scottish questions? Will the right hon. Lady do something about that right away?

We are the party of the family and we would certainly want the hon. Gentleman's mother to be happy on all possible occasions. I will pass on his comments to the ITC. When it comes to Opposition Members, I am not sure whether it is a question of impartiality or of taste and decency.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total amount of money from the national lottery so far distributed in Birmingham; and if she will make a statement. [21905]

To date, 54 awards totalling more than £14 million have been made to organisations in Birmingham.

In the Greenwich decision a great deal of emphasis was placed on local regeneration. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a similar emphasis will be placed on regeneration projects in Birmingham, such as Millennium point.

I certainly can give a very strong assurance. My right hon. Friend has been a vigorous champion of the west midlands case. I understand the disappointment of those in the Birmingham area and look forward to meeting a delegation on Wednesday this week with other members of the Millennium Commission to discuss the various issues involved. The Millennium Commission is committed to the use of lottery money wherever possible to promote regeneration. There is much coastal path restoration, for example, although that is not so useful in the Birmingham area, but when the Millennium Commission considers the major Millennium point application I will undoubtedly pass on my right hon. Friend's strong endorsement.

The Secretary of State knows that Birmingham's £14 million is very different from the £344 million that has been received by London. When will she consider the difference in funding between the regions as it affects Birmingham and my constituency of Nuneaton in Warwickshire? Grants to such areas are too small when compared with those given to London.

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. Although lottery money is not distributed on a quota basis, all distributing bodies intend that the distribution of lottery funds should be monitored over time. In some parts of the country, people have been quick off the mark in applying for grants; in others, there has been a shortfall. Over the year ahead, we will seek to stimulate applications in those parts of the country that have not received the benefits that others have.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what categories of records are not disclosed after 30 years. [21922]

The categories of records that are not disclosed after 30 years are set out in chapter 9 of the 1993 White Paper on open Government.

Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why that is so? Why are some records not released for up to 100 years? Why are we not allowed to know about such things as Edward VIII's Nazi past, Hess' flight to Britain in 1941 or Queen Victoria's sexual peccadilloes? How could we change the rules? Who decides that we are not to be given such information? Is it not a fact that this country does not need an Official Secrets Act but a Freedom of Information Act?

There is an Advisory Council on Public Records, which is chaired by the Master of the Rolls. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is sitting beside the hon. Gentleman, is a member of the council. It gives advice on the records in question. However, the hon. Gentleman has previously complained about the suppression of papers relating to the forcible feeding of suffragettes. I have examined the files in relation to that matter; I was able to because they have been in the public domain since 1988.

Are documents likely to be revealed in 1996 which will disclose the dirty, back-room deals done by the Labour Government, perhaps at the expense of the taxpayer and the national interest, to get the TUC to support their 1966 wage freeze?

Records remain in Departments for 30 years. Ordinarily, they are disclosed after the 30-year period has expired. If there is a request by a Department, the matter is considered by the advisory council. Previously, there was a 50-year restriction but it was subsequently reduced to 30 years.

When I recently joined the council, I was surprised to find that, in addition to matters of considerable importance, many other matters remain state secrets because they are so unimportant. Is the Minister aware that the dark secrets of Government hospitality going back to 1906 are denied to the public on the ground that the Department regards them as being so unimportant that it cannot allocate staff to desensitise them?

I am aware of that point because the hon. Gentleman has met me to raise it. His real point is that it is a question of staff resources rather than of the suppression of information, which would feed the conspiratorial suspicions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to reduce (a) bureaucracy and (b) waste in his Department. [21923]

A wide range of measures to improve efficiency has been introduced, including the implementation of the Department's senior management review and the introduction, over the next year, of a new management structure for the Court Service.

As £750,000 of public money has already been spent on the defence of the three soldiers who were found guilty of the foul and cowardly murder of Louise Jensen, does the Minister not think that it would be a waste of legal aid funds if a similar sum were paid out for an appeal against their conviction? How would he explain the expenditure of our money to defend those three soldiers when constituents of mine on average or below average income have been refused legal aid?

It is not the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to respond to particular questions in relation to certain cases where legal aid has been granted; that matter is in the hands of the respective legal aid authorities. The Government are very much aware of the necessity to ensure that the substantial sums of public money that are expended on legal aid are better targeted. That is why we are engaged in undertaking consultation on targeting need in terms of legal aid and why, in due course, the Government will announce their response to that consultation.

Is the Minister aware that if a Member of Parliament tries to find out whether and, if so, how, a decision by the Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid can be justified, he will be told that the facts of the case are confidential? If he then asks the ombudsman to inquire, the ombudsman will tell him that he cannot inquire unless he is asked to do so by a party to the case. I understand that even if our noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor were to ask, he would be told that the matter was confidential. Will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the Legal Aid Board can be made more accountable to Parliament and place a note of his conclusions in the Library?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the Legal Aid Board should be accountable, but that it is also important that its decisions to grant legal aid in specific cases should not be influenced in any way by governmental or individual political decisions. That is why, as I said earlier, the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department not to respond on individual cases is right. My hon. Friend is quite right, however, that the Legal Aid Board must be seen to be accountable for its actions.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the procedure for closure of court buildings. [21924]

The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for the Crown and county court estate, and has no plans to change its procedure for considering court closure. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department has no role in initiating the closure of magistrates courts, which falls to the local magistrates courts committee.

The Minister will be aware that Wakefield Crown court was closed two years ago. As that building is still in the ownership of the Government and has not yet been sold, can he give me an assurance that the building will be properly maintained, because concern has been expressed about its fabric? It is one of the finest buildings in Wakefield. Bearing it in mind that, since its closure, it has been used nearly 300 times for court purposes, will he review the formal closure programme agreed two years ago?

It is important to distinguish the cases that are dealt with at Wakefield Crown court from the generality of cases dealt with at Wakefield county court. The county court deals with a range of civil business and will continue to do so, whereas the cases dealt with at Wakefield Crown court are those transferred to it from the Leeds area—some 262 cases according to my latest information. I am keen to ensure that the fabric of all buildings within the Government's estate are properly maintained. In view of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I will look into the matter.

When my hon. Friend goes to Wakefield to look into the matter, perhaps he could pop on to Calder Valley to pay me a visit at the same time, because we in Calder Valley would like to thank him and the Lord Chancellor for their recent decision on the magistrates committee in Calderdale. Small market town courts are important; if we lose them, we lose a cadre of solicitors and associated people who have known a town and district for generations. That would also affect the speed of justice, but law's delay is less irksome if we keep as many courts as possible.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in relation to the recent meeting that the Lord Chancellor and I had with him to discuss the organisation of magistrates courts in his area. I draw the distinction, as I did in reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), about the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department in considering the future of county court premises as against the magistrates courts, but I give an assurance to the House that the factors that influence the Lord Chancellor's Department are primarily geared towards improving the service to court users and that, in those circumstances, financial considerations do not overrule any other considerations in relation to court premises.

Is the Minister aware that the funding arrangements and the formula applied by the Lord Chancellor's Department in calculating grant to local magistrates courts committees is responsible for many of the closures of courthouses and courtrooms and the laying off of court staff, especially those responsible for security and the collection of awards made to victims of crime? Is he aware of the widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about the impact on the morale of the Court Service and on the interests of justice? Imposing Treasury-driven inflexible rules on the magistrates court system has led to incalculable harm and denial of justice.

I am aware of the fact that the magistrates courts committees are funded on a formula basis, and that is a necessary and essential product of the fact that we decided, following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, to retain the independence of those magistrates courts committees.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors have been prosecuted for attempting to defraud the Legal Aid Board in each of the last three years. [21925]

The number of concluded cases where solicitors have appeared at court charged with offences of fraud or attempted fraud against the Legal Aid Board in the past three years are as follows. In 1993–94, three cases; in 1994–95, no cases; in 1995–96, two cases. In addition, 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or are awaiting trial.

Does the Minister accept that that may well be the tip of an iceberg, especially in view of the number of complaints that pass through my constituency surgery about the quality of service provided by solicitors? Is it not about time for us to ensure that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau starts acting more like the General Medical Council, for example, with clear powers and an independent role? My constituents perceive that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau is merely a mechanism by which solicitors investigate themselves. We should have a far more independent element in order to retain people's confidence in the system.

My response earlier that 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or awaiting trial tends to run against the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. Between 1990 and 1995, about 4,600 investigations have been undertaken of solicitors or of assisted persons, but decisions as to whether there should be prosecutions in individual cases must remain that of the individual prosecuting authorities.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, increasingly, the Legal Aid Board is regarded as a soft touch by unscrupulous solicitors and unscrupulous litigants?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the legal profession, whose members, for the most part, behave with the utmost integrity, must take on board the message that those individual solicitors, small in number, who are engaged in improper activity must be rooted out and dealt with. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to do that.

Does the Minister have the figures for disciplinary proceedings instigated against solicitors acting in legal aid cases? Is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among senior officers of the Legal Aid Board? Some solicitors are not doing their job properly and wasting a large amount of public money, as well as giving a very bad service for that reason.

As I said earlier, it is certainly the Government's view that we could be targeting legal aid expenditure very much better than we are doing at the moment. That is the philosophy that underpins the Government's approach to consultation about taking forward changes to the legal aid structure. At the same time it is important to draw a distinction between cases in which one is dealing with disciplinary proceedings against individual solicitors and allegations of fraud. Cases in which fraud may have taken place must clearly remain in the hands of the individual and independent prosecuting authorities.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has had over the administration of magistrates courts in London. [21926]

My officials are in regular contact with the strategic management body which represents the management interests of all the outer London courts and with the inner London magistrates courts committee on a wide variety of issues.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Merton magistrates court is working very well under the current arrangements for the 20 outer London courts. Will he assure the House that when the matter is reviewed the demands of cash limits will not mean that courts will be amalgamated, thus abolishing the undoubted benefits of local autonomy?

My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear me say that it is far too early for me to give a categorical assurance on that matter at this point. He is aware that it is the Government's policy to review the position five years after the establishment of the strategic management body, which was set up in September 1994. My Department has received reports of its operation in the past year and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are currently considering them.