To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she has had with the Department of Health over the future of the buildings of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [7593]

None, as yet; the St. Bartholomew's hospital site is still operational, and it is not likely to close for at least another five years. Obviously, my Department will be involved at the appropriate time in discussions over the future of that important historic site.

My hon. Friend will recognise the grave disquiet that is still felt by many at the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital, after almost nine centuries of distinguished use for medical purposes. Will he assure the House that he will liaise extremely closely with the Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew Charitable Foundation, which is now linked with the special trustees and the Corporation of London, to ensure that there is an appropriate future user of that magnificent site, and that an act of medical vandalism is not followed by an act of architectural vandalism?

I can tell my hon. Friend that a group has been set up, under Sir Ronald Grierson, to examine suitable possible uses for the site. Sir Ronald has said that, whatever use is made of the site, it will continue to have a medical association and will be used for a purpose that is suitable to its history. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

As a Conservative Minister, does the hon. Gentleman not get sick and tired of his colleagues criticising decisions taken by the likes of himself arid the Secretary of State for National Heritage when those decisions do not suit their colleagues' purposes—as if their colleagues have no responsibility in those matters? Is it not a matter of Conservative policy that Bart's is to close, and is it not true that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) is guilty by association? He is to blame, as are the Minister and the right hon. Lady.

The medical future of St. Bartholomew's is a matter for the Department of Health. However, the importance of that historical site is partially a matter for my Department, and I shall ensure that my Department fulfils entirely its obligations.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the impact of the national lottery on the British film industry [7594]

The national lottery has had a good impact on the British film industry, which is currently enjoying an excellent year. Already, more than £60 million has been awarded to 150 projects, which includes more than £35 million for 96 film productions. That is a tremendous achievement in so short a time, and it has been welcomed by the film industry.

As Britain has brilliant film producers, actors, actresses and other creative talent, and as the revival of the British film industry was already well under way even before the additional £60 million, to which my right hon. Friend has already referred, from the Arts Council—from lottery funds, so building on our strengths—will she join me in warmly welcoming the film industry's tremendous achievements? It is a terrific national asset.

I warmly congratulate the film industry, which has had a wonderful centenary year. Last week's exhibition by the British Film Institute—"Still Moving After 100 Years"—which was very much co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), set a magnificent example. This year, more than 100 films have gone into production; the ITV network and Channel 4 have each announced more than £100 million for film; cinema admissions have exceeded £100 million; and the film festival exceeded 100,000 admissions. In the past 25 years, more than 100 Oscars have been awarded to British talent. Moreover, of the many major films made in Britain in the past year, one of them was "101 Dalmatians".

Funds provided to the British film industry from the national lottery are of course welcome. However, the right hon. Lady has withdrawn from the Eurimages scheme, and apparently she intends not to join in the European guarantee fund—thereby excluding our film-makers and film industry from access to European funds. In her response to the Middleton committee, she said that she would establish a film finance forum. Will she guarantee the House that that forum will provide the British film industry with greater access to funding, and thereby make up for the shortfall that she has imposed on it by withdrawing from those schemes and by blocking our entry to others? What is her answer?

The difference between the Labour party and us is that we take a strategic view on supporting the projects that will deliver a practical return. This year, we took the view that the right thing to do was to put an extra £250,000 into the National Film and Television School and to put extra money into the British Film Commission and the British Film Institute. We believe that that is the way forward. We have been able to accept eight of the 11 recommendations of the Middleton report. On that basis, the British film industry will go from strength to strength.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the impact of the national lottery on (a) the Football Trust and (b) the bingo industry; and if she will make a statement. [7595]

The Department has received more than 80 letters in respect of Football Trust funding from Members of Parliament and football clubs, in addition to representations from the trust itself. The Department has also received representations about the impact of the national lottery on the bingo industry, which have been passed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has responsibility for bingo.

In view of the impact of the national lottery on the Football Trust, will the Government consider allowing the smaller clubs in the Football League to implement the Taylor proposals on an extended timetable—say, to 2002 or 2003? How can the Secretary of State claim to be the champion of the bingo industry when she refuses it a level playing field with the national lottery? A level playing field would at least enable the bingo industry to advertise its own lottery.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the national lottery has had a serious effect on the finances of the Football Trust. However, we think that the trust's estimate of a shortfall of some £33 million is perhaps too high. The Football Licensing Authority has recently considered the figures and agrees that the estimate is perhaps a little too high. I hope that the trust and the FLA can work things out together. At the moment, we are certainly not thinking of increasing the time scale within which the Taylor proposals have to be implemented—we want to stick to August 1999.

My hon. Friend will know how important the Football Trust and the bingo industry are for the north-west of Britain, and Lancashire in particular. Will he therefore liaise with the Home Secretary and ensure that, if necessary, rules are introduced to make certain that the bingo industry can, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, compete with the national lottery on a national field? Otherwise, we are likely to see the industry decline considerably in the years ahead—something that none of us wants.

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is currently considering, in the context of his review of the entire gambling industry, what further deregulation and liberalisation might help the bingo industry.

Is the Minister aware that the Football Trust has today written to all clubs in the Football League and the Scottish League to say that the national lottery has so reduced its income that it has had to impose, with immediate effect, a moratorium on grants for the implementation of the Taylor report? In view of the dramatic decline in the trust's income, there will be an immediate halt on essential safety work at lower league clubs such as Blackpool, Portsmouth, Brighton, Luton, Exeter, East Fife, Falkirk and many more. In the light of the Secretary of State's helpful comments in the Football Trust's annual report 1995–96, highlighting the important work that lies ahead in helping smaller clubs to improve their spectator facilities by the 1999 season, will the Minister join her in meeting the trust in an attempt to remedy that worrying situation?

As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), it is certainly true that the national lottery has had a serious impact on the Football Trust. However, as he will know, the Treasury has in effect forgone some 16 per cent. of pools duty—10 per cent. in two tranches of 5 per cent. is to help the pools industry and 6 per cent. is to go direct to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust. In addition, the Premiership has signed a deal for £743 million for television rights for four years from 1997, while the Football League is in the first year of a five-year £125 million television deal. That should all be taken into account, but I should be happy to meet the Football Trust to try to find a better solution.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many individual prizes have been won since the national lottery was established. [7596]

As at 9 December, more than 133 million prizes had been won on the on-line game.

That is an excellent figure, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are still concerned that some of the prizes are exceptionally large, particularly in roll-over weeks? Does she agree that there is still a case for Camelot to examine whether the public would prefer 10 people to win £1 million in a weekend rather than £10 million being won by one person, as sometimes happens?

The lottery remains under review, although there is no evidence so far that winning one of the large prizes has any adverse effect. Like others, I have studied Hunter Davies's book, "Living on the Lottery". On the whole, it told a favourable tale of what it is like to win a substantial prize. The allocation of prizes is designed to maximise the return to the good causes. In roll-over weeks, far more people play the national lottery. That means that even more good causes are supported. Seven good causes in my hon. Friend's constituency have already been assisted and I am sure that he will want to know that the national total is 10,394 awards, with £2.78 billion raised for good causes. There has not been a more effective lottery anywhere in the world.

Is the Minister aware that some prizes have been claimed by under-age purchasers? Has she noticed the early-day motion signed by several hon. Members expressing concern about the ease with which under-age people can purchase tickets, especially scratchcards? Would it not be better to have further controls under the licensed betting office system with an age threshold of 18? That would obviously curtail many purchases by under-age children.

I am entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman in condemning under-age play. I welcome the recent announcements by the Office of the National Lottery and Camelot about the further action that they intend to take. One of the most effective sanctions is the removal of the on-line game. Some 35,000 retail outlets currently benefit from being part of the national lottery, providing them with an average of £8,000 a year. The greatest sanction is the removal of that income. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his concerns. We shall continue to be vigilant in ensuring that under-age children do not play.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many proposals from Kent have received funding in the various categories from the national lottery. [7597]

A total of 171 lottery awards have been made in Kent, to a total value of more than £15 million. Eleven awards each have been made to the arts and the heritage, 97 to charities and voluntary organisations and 52 to sports projects.

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we in Kent are grateful for that, but we are still waiting for a major award. The county town is striving to create a new park along the river Medway, to give the town the ambience that it deserves. Can he give us any encouragement that the project—now being put forward for the second time of asking—has a chance of receiving support?

My hon. Friend may be glad to know that, of the 58 county and unitary authorities, Kent comes 22nd in the list for the total amount received and eighth in the list for the number of projects for which awards have been made. I know from our previous conversations that my hon. Friend is very keen on the Maidstone river park project. It is up to the commission to decide whether to give it money, but it is a splendid project and I am sure that it will get a fair review.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the sporting ambassadors initiative. [7598]

Sir Colin Cowdrey has been appointed to chair a new committee to look at ways of encouraging more sporting ambassadors to visit schools. The committee, which has Roger Black, Steven Redgrave and Jo Durie among its members, met for the first time last week. It is the intention that the scheme will be up and running in schools before the end of the current academic year.

Is that not wonderful news for sportsmen and sportswomen up and down the country? The scheme will enhance Britain's performance in athletics and in sport generally around the world. Will not Britain's performance be further enhanced by the British Academy of Sport, at a cost of £100 million? We in north-west Kent are particularly delighted to see that the bid for the British Academy of Sport, from north-west Kent, Kent Thames-side, has been shortlisted by my hon. Friend. We look forward to it becoming a success because, if it is, the facilities in north-west Kent will very much enhance the prospect of London being the site for the 2004 Olympics.

My hon. Friend is right. The sporting ambassadors scheme will be a tremendous boost for boys and girls at school because their heroines and heroes will come to encourage, enthuse and inspire them in sport. Getting sport back at the heart of school life is part of our overarching strategy for sport, which spreads from schools right up to the eight scholarships for elite athletes and the British Academy of Sport, to which my hon. Friend referred. I know that the Kent application, which I have seen—I met a delegation earlier this year before all the bids came in—is extremely good. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tremendous support that he continues to give to that bid for the British Academy of Sport.

What is the point of sending ambassadors of sport into schools to encourage sport when there have been cuts in local government expenditure? The city of Glasgow is having to reduce its ability to rent out sporting facilities to clubs and it is reducing the number of sporting facilities in schools in Glasgow. What is the point of encouraging people to take part in sport when sporting facilities are being cut in that way?

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he should ask the Labour local education authority why facilities in schools in Glasgow are being reduced. Secondly, I have never pretended to the House that I was satisfied with sport in schools at the moment, whether in Scotland or in England. A sporting ambassadors scheme that gets stars of sport into schools must lead to a big increase in activity. It will be up and running this year and I believe that every person who is keen on sport will support the idea.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on developments in the voluntary sector since 1979. [7599]

Since 1979, the Government have consistently developed policies to encourage a healthy and effective voluntary sector, to encourage volunteering and to promote effective relations between voluntary organisations and Government Departments. The Government are committed to continuing those policies in the future.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast bulk of lottery awards goes to charities and voluntary bodies? Will she join me in congratulating the Ethiniog Cheshire home in Colwyn bay on its successful bid for almost £200,000 to build a hydrotherapy pool, a gymnasium and other facilities for the rehabilitation of brain damage victims? It is a much-needed development and I very much hope that the health authority will help to take the scheme forward with further funding for a six-bed unit.

I warmly congratulate the Cheshire home; the award will be an excellent Christmas present. Tomorrow, the caring charities announce their final tranche before Christmas of projects for health disability and care. So far, they have awarded £360 million to 5,400 schemes throughout the country. I am sure that all of them will achieve the amount of good in their local community that the Cheshire home has in my hon. Friend's constituency.

The House will congratulate that home on its splendid work, which is carried out by many people who voluntarily sacrifice their time. Is it not true, however, that, despite the growing number of people who need a helping hand or an attentive ear, many of the services that existed in the 1970s have disappeared because funding to public services has shrunk every year? Sadly, many of those services have to be provided by the voluntary sector, which has resulted in an uncertainty of provision by amateurs, who cannot be relied on to maintain a full professional service.

I regret the hon. Gentleman's rather cynical comments. As the Government have created more wealth, we have been able to invest much more in our public services than the Labour party ever did. The successful and flourishing economy enabled us to put an extra £1.6 billion into the national health service this year. In addition, the extra money from the lottery means that even more help can be provided to even more people. In particular, I celebrate the activities of those involved in volunteering, which is part of a civilised and compassionate society. I welcome the recent announcement by the Charity Board endorsing volunteering schemes that encourage the involvement of young people.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm her support for the Community Development Foundation, which has the capacity to cover hundreds of thousands of informal volunteers? Will she confirm that it will continue to have high priority in her Department's expenditure plans?

I strongly support my hon. Friend in his work as chairman of the Community Development Foundation, which has made an important impact and has encouraged the establishment of smaller voluntary groups. I am announcing the establishment of the volunteering partnership forum for England—a group of experts who will advise me on volunteering policy and practice. I shall chair the forum jointly with Mr. Nicholas Ward. A particular focus of the "make a difference" initiative was to encourage young people to become involved in their communities in a positive way. The first target of the volunteering partnership forum for England will be to carry forward the pledge that every young person between 15 and 25 who so wishes will have an opportunity to volunteer. Those involved in the Community Development Foundation will be members of the volunteering partnership forum for England.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department spent on publicity for arts promotion in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94 [7600]

Art galleries, theatres and other arts bodies are responsible for their own promotional activities. My Department has no specific budget for arts promotion. Much of our work is concerned with developing policies to improve access to the arts for everybody—young and old.

Given that answer, can the Minister explain why we get at least three publicity publications a week from her Department? Will she tell us how much they cost?

I can certainly make available the Department's information budget. However, the number of documents produced by my Department is nothing like as significant as the hon. Gentleman implies. This year, we set out a policy, "Setting the Scene" to encourage the involvement of young people in the arts. We take the view that, although buildings are important, it is even more important to involve the next generation in artistic activities. Similarly, we wish more people to know how to claim lottery awards and we have encouraged the Arts Council to promote widely information about how to access lottery funds to ensure the widest possible spread. I would be happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with any further information.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people think that the arts have done rather well as a result of the national lottery, the generosity of her Department and private sponsorship and that most of us share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that enough is enough?

I take my hon. Friend's comments on board. The arts have never had so much opportunity. An extra £695 million has been provided in the past 18 months. In addition, it has been possible to maintain funding for the arts this year and provide more than £3 million more than had been anticipated. I was delighted to see the comments of the distinguished Richard Eyre who said,

"I am happy to eat humble pie",

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she proposes to take to improve public access to, the presentation of, and the information provided at, important heritage sites. [7601]

The main organisations concerned with the presentation of important heritage sites are English Heritage, the Historic Royal Palaces agency, and the National Trust. Those bodies have all made great improvements in recent years in the presentation of their properties to the public.

I assure my hon. Friend that Dover castle is looking in first-class shape these days. It has defended the nation and helped to keep out invaders from Europe for some 900 years. It is a splendid example of the nation's heritage. There have been plans and proposals for converting the officers' mess in Dover castle to improve the presentation and opportunities for visitors. Are those plans progressing?

I can tell my hon. Friend about the splendid aspect of Dover castle as a whole, which English Heritage has various proposals to enhance even further over the coming years at considerable expense—millions of pounds. My hon. Friend will know that, in 1981, the floors of the old officers' mess in Dover castle were in such rotten condition that the Department of the Environment gutted the building. English Heritage is now investigating whether a viable scheme to use the old officers' mess as a hotel might be forthcoming, and would readily welcome such a scheme.

Many Labour Members would like to see the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) strung up by his fleshy parts in the dungeon of the castle.

I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall certainly look at it. I do not accept that the signing is as bad as he says. More than 50 per cent. of all tourists to this country come to London, and they continue to come. Last year, a record number of tourists came here, so matters cannot be as bad as the hon. Gentleman describes. However, everything can be improved. I shall look at the report and see what improvements I can recommend.

One of the buildings that could be joining the illustrious list is Park Hill flats in Sheffield, which were built in the 1950s. As residents say, how can such a concrete mass—I repeat, concrete mass—ever be included in such a list? I agree with them. It is a monstrosity, and I am surprised that it has been listed or even recommended for listing as a heritage site or site of historic value.

My hon. Friend speaks for many when he expresses surprise that that block was listed. It is true—we may come to this in another question—that listed buildings are listed not just because of their beauty, but because of their alleged architectural innovation. No doubt, that is one of the reasons why it was suggested that that block should be listed.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will introduce proposals to ensure a more equitable distribution of lottery awards by the size of population in each geographic area; and if she will make a statement. [7602]

I have instructed the lottery distributors to be aware of the need to ensure a fair and even spread of awards throughout the United Kingdom. Although my directions to the distributing bodies prevent them from soliciting particular applications, they may, where necessary, target their publicity efforts towards certain areas to encourage the submission of the right quality and quantity of applications.

When we speak of lottery awards, we are talking about big spondulicks: £40 for every man, woman and child in the country has been paid out so far in lottery awards, so reasonable distribution of those awards is important. Awards are often more readily accessible under the National Lottery Charities Board provision, yet only one seventh of the money goes to it. Should not money be moved from projects such as the millennium fund to the board, so that local voluntary organisations can get access to it?

The hon. Gentleman will find that, as the different series of awards are announced, all communities, and all parts of the country, will benefit. I have been concerned about the lack of applications from his area, and have visited it to try to encourage more applications to be submitted. In the past quarter, the biggest increase in awards has been in the west midlands, so I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's thoughts in mind. I do not believe that it is sensible to tinker with the different lottery award streams, and I hope that those involved in arts and sport will realise that the Labour party is threatening to reduce—for the first time ever—the amount for such causes.

East midlands, not west.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that distribution of national lottery awards is important because it determines the distribution of the 100,000 jobs that such awards are sustaining around the country? Is she aware that quite a number of jobs are being sustained in my constituency where, for example, the Castle Point volunteer bureau recently received £28,000 from the national lottery, which was very well received?

My hon. Friend is right. He will recall the words of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who first described the lottery as a threat to jobs and

"the unacceptable face of nationalisation."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 731.]

On the equitable distribution of lottery and millennium funds, does the right hon. Lady agree that, although we want a successful exhibition at Greenwich, it should not take place at any price or be allowed to pre-empt more and more Millennium Commission funds, which should legitimately go to other parts of the United Kingdom? If she really wants all-party support for future decisions about that exhibition, will she ensure that deliberations and decision-taking are inclusive rather than exclusive, as they have been until very recently? Will she also finally end the exclusion of Greenwich borough council from the discussions? Is not it absurd to be planning a project in the borough, which will perhaps cost £1 billion, and not include the borough's leadership in consideration of it?

The millennium exhibition is an extremely exciting prospect for Britain; it is Britain's shopfront as we go into a new century. It is a complex project, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware of some of the detailed figures involved. I hope that it will be possible to make more announcements in the near future. As he knows, the Millennium Commission and, indeed, the Government are quite as concerned as he is not to sign a blank cheque, but to ensure that there is good value for grant. The project provides a real opportunity for Britain to celebrate the new millennium.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received on the future of St. Pancras station and St. Pancras chambers; and if she will make a statement. [7603]

Discussions on the future of those buildings have taken place between English Heritage, the Department of Transport and London and Continental Railways. Both my Department and the Department of the Environment have kept in close touch with progress, and we have of course been aware of English Heritage's views. We have also received representations from the Victorian Society and from one member of the public.

Why have the Government abandoned the normal conservation controls on the grade I listed buildings of St. Pancras, which are of prime importance aesthetically and historically? Does the Minister accept that the heritage provisions of the rail link legislation amount to little more than vague statements of intent, omit to cover key areas of the work, and remove the Secretary of State's ultimate power to decide on major aspects? What is the point of having a Department of National Heritage if it will not stand up to the Department of Transport and is supine before the bulldozers of private investors?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the heritage deed encompassed in the new Bill will give the right balance between the interests of aesthetics and listed buildings and the need to provide a terminal for the chunnel link. Under the heritage deed provisions, for listed buildings such as St. Pancras chambers, agreement will have to be reached between the railway authorities and the listed building authorities.

Does the Minister accept that, in addition to St. Pancras station, a growing number of important public buildings, including several key Government buildings in Whitehall, are either empty or becoming empty? Do the Government have any policy at all for dealing with those? Will he accept that flogging them off, or trying to get the maximum rent, as the Government tried to do with the Royal Hospital at Greenwich, is simply not the right policy, and that a much more imaginative policy is needed to put those great public buildings into public use?

Indeed, it is not simply a question of getting the maximum amount of money—as the hon. Gentleman said. He talked about the need for imagination; that need is being met. In every case in which such buildings are offered to bidders, we consider bidders whose purposes are consonant with the traditions of the building and who will maintain its listed standards.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings in England are listed; and if she will make a statement. [7604]

We estimate that there are about 500,000 listed buildings in England.

I recognise that various factors are involved in any assessment of which buildings should be listed as being of architectural importance and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) said, because some modern buildings have been included, there must be an element of subjective judgment. I regret that no buildings designed by me have yet been listed. Does my hon. Friend accept that, now that we have half a million listed buildings in England, the Government's policy should be centred on conserving those buildings? Does he further agree that spot listing should not be encouraged and that there should be a moratorium before there is any further review of which buildings should be listed?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, in that many people feel that the number of listed buildings has increased dramatically—perhaps excessively—over the past few years. The Government have encouraged English Heritage to consider certain themes—in addition to the geographical location of the buildings—such as old railways, old shops, schools and, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), certain buildings displaying innovative architectural techniques that ought to be considered.

As the Minister is discussing listed buildings, may I draw his attention to two London buildings, Battersea power station and county hall, which require some urgent action by him? He should act to prevent Battersea power station from falling down and ensure that it is put to appropriate use given the state in which it was left by the last speculators. Will he also save county hall from the ravages of multinational hotel prospectors?

The hon. Gentleman has alluded to two extremely important buildings. I share his concern that they should not be allowed to deteriorate, and he will be glad to hear that they are not deteriorating. Representatives of English Heritage visit Battersea power station every few weeks, but I cannot recall exactly the frequency of visits paid to the old Greater London council building. They are making absolutely certain, however, that those buildings are in a decent condition.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to visit magistrates courts in Suffolk, to discuss possible court closures and amalgamations. [7623]

I am due to visit Haverhill and Mildenhall magistrates courts on Monday 28 January 1997 as part of a programme of visits to help maintain my Department's good working relationship with the individual magistrates courts committees, which are responsible for running those courts.

When my hon. Friend comes to Suffolk, he can be assured of a warm welcome, but when he meets magistrates from the Haverhill and north-west Suffolk benches he will also learn of their considerable concern about the future of those courts and their potential closure. It is my firm belief that local justice should be meted out by local magistrates in local courthouses. I must tell my hon. Friend that, should the current proposals be advanced further, I shall fight them every inch of the way both in Suffolk and in the House.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has spoken out on behalf of his constituents—he is well known in this place for doing so. There is no proposal to close the courthouses that he has mentioned. I look forward greatly to my visit to Suffolk in January. I know that I will receive a warm welcome at the hands of my hon. Friend's constituents, just as he received a warm welcome from me this afternoon.

When the Minister has completed his visit to Somerset—

Suffolk.

Order. The hon. Gentleman had better get his question in order: the Minister is not going to Somerset. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the substantive question concerns Suffolk alone.

I apologise, Madam Speaker. When the Minister has visited Suffolk, will he also visit Nuneaton magistrates court in Warwickshire because, just like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring)—

Order. I take to heart matters of such enormous importance, but the question is about Suffolk. I must be firm about this, and I call Mr. Llwyd.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the procedure for intervention by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the matter of a dispute about closure of a magistrates court; and if he will make a statement. [7624]

There is no procedure for intervention as magistrates courts are not Crown property. The Lord Chancellor is involved in a dispute over a magistrates court only when an appeal is made by a contributing local authority against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. In the event of a such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor will call for a report from both parties and make a final decision, which is binding. In the absence of such an appeal, the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of my concern about my constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which is one of the largest geographically in the United Kingdom. The magistrates clerk has circulated the preposterous idea of closing the last but one court, which would leave the entire constituency to be served by one magistrates court. The Minister is aware that an appeal is pending. Will he please meet a small delegation led by me as soon as possible so that that preposterous and ridiculous notion can be put to rest at last?

If an appeal in relation to the court that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is pending, it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from his constituency, as I have from other hon. Members in the past few weeks. I look forward to that, and I will listen carefully to the case that he puts for the retention of the courts in his constituency. We recognise that, in rural areas in particular, the distance that people must travel to court and the cost of their journey are significant matters.

When considering the possible closure of magistrates courts, or any other function of any other court, will my hon. Friend consider the recent incident in which a convicted murderer telephoned, or received calls from, a newspaper? That caused enormous distress—

Order. What does this have to do with magistrates courts?

I am referring to the function of a court in achieving the conviction of an individual, and the subsequent behaviour of that individual.

The hon. Gentleman did not describe his question in that way. The main question deals with magistrates courts, and so must the answer.

My hon. Friend raises an important point concerning the magistrates courts in his constituency and people who have passed through them in relation to offences that they may have committed. He speaks for many people when he describes the offence that has been caused by the incident that he mentioned, and his points are well made.

Was that a challenge to you, Madam Speaker?

It certainly was a challenge, and I do not accept that the question put by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was correct in following the substantive question.

In view of the widespread concern about the erosion of locally administered justice, will the Minister revisit the arrangements for the funding of local magistrates courts committees to see whether we ought to have a better formula than is currently applied? Does not the present formula lead to overfunding in some areas and underfunding in others, and to an end to locally administered justice?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed it by a mile. The Lord Chancellor and I are committed to local justice being dispensed by local people for local people, and the funding is in place. The hon. Gentleman commits the Labour party to yet more spending every time he gets to his feet in the House. Unless he can come to the Dispatch Box and tell us where that extra money would come from, he will have no credibility in this place.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to avoid legal aid being granted for vexatious litigation against schools. [7627]

It is for the Legal Aid Board to decide whether to grant legal aid. To qualify for legal aid, applicants must satisfy the merits and means test. Because of our concern that too many trivial and undeserving cases are being funded by the taxpayer, the Government have proposed reforms in the White Paper, "Striking the Balance", which will target resources on the most deserving cases. In the mean time, my officials are discussing with both branches of the legal profession ways in which decisions under the existing merits test can be further improved.

Would it not be an absolute scandal if yobbish failures were to use public money to sue their own schools? Would not that scandal be compounded if public money had to be diverted from education to allow those schools to defend themselves? If we are to have such an appalling waste of money, would it not be appropriate for the schools to use that money to sue the very yobs who failed to use that valuable commodity—their education? More than £1 billion of valuable public money is being spent on legal aid. Is that not an appalling waste in far too many cases? Would that not be compounded by the rather extraordinary idea of Lord Irvine of Lairg—the legal godfather of the Leader of the Opposition—who wants to extend the use of legal aid to industrial tribunals? Does not that show that, wherever one looks, the Labour party intends to waste more and more taxpayers' money?

As usual, my hon. Friend speaks for many people in expressing concern about the amount of taxpayers' money spent on wasteful, trivial and undeserving cases. He refers to the case featured recently in the newspapers about people intending to sue their schools in relation to their lack of achievement. I can tell him and the House that no application has been made for legal aid for such a case—nor, I hope, will any be made. He is right to speak out on this case. If the Labour party ever formed a Government, it would be a disgrace if it spent yet more money not just on a law centre in every town, but on tribunals. Labour would rapidly become not just the prisoner's friend, but the barrister's meal ticket.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the proposed merger of Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull magistrates committees and courts. [7628]

I have so far received 216 letters in response to the consultation document proposing an amalgamation of the Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull magistrates courts committees.

Given the concern expressed by magistrates, members of the public and organisations, will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Coventry to discuss the issue? Does he accept that we are not talking about more money for magistrates courts, but that he is proposing cuts in the services for magistrates courts?

We are certainly not proposing any cuts in the services for magistrates courts, but I recognise the strength of feeling in the midlands about the proposed amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees in the hon. Gentleman's area. I would be delighted to receive a delegation from hon. Members in respect of that proposed amalgamation—I have already received several letters of representation on the subject from hon. Members.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals for reform of procedures were made by the Lord Chancellor during his recent visit to the European Court of Human Rights. [7630]

The Lord Chancellor had a wide-ranging and fruitful discussion with members of the court and the Commission, and advocated, once again, British proposals to improve the procedure of the European Court of Human Rights; to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court; and to ensure that proper weight is given to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that court, which is nothing to do with the European Union, has a pretty dismal record on pronouncements on subjects that affect this country, which it does not really understand? Will the better quality of judges, which must be welcomed, ensure that we do not have a repetition of the deplorable judgment in the so-called death on the rock case? Is not the recent blasphemy case, in which the court used the doctrine of marginal appreciation, a sign that common sense is, at last, breaking through?

My hon. Friend makes some important points about the European Court of Human Rights. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union, a point that is not widely understood in the country. In fact, the court flows from a convention on human rights that was largely drafted by British people after the second world war. It is increasingly important as more and more countries sign up to the Council of Europe—for example, Russia and Croatia are signing up to the convention.

Does the Minister accept that it is not right to pick and choose decisions made by a court? I invite the Minister to look at history: it was that court, with the connivance of the Tory party, that effectively destroyed the pre-entry and post-entry closed shop in this country.

I am delighted to hear that. The court has obviously performed a much more valuable function that I had ever dared to imagine. Of course it is wrong to pick and choose which decisions to adopt in this country. What I have said is that, because of proposals that we have made, the performance of the European Court of Human Rights in future is likely to be better and more acceptable to the British people than it has been in the past.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's legal system and the way in which we protect people who are discriminated against in various ways are emulated by other countries throughout the world and that we need no court in Europe telling us how to legislate?

My hon. Friend makes the important point that British justice is well known and our standards on human rights are much admired throughout the world, but it is important that we remain involved in the convention, so as to enable other countries that are developing the sort of society that we enjoy to establish high standards of human rights within their borders, hopefully with British help.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to increase the number of judges, masters and registrars of the High Court and magistrates from ethnic minorities. [7631]

The Lord Chancellor has taken active steps to encourage people of ethnic minority origin to put themselves forward for consideration both for the professional judiciary and for the lay magistracy. He appoints and recommends for the professional judiciary the candidates who are best qualified, regardless of ethnic origin. With regard to the lay magistracy, he attaches great importance to the requirement that, subject to suitability for appointment on merit, lay benches reflect the community that they serve.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary see the recent "Newsnight" programme that showed that black and Asian Britons are emerging from our academic institutions with qualifications in droves, but not finding their proper place in the British establishment? What are the Government doing to ensure that more black and Asian Britons become judges and magistrates?

I know that the concept is alien to new Labour, but judges are appointed on merit, and at any moment the bench will reflect the legal profession from which its members are drawn. Things are moving in the right direction, but the most important thing is that we have judges of the right intellectual capacity, wisdom and common sense. We are moving in the right direction—an increasing number of people from all backgrounds are becoming judges—but we shall continue to appoint judges on merit and on nothing else.