To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the outturn costs for funding of Southern Arts in 1996–97. [28331]

The forecast outturn costs of Southern Arts in 1996–97 are £4,306,000.

In view of that generous figure, can my hon. Friend explain why Southern Arts has this year seen fit to slash the core funding that it makes available to the Athenaeum theatre in Warminster in my constituency? Is he aware that this popular local theatre is now in something of a quandary in that, if it puts on the popular theatre that people want to see, it loses funding on artistic criteria grounds, but if it puts on the politically correct claptrap that Southern Arts wants it to put on, no one comes to see its productions? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Athenaeum is precisely the kind of popular, small, local theatre that we should be doing more to support? Will he draw this case to the attention of the Arts Council?

I know from our discussions of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in the Athenaeum theatre in Warminster. Given that the Arts Council provides some 82 per cent. of Southern Arts' funding, I shall draw Southern Arts' activities to the attention of the chairman of the Arts Council.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what forecasts she has made of expenditure on millennium projects for each year until 2000. [28341

The Millennium Commission currently has grant commitments totalling £721 million, and plans to spend more than £1 billion on capital projects. The commission expects to offer a £200 million grant to the millennium exhibition and to allocate £200 million to millennium awards to individuals. Annual expenditure is led by the progress of projects, with lottery income determining expenditure levels. The commission expects cash outgoings to rise to around £100 million this year, £350 million in 1997–98 and £450 million in 1998–99.

Is not the Secretary of State a bit alarmed by the volume of expenditure going on a number of millennium projects that cannot be said to be of much long-term value or any social benefit? I am thinking of projects such as the ludicrous ferris wheel that it is proposed to build across the river from here. Does she think that it would be better if, as a nation heading into the 21st century, we set the real objective of ensuring that every homeless person had a roof over his head and that there was no longer a housing shortage? People who are desperate for a roof over their head, or somewhere decent to bring up their children, are not excited by the idea of 2,000 ft high office blocks, a ferris wheel or exhibition centres. Does she think that we should be considering this country's social needs as a priority and an indication of how we want to live in the next century?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should use lottery money cautiously and sensibly with a view to the long term. I note that his constituency has already received about £2.25 million in 22 awards for worthwhile and exciting projects such as a law centre and schemes to help young and disadvantaged people and to provide child care.

Is not the millennium exhibition of great social value, in that it will generate jobs for 5,000 people, regenerate a deprived area of inner London and attract a large number of tourists to Britain, whose spending generates a massive amount of employment? Will not people be absolutely astonished if we get to the millennium and there is no great central national exhibition to mark it?

My hon. Friend is right. The Greenwich exhibition offers the prospect of an enormous regeneration project, creating a huge number of jobs. The Labour party cannot be trusted on any aspect of the lottery. Its Front-Bench spokesmen did not support the National Lottery etc. Bill on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that it would lead to a great threat to jobs. The Henley centre recently said that, overall, the lottery would result in 110,000 new jobs, with 28,000 created this year alone.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, with just over three years to go before the start of the millennium year, there is no time to waste if we are to make a success of the exhibition? Like everyone who has seen the models and plans, she will know that the exhibition has the potential to be a hugely exciting showcase for all that is good in Britain in 2000 and a worthy successor to the great exhibition of 1851 and the 1951 festival of Britain. If that potential is to be realised, it is essential that there should be no prevarication or delay and that the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also involved, should give an absolute commitment to delivering it in time and on budget.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has played an important part. Tribute should also be paid to Simon Jenkins, the chairman of the exhibition committee, and to the member of the committee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

"The millennium exhibition is a huge opportunity for attracting foreign visitors to Britain. This is the ideal chance … to show that they can provide the same level of service within the UK as they do for people travelling overseas."

You did not tell me.

In parenthesis, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

What is the difference between one day and another and one date and another? Is not the whole millennium thing a load of nonsense? I never thought that I would come to say this, but for once in my political life I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

It is said that a kind of millennium fever is inclined to take over communities, making them believe that pigs may fly. Having heard my hon. Friend's comments, I am beginning to think that it may have affected the House. It seems to me that, in times of uncertainty and turbulence, the millennium offers this country and the planet the opportunity for a moment of regeneration and renewal to bind communities together. That is the spirit that the Millennium Commission has sought to pursue. Overall, it is widely welcomed.

May I point out to the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I voted in favour of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993? It does not become her to suggest otherwise.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls that he was not a Front-Bench spokesman at the time of the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of her Department's initiatives to boost private sector sponsorship of the arts. [2836]

Since its inception in 1984, the Government's pairing scheme for the arts has brought more than £110 million of new money into the arts. Earlier this year, I announced improvements to the scheme aimed at encouraging longer-term partnerships between businesses and arts organisations and projects which increase access to the arts. Indications so far are that the new rules are proving popular with arts organisations and businesses alike.

My right hon. Friend has clearly acknowledged the outstanding success of the business sponsorship pairing scheme. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which administers the scheme? Does my right hon. Friend have the measure of the Chancellor? When we hear the Budget statement next week, shall we see a continuation and, if possible, an extension of the business sponsorship pairing scheme?

My hon. Friend is quite right to praise the pairing scheme and the work of ABSA. It has been a formidable success, added to now by the massive increase in funding for the arts through the national lottery and support from central Government and local government. We now see a renaissance and excitement in the arts which was rarely seen in previous years.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration is being given to emphasising the Christian character of the millennium celebration. [12837]

The Government recognise that the millennium marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. I have spoken with the Archbishop of Canterbury about how this can best be reflected in a national celebration of the millennium. My Department has set up a millennium co-ordinating group on which the Churches are represented. The Millennium Commission has funded a number of projects reflecting the Christian character of the millennium, including grants for church bells and bell towers and for church floodlighting. The beginning of the third millennium will be a time of renewal and celebration for people of all faiths and for those with none.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does she recall that our forebears at the time of the previous millennium started to build our great cathedrals as a fitting landmark of the Christian heritage? Does she agree that a modern equivalent landmark might be the millennium Christian village project, of which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and I have given her details?

I did indeed meet the team and I was enormously impressed by the millennium Christian village project. Involving young people in promoting spiritual renewal and regeneration is extremely important at this special time. My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the recent announcement by English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund of an additional £20 million a year to invest in the built heritage of our churches. I welcome the document on ecclesiastical heritage issued today by the Church of England. Our churches form part of the fabric of our villages, towns and communities and it is important that we invest in their built heritage as well as the spiritual renewal of our country.

Rather than investing in grandiose projects, would it not be best to concentrate much-needed money on the simple restoration needs of mediaeval churches? The Secretary of State need go no further than the crypt of the House of the Commons to see the deterioration that is being caused—perhaps through water ingress—to such unusual pieces of religious art as the picture of Judas Iscariot? Should we not look to our own House of Commons as an example of what should be done by way of restoration?

I shall certainly look into the matter. Having opened the Houses of Parliament art exhibition this morning, I believe that our House is in order in that regard, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). However, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the many small projects that should be funded. So far, 104 churches have received lottery funding amounting to £10.3 million. There are many other projects. For example, some 400 churches are involved in a floodlighting scheme, and there are also schemes for church bells. As the hon. Gentleman said, small schemes as well as large ones should be part of the tapestry of provision.

May I refer my right hon. Friend to the initiative that the Archbishop of Canterbury launched this morning, to which she referred? Will she give a firm pledge that not only extra lottery money, but more money from the Government, whose real responsibility it is, will go towards the restoration and maintenance of our historic churches? There can be no fitter way of commemorating the millennium than ensuring their survival through the next century.

I shall note the comments by my hon. Friend, who has been extremely constructive in helping us to make considerable progress in easing access to and understanding of schemes for churches and cathedrals. Substantially more money is spent on those projects, although a high standard of conservation practice is required. Investment in our churches is one of the most worthwhile heritage projects that we can support.

I am not averse to crucifying a few Tories to celebrate the millennium or, indeed, feeding them to the lions, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that we live in a multi-faith society? According to the Jewish calendar, this year is 5757, according to the Islamic calendar it is 1417, according to the Indian Hindu calendar it is 2054, and according to the Bengali Hindu calendar it is 1403. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course I am; I could not remember all those dates. In those circumstances, we could be in permanent millennium mode. The only thing that would put me off—and upset the country—is the thought that the right hon. Lady would be in charge of the celebrations.

I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman being so uncharacteristically ungentlemanly. I am a Conservative and Britain is a Christian country. It is a Christian millennium. Having said that, I accept that we live in a multi-faith society, and I am pleased that the Millennium Commission and other distributing bodies have been supporting projects from a range of faiths. For example, the Millennium Commission is looking sympathetically at an exciting project supported by the Hindu community in Preston, and other similar ventures.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking in respect of competitive sport in schools; and if she will make a statement. [2838]

The Government are determined to restore competitive team games to the heart of school life. It is a crucial element of our overall strategy for sport, which ranges from revived sport in schools, through sport scholarships for top athletes, to the British academy of sport.

I warmly welcome the Government's strategy of trying to get competitive sports back into schools, and particularly welcome the announcement of the proposal to give scholarships to athletes as young as 11. Will my hon. Friend also encourage initiatives such as that being undertaken at Ashburton high school in my constituency, where a feasibility study is being carried out into providing dual use sports facilities for the school?

I know of the project at Ashburton high school from previous discussions with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on the vigour with which he supports it. I shall gladly draw the attention of the Sports Council to what he says about that excellent project.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to encourage overseas visitors to London to visit the regions and countries within the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [28391]

We want overseas visitors to benefit from travel to the countries and regions of the United Kingdom. The image of London is still Britain's best known image abroad, and it is of great benefit to the whole country. The focus London initiative, to which we have allocated an additional £4 million of public money over the past year, highlights the great diversity Britain offers and the ease of access from London. Last year alone, the British Tourist Authority's British travel centre in London gave help and advice on travelling outside the capital to nearly half a million overseas visitors.

I accept what the Secretary of State says about the attractions of London; I have no quarrel with it. Is she aware, however, that half the overseas visitors to the United Kingdom visit only London? Surely that is an unacceptable imbalance, bearing in mind the tourist attractions of the regions of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and, of course, Scotland. If she accepts that principle, should she not be trying to do more than she has stated to get people out of London and the south-east to other parts of the country? That would help to reverse some of the drain of defeated Scottish Tory Members of Parliament—who have taken the low road to England to get seats—such as her Minister of State.

Since he represents the wonderful city of Glasgow, the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware of its huge tourism potential. If I may make a domestic comment, when I spoke to my mother last night, she said that she had just returned from a three-day stay in Glasgow during which she saw the Burrell collection and visited other wonderful museums. I shall do my best to promote Glasgow, as well as other cities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to discourage visitors from going to her county of Surrey is to list various buildings on the former aerospace site at Farnborough, which would mean that the air show would leave this country for Berlin and that the full potential for aerospace heritage on that site could not be commemorated as we approach the end of the first century of aerospace activities?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a great champion of his cause, and ingenious in finding ways of addressing it in various settings. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I am well aware of the excitement, prosperity and jobs that the Farnborough air show brings to the area. I am also aware of the responsibilities of the Department of National Heritage for proper behaviour with regard to listing. We are consulting on the heritage Green Paper, and this matter is one of the types of consideration that we are addressing. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

The Secretary of State talks of producing a tourism strategy document next year; surely she is aware of our strategic document, "Breaking New Ground", which was launched to great acclaim at the world travel market last week, following wide consultation. In the document, we spell out measures to ensure that overseas visitors are attracted to Britain in greater number in future. Those measures include positive proposals to improve the standards of hotel accommodation, the quality of service and the introduction of a new development of tourism Bill. Instead of undertaking a costly and time-consuming exercise, surely the Secretary of State should join the tourism industry, including Richard Branson, the Granada and Tussaud groups, the Tourism Society and many others who welcomed our document, and get a move on and implement those proposals.

I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would have the gall to mention his document, which sank without trace. I commend more the remarks of the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, who congratulated the Department of National Heritage on all we are doing to recognise the importance of tourism. The real point about the hon. Gentleman's document is that it is a recipe for regulation, bureaucracy and cost. That is the old-fashioned cocktail that the Labour party always believes in. All the tourism industry wanted was the Labour party to say that it would fight against the minimum wage, the social chapter and the 48-hour week, which are likely to cost £100 million and affect 15 per cent. of the industry. That is what the industry wanted, and it is what the Labour party has singularly failed to deliver.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received concerning violence on television and in films. [2840]

My Department has received 65 letters about screen violence during the past three months. I shall meet the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council again shortly to consider how they are responding, and might respond further, to the public's concern on the issue, which, as I have often made clear, I share.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her initiatives on the matter. Does she agree that there is no doubt that the constant screening of television violence permeates society and affects people's behaviour, especially that of the more vulnerable children in society? Will she disregard such bits of propaganda as the survey produced by Sheffield university, which purports to have produced an analysis showing a reduction in the depiction of violence on television? We all know that it is not so much the timing and content of violence as the insidious nature of portrayals of violence that causes so much concern and damage to society.

I totally endorse my hon. Friend's comments. The problem is not only the number of violent incidents, which has fallen, but the quality of their portrayal and how powerful they are in influencing behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he pursues the cause—representing, as I know he does, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, whose headquarters are in his area. We must be determined to achieve further progress, and that is the message that I shall reinforce to the regulators. I shall congratulate them on some encouraging signs so far, but tell them that the people of Britain will not be satisfied until they see that commitment translated into practice.

Will the Secretary of state and all Conservative Members who are so concerned about violence in society, instead of worrying about Violence on television, take the first active Step this evening by voting for a total ban on handguns?

The position on that matter is clear. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that we should be worried not only about what we see on our television screens, but about what young people do with their time. That is one of the reasons we have been so anxious to change the lottery rules to enable more investment in sport, training and coaching. Later this week, the Arts Council will make announcements about arts for everyone, to encourage our young people to be involved in worthwhile activities. I am pleased that we are able to fund initiatives to take that forward.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the BBC has recently published new producers' guidelines on such issues as sex and violence on television?

Parents undoubtedly have a key responsibility. The worrying development of children having televisions in their own rooms means that they can watch television in an isolated way, and I would suggest that, in such cases, the messages of violence are more powerful. I congratulate the BBC on its statement of promises and on its revised producers' guidelines; the House will watch with great care to ensure that they are translated into action.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all payments from the national lottery awarded in Derbyshire. [12841]

To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have made a total of 112 awards worth a total of £7,105,070 to projects in Derbyshire. A full reply will be published in the Official Report.

That is quite remarkable, because when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) wanted to find out from the Government the ranking of constituencies in terms of awards, he was told that he could not have the information as it would involve disproportionate cost. He then went to the Library and, for £15, was able to find out that the three local Labour constituencies—Chesterfield, North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover—were in the lowest 10 per cent. of all the constituencies in Britain. Is it not remarkable that the Secretary of State—who we cannot stop yacking on television about "spreading good news"—refuses to provide real information that is uncomfortable for the Government? There is one law for the friends of the Secretary of State down here, and another for Labour constituencies in the north.

I have apologised in writing to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for the Department misunderstanding his question, and I very gladly apologise to him again now. Derbyshire has not done so badly. Of the 101 counties in the United Kingdom, it is ranked 52nd, which is not too bad. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants some more lottery projects in his constituency, perhaps he will do some more work to get them.

Does my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—if he can hear me over the barracking—that many counties have done extremely well out of the lottery, but that others were perhaps slow off the mark in deciding to apply for lottery funding because their Members of Parliament were against the lottery distributing money to so many good causes?

There are many reasons why different constituencies and counties get more or fewer projects. The distributing bodies have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they must take account of geographical distribution, but they are not allowed to solicit projects and are bound to consider each on its merits, which means that there will be a difference in spread around the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy for the future funding of Channel 4; and if she will make a statement. [2843]

The Government's policy on Channel 4 funding remains as set out during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996—to remove mandatory payments to the reserve immediately and to reduce the liability for payments to channel 3 in two stages in 1998 and 1999.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate Channel 4 on its success in avoiding recourse to the safety net and on making a profit last year of £128 million? Does that not demonstrate that it is possible for Channel 4 to meet its remit and to operate commercially? Will he therefore consider its privatisation at the first opportunity?

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the profits of Channel 4, on which I congratulate the company. I well remember his brief, yet powerful, speech on 18 June in favour of the privatisation of Channel 4. The Government have made no decision about privatising the channel, but we keep all options under review.

Will the Minister go further and rule out any prospect of privatising Channel 4? Does he accept that the quality and diversity of broadcasting offered by the 35 television channels in New York compare poorly with that offered by the four channels here? The public service obligation is an important principle and it should be maintained.

I have no doubt that the Government will take full account of what happens in New York and in Channel 4 when considering all the options.

A suspicious man might consider that there was some significance in the fact that the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who asked the main question, and the Minister are wearing the same old school tie; fortunately, the Minister did not see his way to going quite as far as some of us might have feared. We join him in welcoming the increased funds available to Channel 4, which will immediately be channelled into programming. What discussions has he had with Channel 4 about the routes through which the funding will go? Will he state his support for the principle of Channel 4 as it was set up—as a publicly funded and operated channel, catering for minority tastes and interests?

We have had discussions with Channel 4 about rejigging the funding formula, and will have further discussions as seem appropriate. As far as privatisation is concerned, I will support the Government line.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she plans to take to improve the competitiveness of the tourism industry. [2844]

Following the recent launch of my Department's latest report in the "Competing with the Best" series, we are working with the industry on an action plan to improve the quality of tourism's most important resource—its people. We are co-operating with local government and the tourist boards on the follow-up to the recent conference on tourism and the planning system. My Department and the tourist boards are now working with the recently established industry forum to draw up a new strategy for tourism, which I plan to publish early next year.

Let me make it clear that if my old school had a tie, this would not be it.

Chip on your shoulder.

Fifteen-love.

Whether or not my hon. Friend went to the right school, he certainly makes the right point about protecting tourism. The minimum wage, the social chapter and the working time directive all present major threats to an industry that relies on a flexible work force. That is the key message that comes over time and again. Ramon Pajares of the Savoy Group said:

"What I want from Government is the freedom to run my business."

Does the Secretary of State accept that, if our tourism industry is to be fully competitive, visitors must be able to inform themselves of the history of the areas in which they find themselves? Does she agree that the "Victoria County History" is one of the great undertakings of British scholarship? Is she aware, however, that in many counties the project is limping along or is in abeyance for lack of funds? Will she ensure, therefore, that the National Heritage Bill is amended to make it clear that the "Victoria County History" will be eligible to receive lottery funds distributed by the national heritage memorial fund?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and will examine it in detail. We have been modifying heritage legislation to ensure that, as with arts and sport, we can fund education, access, participation and young people, as well as old buildings and the support structure. I will certainly consider that matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact on betting turnover of the second weekly national lottery draw. [2845]

No such assessment has been made. It was for the Director General of the National Lottery to decide whether to allow a midweek draw, and the impact of the draw on betting turnover was not a consideration that he was able to take into account.

My hon. Friend will know of my commitment to the national lottery, but is he aware of its impact on betting turnover, with job losses and betting shop closures? Is he further aware of the impact of the anomaly in this country whereby punters can bet on the Irish lottery but not on our own? All that is having a severe effect on the viability of the horseracing industry, because the prize money is now wholly uncompetitive by international standards.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the racing industry, which has an excellent champion in him. The Home Office is considering whether more deregulatory measures could be introduced to help the gaming industry.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation he has had with the Law Society on the setting of priorities for legal aid support. [2863]

The Lord Chancellor and I have met the president and other members of the Law Society on several occasions in the past few months to discuss legal aid. We expect to have regular discussions as the reforms progress. I will soon start a programme of visits to local law societies to talk to practitioners about the reforms and how they will be implemented.

Does not the Law Society want a legal aid system that offers advice and assistance to people who pay their taxes? The way in which civil cases are attended to is a scandal. It cannot be right for people of modest means who work and pay taxes to be denied access to the legal system. People on pensions, who make contributions to legal aid, have to pay extra because of the length of time that it takes for cases to come to court. When will the Government make the system fairer and speed up the process of legal aid cases coming to court?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point; it is vital that we speed up access to justice, and that is one reason why the Government are implementing the Woolf reforms, which will make that access not only simpler and faster but cheaper. I am grateful to him for voicing support for our legal aid reforms; we are in discussion with the Law Society about them and it is perfectly proper and natural for the society to speak up for its members, but the Government will not be deflected from introducing the reforms at the earliest opportunity, to create a justice system of which we can all be proud.

Is my hon. Friend aware that far too many people who are not entitled to it still get legal aid, especially the self-employed and those whom I would call wheeler-dealers, who have a great facility for pulling the wool over the eyes of officials and getting recompense for not only criminal but civil matters, as the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said? That causes great resentment among those who feel that they should be entitled.

My hon. Friend is quite right: too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases still slip through the net, which is why the Government are introducing radical reform. Tinkering with the system is not enough: we must control the budget, determine our national priorities and improve the merits test. We will do all those things, and we look forward to receiving the support of Opposition Members.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current position with regard to the evaluation of the Woolf report; and if he will make a statement. [2864]

On 31 October, I placed in the Library a copy of the Lord Chancellor's strategy for implementing Lord Woolf s recommendations. It proposes that the major elements of the reforms—the fast track, the multitrack and the new cost regime—will be in place by October 1998. The new civil procedure rules to underpin the changes will also be in place in time for implementation.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he please assure me that there will be no further cuts in the availability of services in county court centres and trial centres in Wales? I have in mind in particular the Welsh language provision that is available in several county court centres; at present, we are on minimum cover, and any further cuts would be extremely damaging.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not expected that our reforms to civil procedures will threaten county courts in Wales. I assure him that the Woolf reforms will build on the proposals for Welsh language provision in the civil justice system. He has probably already seen the literature, not only in English but in Welsh, that my Department has produced on alternative dispute resolution.

Many small magistrates courts in market towns have disappeared, which has taken away a cadre of solicitors that was important to those towns. Will the Woolf report be used to re-establish some of those local centres?

My hon. Friend is a champion of the interests of his constituents—now as he always has been. The Woolf reforms do not touch on the provision of magistrates courts. Decisions to close them are a matter for local magistrates courts committees, which always take soundings and enter into extensive consultation before taking any such decision.

When will the Minister make public the costings of the Woolf report? What resources are to be applied to meeting its resource implications? Does he recognise that in the county courts, which will have to play a major part in its implementation, staff are being laid off and that there is widespread concern among district and county court judges? How can the country take his protestations seriously when ordinary people such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) are not getting the justice to which they are entitled?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got that off his chest. Every time he speaks, he appears to commit the Labour party to yet more spending. He may be assured that we will commit the resources necessary to implement the Woolf reforms. I also look to him to support the Civil Procedure Bill in due course.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a progress report on the rebuilding work at Weymouth land registry; and how many people are planned to be employed there in the forthcoming year. [2865]

The new offices for Weymouth district land registry are in the final stages of construction and are on target and within budget. The main building was completed and occupied in July 1996; ancillary works are scheduled for completion by February 1997. The Weymouth district land registry employs 454 people and there are no plans to increase that number. The new building at Weymouth was necessary to replace temporary accommodation and not to facilitate expansion.

May I put on record my thanks and that of my constituents for the investment made by the Government in continuing to have the land registry and for ensuring that our excellent headquarters has been provided? How much money has been invested in the new headquarters? Is there any sign that house sales are starting to move and that the volume of registrations going through the land registry is increasing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose efforts helped to bring about that building programme. He will be pleased to learn that we have so far spent more than £7.8 million on the project, which is continuing. There is clear evidence from land registry data of improvement in the housing market. The volume of registrations is increasing this year by more than 6 per cent. and there has been an average rise of 5 per cent. in prices over the first three quarters of 1996. That is good news for home owners and for the economy.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the accountability to Parliament of his Department. [2866]

The Lord Chancellor's Department is, and will remain, properly accountable to Parliament through its Ministers. The Government's response to the Public Service Select Committee's report on ministerial accountability and responsibility was published on 7 November.

How is the Lord Chancellor accountable for the magistrates court changes? He said that he wanted to make them by consensus and the Minister said that he had taken wide soundings. Does he realise that those soundings have not included hon. Members? In one part of Wales, which occupies a quarter of the land mass of Wales, there will be only four courts left. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) had to write in to get his copy of the report. Is it not wrong that the House should not be fully consulted on changes that will reduce the service provided by magistrates courts throughout Wales?

As I have said, the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for magistrates courts committees, which are made up of lay justices in each community. When a decision is made to close a magistrates court, there is, however, a right of appeal by the local paying authority. We get involved at that stage. I have already seen members of the hon. Gentleman's party and other Members representing the Principality who are concerned about the closure of magistrates courts in their constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avail himself of the same facility, I will be delighted to see him—my door is always open.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the much improved accountability between his Department and Members of Parliament that I have witnessed in the past few years. In particular, I congratulate him on his Department's willingness to meet hon. Members to discuss not only constituency problems but wider ones. Problems of law are extremely complicated, and would my hon. Friend please bear in mind that the more his Department can circulate its proposals and thoughts on any particular issue in "Dear colleague" letters or any other form, the clearer we will be about the future of the legal system and the more able to support it from both sides of the House?

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's kind words about our attempts to communicate and consult with Members of the House. We will of course continue to do that. We are always particularly keen to learn from hon. Members who have relevant experience, and my hon. and learned Friend comes into that category.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he received in the last parliamentary Session from hon. Members that were forwarded for answer to the agencies attached to his Department. [2868]

In the last parliamentary Session, 642 representations from hon. Members were forwarded for answer to the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible.

Quite correctly, Members of Parliament are not allowed to approach the courts, as that would represent interference in the operation of law and order. Traditionally they could approach the Lord Chancellor, but now in hundreds of cases it seems that many of our queries are being passed to the Court Service. Surely that suggests that that is one area at least in which the agency arrangements go too far. Our constituents expect us to be able to approach the top—the Lord Chancellor—in connection with court cases and get a response from him.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no change in ministerial accountability and responsibility to the House. In my opinion, it is quite correct that letters about specific court cases should be sent by the person with the day-to-day management responsibility—the chief executive of the Court Service. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for nine years and surely he knows by now that, if he is unhappy with a response from the agencies, he can contact Ministers at any time. Once again I find myself saying to a Labour Member that my door is always open.

Would my hon. Friend agree to accept representations on the activities of judges? Is he aware of increasing concern in the House that judges are getting involved in political matters in judgments where they seem to be making up the law as they go along? Is he aware of a recent case in which a judge appeared on a television programme to campaign against my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's legislation? Does he agree that that is beyond the remit of a judge, who should be answerable to Parliament through the laws that we pass?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his timing. He makes an important point, because it is for Members of the House to legislate and it is for the judiciary to implement the law of the land. However, we welcome a lively debate, including the involvement of members of the judiciary, and we do not seek to stifle debate within our party, as, sadly, Labour Members have done in their own party in the past three years.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of law centres. [2870]

I have no specific plans on the future of law centres, which are independent and are funded from a variety of sources. On legal aid, it will be open to centres to bid for contracts of the kind proposed in the recent White Paper, "Striking the Balance", to provide legal services in their areas of expertise.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Before I ask my question, I should declare an interest because I used to give regular free legal advice at a free legal advice centre. May I ask the Minister to commend the work of free legal advice centres and law centres, to do all he can to expand their work and to receive representations as to how that might be achieved?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that law centres are an important part of the provision of legal advice in this country, but we do not propose to expand dramatically the number of law centres in this country, as the Labour party proposes to do. That would take millions of pounds away from high-street and family solicitors and would be a further charge on the taxpayer. We have no plans to introduce such a policy.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about legal aid. [2871]

I frequently receive representation on this matter from professional bodies and associations, pressure groups, advice services, individual solicitors and advocates and members of the public. I have been pleased with the level of public support for our White Paper proposals.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads The Mail on Sunday and the article by Mr. Peter Dobbie, which highlighted a case that is funded through legal aid in which the litigants and the defendants seem to be citizens of a country other than the United Kingdom and are not appearing in court themselves? Does he realise that a raft of money is being wasted on legal aid and that most of us believe that the legal aid system is out of all financial control? The sooner his reforms come into effect, the better.

No Sunday is complete without The Mail on Sunday and, of course, there has been a spate of recent cases reported in the newspapers confirming that we are on the right track with our White Paper proposals; that there are still too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases being provided with legal aid in this country; and that a budget of £1.4 billion, which is rising at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum, is far too high. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we must proceed with our legal aid reforms, and that is what we are doing.