:To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's assessment of the impact of the European social chapter and the minimum wage on the tourism industry. [3083]

Tourism, with its potential to generate employment, is one of the priorities that we have set for the Department. The evidence is that most employers and employees in the tourism industry support a minimum wage. Minimum wages and basic standards of employment, by creating a better rewarded and motivated work force, can help to improve business performance.

In most cases, no one would challenge the statement that one wants a well-motivated work force. It is extraordinary that tourism is responsible for 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product and that 7 per cent. of the nation's employees work in the industry. The industry consists largely of small companies that need labour market flexibility above almost anything else. The Government have signed the social chapter and sold the pass on it, but, before they impose a minimum wage, I hope that the Secretary of State will assure the House that he will consult tourism representatives on its level.

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. Before the election, he made an unforgettable contribution to tourism in his Surrey constituency by telling the world:

"You could put up a donkey as the Conservative candidate for Reigate and it would win."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for our magnificent majority on 1 May was that these barmy Tories were daft enough to keep telling workers that they had to work for peanuts? It has nothing to do with the common market: it is about justice, and it is offensive to keep hearing these well-heeled Tory Members, probably with consultancies up to their ear holes, telling British workers that they cannot get about £5 an hour. That is the rate, isn't it?

I shall, of course, pass on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. He is right in the first part of his question. It is particularly interesting that Conservative Members and Ministers failed to understand the evidence that they commissioned. A Coopers and Lybrand and London business school report prepared for the Conservative Government in December concluded:

"The tourism and hospitality labour market faces the threat of a self-perpetuating vicious circle that is harmful to profitability and competitiveness"

I support a fair minimum wage, but it must be fair, especially in tourism. The Minister and I both went to the British Resorts Association conference and addressed the meeting. After that meeting, many delegates spoke to me and, I think, to the Minister about the minimum wage. They were quite worried, as are hoteliers in Southport in my area, about the fact that it must be fair. Will the Minister assure us that he will consult not only the tourist boards, but the British Resorts Association?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in coming to a conclusion about the level of the minimum wage, we will of course wish the low pay commission to consult widely not just with the tourist boards, but with the industry and the British Resorts Association. Indeed, I noted with interest that, in its 2 January edition, "Caterer and Hotelkeeper" concluded that 84 per cent. of industry staff and 65 per cent. of industry employers supported a statutory minimum wage.

Is not the real question to ask: why do 14 million British tourists go on holiday in countries, principally in Europe, that pay a minimum wage and train their staff properly? If we had that level of pay and investment in this country, more of those people might stay at home. Is it not sad that the first act of the new Leader of the Opposition is to stuff his Cabinet with anti-Europeans, sending a message that they have learnt none of the lessons of 1 May? Will my right hon. Friend join me in inviting all Conservative Members to take their holidays in Britain this summer so that they will learn what nonsense they are talking?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that this country has a substantial balance of payments deficit in relation to tourism—it totals some £4.5 billion a year. We cannot do much about the weather, but we can at least ensure that when visitors take their holidays in Britain, either coming from abroad or visiting within the country, they can have a good quality experience and be treated well and with courtesy. A key of part of ensuring that is a well-motivated staff.

Speaking as someone who does take holidays in Britain and not, like new Labour, in Tuscany, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that achieving a well-remunerated and motivated work force does not require a statutory minimum wage or joining the European social chapter? I add to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). The World Travel and Tourism Council estimates that the tourism industry and its associated activities account for as much as 12 per cent. of GDP. Above all, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to resist the damaging effects of the social chapter and the minimum wage, and to maintain a commitment to deregulation? With that in mind, will he consult at the earliest opportunity my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), whom we welcome to his post, and who has only recently stepped down from chairing the previous Government's deregulation panel, whose advice on this subject will be warmly welcomed?

I am disappointed that, in her first foray on the Back Benches, the right hon. Lady seeks to defend the economics of exploitation—because that is precisely what low poverty wages are all about. I am sure that she has forgotten that a leading figure in the tourism industry, David Wood, chief executive of the Hotel and Catering International Management Association, said:

"We should accept the principles of a minimum wage and the social chapter because they would reposition the industry on level terms with others."

I hope that, when my right hon. Friend enters into this consultation, he does not consult French Railways Ltd. which is now the owner of British Rail International, which had a role in promoting British tourism. Does he agree that that sale reflected the worst aspects of the previous Government?

Order. The question is about the minimum wage.

The Secretary of State says that the tourism industry supports the introduction of a minimum wage, but at what level does he believe that it supports a minimum wage? Does he accept that it must be set at a level either so low as to yield no benefit, or so high that it destroys jobs, as the chairman of the Low Pay Unit has said? Which of those two does the right hon. Gentleman prefer?

I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to many constructive debates and arguments with him, but I am afraid that he has picked the wrong argument in this instance. He points to the need to set a statutory minimum wage at a sensible level—every Labour Member accepts that. Not having statutory wage protection in place, while the rest of Europe and most of the rest of the developed world has, leads to the exploitation of the work force, to appallingly low pay and to a much poorer tourism industry. That is not the way forward, and we want to change it

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for encouraging the improvement of training and qualifications in the British film industry. [3084]

The skills and talents of our work force are major assets for the resurgent British film industry. Further improving training and qualifications in the film industry, in the context of the Government's commitment to Target 2000, will be high on the agenda for the policy review group which I have recently announced.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he assure the House that the policy review group will concentrate on the development of the skills base of the industry as well as look for opportunities under the Government's welfare-to-work programme?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct to focus on the skills base and welfare-to-work scheme which are key Government objectives. One of the pivotal sub-groups of the group that Stewart Till and I will chair will deal exclusively with training. It will be chaired by Dinah Caine, who is greatly respected for her work as director of Skillset. We are determined that young people in the United Kingdom will be given the skills to share in the future of a dynamic British film industry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has recently been a very thorough review of the British film industry carried out under Sir Peter Middleton? Would not it be more sensible to respond to the recommendations in that report before setting up another review?

No, I do not agree, if only because Middleton dealt only with the issue of finance. Moreover, under the former Government, not only were there 18 film Ministers in 18 years but they ignored the recommendations of Lord Lloyd's report on film and those of the Select Committee on National Heritage chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The difference between the Tories and us is that we will listen. We have assembled some of the best talents in the British film industry to listen with us, and we will consider and implement their recommendations.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the level of income earned by the tourism industry in the United Kingdom. [3085]

In 1995, the tourism industry contributed £38 billion to the United Kingdom's gross domestic product, equivalent to more than 5 per cent. of the total. The industry supports 1.6 million jobs, a number which could grow by up to 1 million in the next decade. We are working with the industry, the tourist boards, local authorities and others to enable the industry's full potential to be realised.

Is the Minister aware of the potential for tourism in Saddleworth and of the proposed development for the museum there? Will he consider visiting us to see the beautiful culture of Saddleworth?

May I say—[Interruption.] I do know where it is. The friends of Saddleworth museum are legion in the House. During the by-election in 1995, it was one of the most fascinating places—some unkind people would say the only fascinating place—to visit there. If I were to go into Bottomley-speak, I could read out a range of grants that have been made, via the lottery, to my hon. Friend's constituency, but I know exactly what he is talking about—tourism is not only about the favoured sites, often located in places like London, but about all parts of the country with a great heritage which there are many reasons to visit. That applies to my constituency in the east end where the outfall sewer walk is one of the most favoured.

Does the Minister accept that the lottery has been a boon to the tourism industry in many constituencies, with or without outfalls? Does he also accept that any attempt, such as those that he has made over the past few weeks, to interfere in the running of the lottery and the way in which grants are given is likely to result in an unacceptable amount of political control over lottery grants, damaging the tourist industry and many others that depend on the lottery?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Lottery money is the people's money because it is the people's lottery. When we produce our White Paper in the not-too-distant future, we shall consider those issues. We need to examine the distribution of lottery funding across the country, because there has been criticism of the way in which certain areas get what seems to be an unfair or disproportionate share. That is a serious issue. Lottery money is the people's money, and the people are entitled to value for that money.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what actions he plans to take to promote the British film industry in the next year. [3086]

My Department recently announced the setting up of a film policy review group, whose task will be to formulate an agenda for action for the film industry and for the Government's support to it. The aim of the group will be to double the availability of British films to British audiences and to help the film industry to achieve its full creative and economic potential. This morning, I was at Battersea power station to help launch the renovation project that will put 32 screens and 8,500 seats into a major new entertainment centre for London.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speed in setting up the review and on his statement about Battersea power station. Does he agree that one of the major problems dogging the British film industry is distribution? France has twice as many cinemas as Britain. Many excellent British films are never seen in our cinemas. Will the review address that?

The review will address precisely that. It was important to establish the working group because the issue has not been addressed before. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we do not have enough screens. It is important to develop the availability of viewing. We must address the key issues on the distribution and exhibition of films, as well as on the stimulation of production. I have already begun discussions with the companies—most of them American—responsible for exhibition and distribution to see what progress can be made.

During the review, will the Secretary of State do everything that he can to encourage the British film industry to resist the temptation, which appears to have lured film makers in other countries, to believe that the only way to make money from films is to include as much gratuitous violence, sex and other unattractive features of modern life as possible?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. The most successful British films of recent years have not gone down that road, but have been good, responsible films, which I am delighted to welcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to abolish admission charges to national museums [3087]

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to abolish admission charges national museums. [3095]

The Government believe that all members of the community should be able to enjoy our great national museums and galleries; they should be for the many, not just the few. We are concerned about the growth of charging and are reviewing present arrangements urgently.

I welcome such a review. As a pressing issue, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the British museum is being forced to consider introducing admission charges to help balance its books due to lack of funding from the previous Government. How do the Government plan to discourage that course of action and to ensure that local authority and university museums are not forced to do likewise?

Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right that the national galleries and museums are in their current position because of the neglect and the hostile policies of the previous Government. She may be aware that the Secretary of State and I met the chairman and the director of the British museum recently. They made it clear on behalf of their trustees that they share the Government's policy of securing the widest possible access to the British museum and to national museums generally. I am determined to undertake a review and ensure that our museums are available to the widest possible audience.

Will the Minister consider introducing free days, free passes or differential entry charges for our national museums? I draw his attention to the progressive policy of the Earth center—a major project for the millennium in my constituency of Don Valley—where it is intended to introduce community days and, rather imaginatively, discounts for people who travel to the Earth centre by public transport.

All the options that my hon. Friend rehearses can play a constructive part in widening access to good projects such as the Earth centre near Doncaster. Our review is examining all such options. I should emphasise, however, that the prime objective of that review is to secure free public access to our great national museums and galleries.

Does the hon. Gentleman intend to usurp the freedom of trustees? If he intends to give directions to trustees to allow free entry to museums—something that many of us welcome—does he accept that it is absolutely necessary for him to guarantee the funds that the museums will thereby lose?

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that those are decisions for the trustees. We shall be involving in our discussions trustees and directors of national galleries that are charging and those that are not charging, but the choice of whether to charge remains with the trustees.

While the Minister is carrying out a review to look into scrapping charges to museums, does he agree that we also have very fine theatres? Should not people who cannot afford to go to the theatre also be allowed to have the charges scrapped? Does he plan a review to look into that?

No. The position of galleries and museums is not comparable with that of theatres. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that many theatres have excellent concessionary schemes. We will encourage that policy and we hope that it can be pursued more widely to ensure that the maximum number of people get into theatres.

In view of the poor funding for schools and the lack of any substantial promises of more funding for schools, will the Minister give an assurance that school parties will never be charged admission to our museums and art galleries?

We do not want anyone to be charged entry to national museums and galleries. The hon. Lady is quite right to emphasise the importance of education and schools policies as widening access to museums is not solely a matter of admission charges or the lack of them. We are working with museums on a code of best practice in which policies towards education and new technologies play an important part in truly widening access to museums and galleries.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the membership and objectives of the body that he has set up to investigate the future of the British film industry. [3088]

The film policy review group—which my right hon. Friend and I have already mentioned—consisting of leading players in the British film community, will be co-chaired by myself and Stewart Till of Polygram Filmed Entertainment. The group's objective is to encourage the British film industry as a whole to achieve lasting success and to be competitive in the world marketplace.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and I welcome him to his responsibility for film, which acknowledges his long commitment to the British film industry. Is he aware of the on-going project in Dundee and Tayside to produce a film for the Indian film industry, and does he agree that the British film industry has the potential for job growth? Can he tell the House on which policy areas the review group will focus?

The United Kingdom is attractive to film makers for important locations, such as Dundee, and for the talent and even creative genius of British film production. The film policy review group will consider how to make the most of the UK's assets by boosting the audience for British films and by attracting from overseas investment in our talent and facilities. The group will focus on six key areas: the broadening of the audience and the impact of improving access; increasing the market share of British films; developing skills and talents; improving the financial and fiscal framework; promoting exports; and attracting inward investment.

May I ask the Minister and the review group not to emulate the system in France, an approach that was mentioned a few moments ago? Is he aware that the reason why there are more screens in France is because French television is so appalling and that French films are allocated time on French screens? If one visits a French cinema, one finds it emptier than the Chamber today.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for suggesting that today we are concentrating on the exciting future of the British film industry. If we have not persuaded Opposition Members of the importance of the review group—which has excellent members whose objectives we will fulfil—I refer them, in all modesty, to the views of the Financial Times, which said, the day after I made the announcement:

"This is the most ambitious Government review on film since the introduction of the Eady Levy in 1950."

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the British film industry. Leavesden Studios, the largest and fastest growing studio in the United Kingdom, is in my constituency of Watford. The most recent James Bond film was made there and it is now home to the Star Wars films. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to visit Leavesden Studios and witness for himself this exciting new development?

I believe that my hon. Friend will find confirmation in her mail today that I intend to visit her constituency this week and I look forward to meeting her there. I welcome her positive endorsement of a proper strategy for the future of the British film industry. I am sure that she joins me in rejoicing that, despite the Conservative party's neglect of training, the contribution of the National Film and Television school has meant that Nick Park, concentrating on animation, received three Oscars this year. That shows British genius and skills, and we are determined to build on that foundation.

Is the Minister aware that the issues of finance for the film industry and the distribution of British films were covered by the Middleton committee? Will the Minister make a decision on the recommendations made as a result of that review before subjecting the film industry to another lengthy and wide-ranging review?

I did refer earlier to the fact that the Middleton committee report, to which the previous Government paid not one whit of attention, will be considered with other recent reports by the review group. I am not prepared to invite a well-informed group, which will consider what is going in the British film industry, to reach a conclusion even before it has met.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what priority he attaches to the role of museums in preserving the industrial heritage. [3089]

The industrial heritage is of immense importance to the understanding of our past. Museums and conservation agencies have a central role to play in its preservation.

is my hon. Friend aware of plans for an industrial heritage facility in my constituency that will train young people in lacemaking skills using a unique pup lace loom that is part of the collection at the local museum, the Dick institute? Will my hon. Friend encourage such initiatives not only for museums, tourism and education, but for training young people in skills which otherwise might be lost?

I am particularly pleased to have a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, whose predecessor, William McKelvey, was a well liked and respected Member of this House who stood down at the election because of ill health. The House will be pleased that he is recovering his health and will be grateful if my hon. Friend can convey that message to him.

I agree with the Minister that our industrial heritage is extremely important for tourism, but is he aware that great concern has been expressed at the Government's plans to reduce the amount available from the national lottery for such tourism projects as industrial heritage by abandoning the additionality principle, which his party supported in opposition when the lottery was introduced? Are not the Government determined to reduce the amount of lottery money available to heritage and tourism by using it as a substitute for the taxpayers' money that is being taken away from health and education?

No, that is not the case, and the hon. Gentleman should look at our plans. There is no question of reducing the sums of money that now go to the lottery boards. The lottery review Bill will be concerned with distributing the additional sums of money from the Wednesday lottery and other lottery sources.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received calling for changes to the operation of the national lottery; and if he will make a statement. [3091]

I have received eight representations from hon. Members and approximately 200 representations from others calling for changes in the operation of the lottery. An early-day motion on this issue, signed by 65 hon. Members, was put down two weeks ago. I will publish a White Paper next month in which we will set out our proposals for reform of the lottery, including how we intend to seek a competitive and efficient not-for-profit operator at the end of the current licence and how we intend to channel a portion of lottery funds into education and health-related projects, as we promised during the election campaign.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that constructive reply and congratulate him on his approach to the massive salary increases that the directors of Camelot awarded themselves. I support his view about finding a non-profit-making operator for the lottery. When considering the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that a good number of people throughout the United Kingdom would like the prize money to be distributed more widely to allow more people to have a win on the lottery? On the distribution of money for good causes, will he consider helping the many old people's organisations in small communities that are suffering because they have lost their headquarters?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I can indeed assure him that I am anxious that, increasingly, the money from the various lottery distributors should go to small-scale, grass-roots, neighbourhood community projects to help people in their local communities. That is beginning to happen and I hope that we can build on it

What is the Secretary of State's current definition of the arm's-length principle?

The definition of the arm's-length principle is that the Government do not make decisions directly about the allocation of individual grants.

Grants have often been distributed unreasonably—some areas have suffered quite badly as they have not been able to obtain them. One of the characteristics of the grants is that they often go to conurbations rather than other areas. Might there be a case for saying that more money should be available in the National Lottery Charities Board area rather than some of the other areas such as the millennium fund, so that more, smaller bodies can qualify, such as pensioner organisations?

My hon. Friend is right to identify the valuable work that the National Lottery Charities Board has been doing in recent months to target small-scale grants to small organisations. I very much welcome that. In the next year or two, of course, one question that will fall to be decided is what will happen when the millennium stream of funding comes to an end. We will certainly welcome representations on what should happen after that point is reached, not merely from hon. Members on both sides of the House but from people throughout the country.

The Secretary of State will have seen the independent report, quoted in the papers on 6 June, by TLF publications, which shows that the national lottery gives a greater proportion of its proceeds to good causes and in tax than any other lottery in the world and is, therefore, by the agreed definition, the most efficient. Does he not understand that that factor may be associated with the lottery's being run for profit? Does not his determination to switch in later years to its being run by a not-for-profit organisation mean that he is not remotely interested in how much money is raised for good causes, but is interested simply in removing people's ability to make a profit?

No, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. It is precisely because I am interested in maximising the revenue for good causes and ensuring that money is not wasted in any way—be it on unnecessary profit or anything else—that I am anxious to seek a not-for-profit operator. I am sure that it is also precisely because of that that Camelot, among others, has already begun to discuss with us how we can best seek a not-for-profit operation of the lottery.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with the lottery distribution fund boards. [3093]

My right hon. Friend met the chairman and chief executives of the London-based lottery distribution bodies on 3 June. It was the first in a regular series of meetings that, in the future, will also involve the bodies based in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The main topic for discussion was our plan for reform of the lottery.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. From what I have heard this afternoon, people in the region in which I live and the constituency I represent will be reassured to hear that the Government are reconsidering lottery fund distribution. On a different but related issue, when the White Paper is drawn up, can we also ensure that we monitor the types of schemes to ensure that they have broad public support and confidence—something which has not always been evident in the past?

I have looked at a list of the grants made in my hon. Friend's constituency: they amount to £468,000. There are some very good schemes indeed, such as Long Eaton United football club. I hope that it is prospering well—as, indeed, are most sportsmen and women under the new regime.

When the Minister has discussions with the fund distributors, will he please emphasise the importance of seeking new ways of channelling money to village halls and playing greens in rural areas?

It is at the smaller end of lottery grants that much benefit is accruing. A lot of attention focuses on the mega-grants, especially on large projects, some of which are in London—I emphasise that before someone behind me does it for me—but the question is a good one, and the distribution bodies should consider precisely the areas to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change arrangements for the selection and appointment of judges. [3113]

The Government propose to consult later this year on the merits of a judicial appointments commission and whether one should be established.

Since the Government's proposal to incorporate the European convention on human rights in domestic law will inevitably bring the judiciary into taking decisions that were hitherto regarded as political, will the Minister consider seriously whether senior judicial appointments should be made subject to a parliamentary confirmation process, perhaps involving a Select Committee hearing?

That suggestion may be usefully received by those responsible for considering the Government's various proposals, but I emphasise that, above all else, the Government are committed to preserving the independence of the judiciary. We must ensure that our appointments system is based on selection on merit.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to ensure the availability of courts close to local communities. [3114]

Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates courts in each area are for the relevant committee to take. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure; the procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

In developing a new approach in his Department, will my hon. Friend consider the implications of Crown court closures in areas such as Huddersfield and Wakefield for court users, the local police and the legal profession? Will he consider proposals in West Yorkshire for amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees, because of the concern that that could lead to magistrates becoming even more remote from the communities that they serve?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions, but it is clear that each decision must be taken on its merits. Much will depend on the grounds of any appeal that is lodged, although there are clearly several themes that are common to all appeals: accessibility, of which my hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance; the provision of modern facilities, such as facilities for the disabled; security arrangements for violent offenders; and separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses. In addition, the Government are particularly concerned to reduce delays. It is important that we have courtrooms best suited to enable cases to be listed in a way that helps to achieve our aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if the courts are to be useful to the local community, it is important that the court offices are kept open. In that context, he knows that there is a proposal to close the Sleaford court office. If that decision is finalised and there is then an appeal to the Lord Chancellor's office, I hope that the Minister can confirm that that appeal will be given serious and sympathetic consideration.

Of course it will be.

Will the Minister look into the case of Essex magistrates courts committee, which is embarking on a review of its courts? Essex Members have not yet been formally consulted. I hope that he agrees that we should be. Will he consider the arbitrary decision, without notice, to move the offices of Thurrock court to Basildon? Many people in Thurrock fear that that heralds a merger of the administration of the courts and of the courts themselves, which would then be based in Basildon. That would be unacceptable to the people of Thurrock.

I emphasise, in relation to all these questions, that these are local decisions, taken locally and subject only to the rights of appeal prescribed in law. For example, magistrates courthouses are not Crown property but owned or leased by the paying local authority on behalf of the local committee. Only when there is an appeal against the decision of a magistrates court committee by a paying authority does the Lord Chancellor have any power to intervene.

Does the Minister agree that the whole process has more to do with economics and saving money than with the distribution of justice? Does he agree that, particularly from an Essex perspective, the centralisation of courts, magistrates and witnesses means that local magistrates rarely make decisions on local cases? Is not that bad for local justice?

I do not accept that the process is solely to do with economics. Economics is clearly an important factor in the decisions, but, as I said, we are also anxious to ensure that we have modern facilities. It is vital that we have up-to-date courts that can provide the range of facilities that are expected in the last part of the 20th century. Equally, I said that the Government are particularly concerned about delay. We must have court complexes that allow us to list cases in a way that best deals with the considerable problem of delay, especially in the magistrates courts.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve the support given by the courts to victims of crime. [3115]

Several initiatives are already in place. A witness service scheme run by the charity Victim Support is in operation at each Crown court centre and offers practical and emotional support for victims and witnesses. On 13 June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an additional grant of £1 million to Victim Support. Consideration is also being given to options for establishing similar victim and witness support schemes in magistrates courts. All courts contribute to local service level agreements based on national standards of witness care, agreed by the trials issues group, to improve on the support and care of victims who are called to be witnesses.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I know that he has taken a close interest in the case of Peter Windass, my constituent who was murdered. Does he agree that the anguish suffered by Peter Windass's family was intensified by the insensitivity of the rules governing how the court service operates? For example, the family had to mingle with associates of a murderer in the public area of the court, and courts have no obligation to keep the family of a murder victim informed of progress in the case. Does he agree that if the criminal justice system fails to provide justice for the victims of serious crime, it is failing altogether? Will he undertake to consider the two points that I raised?

I have read carefully my hon. Friend's speech during a recent Adjournment debate on that particular matter and I congratulate him on his constructive contribution to these important issues.

When the hon. Gentleman is considering changes to the procedures on consultation with victims of crime, will he also undertake to liaise with the Home Secretary about whether those who are involved in the prosecution of a case should be able to consult more fully than they do at present with the families of the victims of crime, and with the victims themselves, before decisions on sentencing, or whether to abandon a prosecution, are taken?

I shall ensure that that suggestion is passed on.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to bring forward proposals to make the legal system more accessible to potential users. [3117]

The Lord Chancellor has invited Sir Peter Middleton to review current proposals for reform of the civil justice and legal aid systems. He is to produce a preliminary report by September. The Government recognise the challenge in reforming legal aid provision—not only is the cost of legal aid escalating, but the percentage of households eligible for it has fallen. We are determined to create a system that achieves value for money for the taxpayer and high quality advice for the consumer.

Does the Minister agree that the most important purpose of any review must be to ensure that everyone has access to justice in the courts and that people are not prevented from seeking it by how much money they have in their pockets? That must come before any cost-effective review that the Government undertake.

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions about legal aid, as he did at our previous Question Time, and tabled a number of written questions. I therefore thought that it might be instructive to examine precisely the hon. Gentleman's party's policy contribution on the subject. I have carefully scrutinised the Liberal Democrat manifesto which was issued before 1 May 1997. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his party made no mention whatever of any kind of policy on legal aid. I hope that it will not be testing his party too much to invite it to develop such a policy, perhaps between now and the middle of September, so that Sir Peter Middleton and his colleagues might have the benefit of its suggestions on how we should tackle the problems associated with civil legal aid.

Is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment felt by many at the delay in introducing the Woolf reforms, which is due simply to the decision to allow time for yet another Labour review? When, oh when, will this Government stop reviewing and start deciding?

On the contrary: the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he supports the spirit of Lord Woolf's recommendations. The Labour party made it clear in its manifesto before the general election that it was necessary to consider the proposals in the Woolf report and those on legal aid together. We did not believe, unlike, apparently, the Conservative party, that it was possible to deal with those issues separately. That is why Sir Peter Middleton will conduct a review of the civil justice reforms and those of legal aid simultaneously.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the statutory bereavement payment of £7,500 under the Fatal Accidents Acts. [3120]

The Law Commission is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and plans to issue a consultation paper later this year. I expect that the consultation paper will cover damages for bereavement. That is, of course, additional to compensation that the courts can award to financial dependants of the deceased. Damages for bereavement is an important and sensitive matter. The Government will consider carefully what steps to take in the light of the consultation paper.

Speaking as a personal injury lawyer, may I tell my hon. Friend that one of the most difficult things that we have to do is to advise the parents of a child killed tragically in an accident—perhaps mown down by a drunken driver—that their child's life is worth practically nothing. It is worth nothing if the child is over 18.

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's considerable expertise in these matters. I sincerely hope that it will not be several years before the Law Commission report is published. Although it is important that the figure should be uprated, particularly to take account of inflation, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is equally important for us to await the outcome of a consultation conducted by an independent Law Commission, which is examining the entire issue of fatal accidents claims, rather than simply picking out any one element of the material that the commission is considering. It would be wise to see the final results of the consultation paper before taking any specific decisions about uprating.