If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the national lottery. [21440]

The National Lottery Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place last month, implements many of the proposals set out in the White Paper "The People's Lottery". These proposals commanded wide public support. They will make the lottery work better and increase the number of people who will benefit from the good causes which it supports.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding of the national child care strategy demonstrates that lottery money is used to supplement core spending and is therefore in breach of its founding principles?

I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we hold fast to the principle of additionality, as the Conservative Government did before us. The definition of additionality was enunciated by the previous Prime Minister in September 1994. The right hon. Gentleman said:

"The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure."

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, often, those who have been able to shout the loudest and who have been able to use the social networks have benefited most from lottery money. I understand that it is the Government's intention to allow the distributors of lottery money to seek applications in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be useful in driving forward projects in the areas of greatest need, such as some in my constituency?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proposing two key changes, which will be set out in the National Lottery Bill. One change will enable lottery distributors to seek applications where they believe that there is unmet need. The second change will mean that lottery distributors will have to draw up proper strategies for the deployment of their funds. Neither of those two provisions has existed hitherto. Until now, it has been a case of the loudest applicants with the highest paid consultants coming up to the head of the queue. We want to change that so that the lottery addresses real need.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the revenue funding of the arts sector is in crisis, and that it has not been helped by a cut of £1.5 million this year by the Arts Council? Does he accept also that, in the past five years, the arts sector has lost £34 million in revenue, and that it seems that the crisis is not being taken account of by the Government in their redirection of the lottery funding? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say how much money he believes will be forthcoming to deal with this acute problem?

I was able, with some difficulty, to hold the Arts Council's budget figure for the forthcoming year at the figure which had been set out in the Red Book previously. I am deeply aware, however, of the financial difficulties faced by many arts institutions around the country. That is because they have faced stringent financial provision for each of the past six years. One of the main provisions of the National Lottery Bill, which will enable lottery money to be spent on bricks, mortar and buildings and on supporting people and activities, will help to address that problem.

Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration in the National Lottery Bill to making the 40 per cent. ruling more flexible in regard to primary schools, as it is difficult for primary schools to apply for lottery grants? Two neighbouring primary schools in an inner city will both want the community to use them, so it is impossible for the system always to work. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look into the matter?

I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously, we are keen to ensure the greatest possible use by the local community of the facilities in schools up and down the country. There is a real synergy to be achieved between community and school use.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arts world can expect £50 million less this year than last year, whatever the figures in the Red Book? The right hon. Gentleman has taken it on himself to deprive the arts, heritage, sport and charities of £50 million each, so they will receive £250 million less than they were expecting when I made a similar statement to the one that the right hon. Gentleman is making this week. He has deprived the arts and culture of a unique opportunity. The Chancellor, having helped himself once to lottery money, will repeat that time and again. Will the Secretary of State agree to fight harder and more successfully next year than he has this year?

I can confirm that the arts world will receive substantially less in revenue expenditure from the Arts Council in the coming year than it did four or five years ago, but the reason for that is the right hon. Lady's stewardship of the Department. I can also confirm that each of the four distributors that she mentioned—heritage, arts, sports and charities—will receive £1.8 billion during the current franchise of the lottery. That is exactly the amount that they expected to receive at the outset of the lottery.

My hon. Friend will know that the National Audit Office can check whether taxpayers' money has been spent properly and effectively. Surely we should be considering similar powers for the National Audit Office in respect of lottery money, because some people believe that lottery money—which is a form of voluntary taxation and a form of public expenditure—should be subject to some auditing, as some of it is wasted.

As far as I am aware, the lottery distributary bodies, which are appointed bodies, are themselves subject to National Audit Office scrutiny in the same way as other public bodies. They, in turn, are responsible for the judicious stewardship of the grants that they award. Over the coming years, the National Audit Office and I will be keen to examine that stewardship to see whether it has been properly exercised.

The Secretary of State says that his National Lottery Bill has widespread public support. Will he confirm that no more than 90 individuals responded to the consultation? If that is wide public support, what does he expect for unanimity? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his rather offensive remarks that organisations that have benefited from lottery grants have done so only because they made the most fuss and employed the most expensive consultants? Many organisations up and down the country will be gravely offended by that.

No, I cannot agree with any of that. On his last point, the right hon. Gentleman may like to know what the noble Baroness Trumpington said in another place in November 1996. Speaking for the Conservative Government, she said:

"the use of lottery funds to secure projects or programmes beyond the scope of foreseeable affordability but similar to those hitherto financed by public expenditure, or adding lottery funds to the level of affordable public expenditure in any particular area"—[Official Report,House of Lords, 14 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the concerns of people making lottery applications in my constituency is that there should be continuity among those who deal with the applications—an essential reform which would need no legislation? Each change in personnel results in different rules applying. People feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall at times.

I very much take that point. One of our changes will make the process friendlier and easier for the users and applicants, particularly for small-scale community and neighbourhood applications—schemes for which the deployment of lottery money can result in the greatest benefit.

If he will make a statement on the UK Sports Institute. [21441]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 December 1997 that Sheffield was the chosen site for the headquarters of the United Kingdom Sports Institute.

The Minister will appreciate the disappointment felt by the residents of Upper Heyford and the adjoining parts of my constituency, as well as further afield. He has already acknowledged the possibility of having a regional establishment there. Will he be equally sympathetic to any proposals that come forward locally for a specialist institute for a particular purpose?

I understand the disappointment felt in Upper Heyford and by the central consortium in Nottingham, as well as the hon. Gentleman's personal disappointment, because he owns a sizeable chunk of Oxfordshire.

Will my hon. Friend reiterate the Government's commitment to regional centres in developing their sports strategy? Does he agree that centres with long records of excellence, such as Lilleshall, must have a part to play in the development of his policies?

Of course I accept that. My hon. Friend made a good case for Lilleshall, which will undoubtedly be considered.

Although I welcome the belated establishment of the Sports Institute, what were the precise criteria for its siting that led the hon. Gentleman to reject the views of the British Olympic committee and others?

The reason for the delay was so that we could get it right. We went along with the idea of an academy—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen and an hon. Lady on the Conservative Benches moaning about that. Although the concept of an academy was good, the structure was not going to meet the needs of the competitors. What is the point of having something that no one uses? We make no apologies for ensuring that the decision was absolutely right.

What investment he is proposing to increase awareness in, and to promote appreciation of, the performing arts among children and young people. [21442]

The lottery is helping schools to extend and widen their arts activities. The National Lottery Bill, when approved, will enable the lottery to fund a still wider range of out-of-school hours arts activities.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he understand that many of us hope that, during this Parliament, the Government can do much more to extend opportunities for young people to enjoy the performing arts? I feel particularly strongly about this because I saw my first ballet in Bratislava when I was 46 years of age. I was very angry that the system had denied me that wonderful opportunity for so long. The Government's task is to extend life's experiences, liberate young people and give them the opportunity of seeing the performing arts, which the class structure in this society so often denies them, leaving the performing arts as almost the exclusive privilege of people in middle-income groups and above.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has come to the joys and delights of ballet—even at this late stage. He is right: it is important that children should be given the chance to experience theatre, dance and music of all sorts if they are to have a proper and wide-ranging education. That comprises a comprehensive education.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no need for anyone to wait until they are 46 years of age to go to a ballet, because people can attend many of the matinee performances that are put on, especially for schools, by the Royal Ballet. Indeed, people can take part in many of the community projects that are put on by companies such as Opera North. Will the Minister confirm that the availability of matinee performances to schools—that means not one but two houses in London—will be a central part of the Eyre inquiry?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he pays tribute to the work of arts companies across all art forms in arts education. The schemes run by the English National Opera, Opera North and the Royal Shakespeare Company with schools are remarkable; they are introducing children to art forms at a very early age and are doing so very well. Although the Eyre inquiry is a matter for Sir Richard Eyre, I am sure that, given his record of a superb schools programme at the national theatre, such matters will be at the forefront of his mind.

As my hon. Friend is aware, in Salford at this very moment we are building the Lowry centre, which will be a magnificent centre for the performing arts, with a particular emphasis on children. In view of the appalling viewing figures for opera which were released this morning—it seems that few people watch opera on television—does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to make opera and ballet relevant and accessible to a much wider range of working people, as we intend to do in the magnificent Lowry centre in Salford?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Lowry centre will be a real addition to the cultural life of the north west. It will be a superb piece of architecture and a focus for widening the access to the arts in the north-west.

What plans he has to encourage the growth of employment in the tourism industry. [21444]

The Government's new deal initiative will promote growth in tourism, which already supports some 1.7 million jobs, by helping tourism-related employers to meet their recruitment and skill needs. This has been warmly welcomed throughout the industry.

Will not the most likely new jobs in tourism be those administering museum charges? If he really wants to encourage tourism, why does not the Secretary of State rule out charges for important national collections—or is this another broken promise?

I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking such a keen and unwonted interest in the British tourism industry, which has much to be grateful to him for. I am referring to his patronage of the industry during his long search for a safe Tory seat, which took him on a tour from Darlington to more than 15 constituencies, including Woking, Kensington and Chelsea, Bromley, Horsham, Worthing and finally Sevenoaks. None the less, I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance that our great national museums and galleries offer in drawing tourists to this country and in providing good things for them to see once they are here.

What progress has been made in involving the tourism industry in the new deal, especially in co-ordinating education and training programmes for areas such as Blackpool which rely on a seasonal tourist trade?

My hon. Friend will probably know that, a month and a half ago, we held a major conference in London with the tourism and hospitality industries to talk about how they can take advantage of the new deal. The response was positive. For example, the managing director of Radisson Edwardian Hotels said:

"The new programme provides a strong element of training which is a key need for the industry if we are to continue to offer a world class service."

Following the news this morning that the exchange rate is DM3 to the pound and that the value of the pound has reached $1.67—thanks to the Chancellor's initiative in encouraging the Bank of England to raise interest rates sky-high—what hope is there of attracting foreign visitors to the United Kingdom when going out to a restaurant in London is about twice the price of going out to a restaurant in New York?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the enormous importance of the currency exchange rates in attracting or deterring visitors. Despite the strength of the pound, overseas visits and expenditure in the first 10 months of 1997—up to October—were up by 1 per cent. compared with the same period in the previous year.

What plans he has to support the provision of school playing fields. [21445]

My right hon. Friend announced last week that the Government intend to make sure that those playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold or redeveloped in the future. We will take powers to ensure that no school playing field is disposed of without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and I certainly welcomed the policy announcement last Friday.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to safeguard the Prince Edward playing field. I know that Camden borough council is considering transferring the site to the London Playing Fields Society. I have alerted my colleagues who are responsible for the environment and education to the plight of the playing field. I expect Camden to move swiftly, and I will certainly make available whatever good offices I can to those involved in ensuring that the playing field remains for the use of the local community. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to keep up the pressure.

The Minister will be aware that 500 boys and girls play football and rugby every Saturday in Chippenham in my constituency. Doubtless he will also be aware that at present there is only one playing field facility in Chippenham. Will he take the initiative that he announced last Friday one stage further and encourage local authorities—in this case, North Wiltshire district council—to set aside land and funds for the extra provision of playing fields where those are inadequate?

Despite the enormous amount of information that I try to keep in my head, I was not aware that so many people played football in Chippenham in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I would most certainly be prepared to support anything that can be done to enhance the facilities available to young people there.

I welcome the statement about playing fields, but that is only one part of the equation, as I am sure the Minister would agree. I have visited 36 schools in Loughborough since the election and have been worried by the amount of sport played by young children. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the work of organisations such as the Youth Sports Trust, of which he knows, and the Tops programme will play a vital role in the future of sport. Does he agree that we want more money and initiatives going into that? That will ensure that Loughborough university plays a leading role in the United Kingdom Sports Institute, which I am sure he will accept is very important.

I commend all those unbitter individuals who are raising questions surrounding the decision on the UK Sports Institute. Everyone has taken it in a sporting way. There is something in this for everyone; that specifically includes Loughborough, which is one of the great sporting centres of excellence in this country. Yes, the Youth Sports Trust and Tops—schemes which this Government very much encourage and which are also supported by the English Sports Council—are initiatives that I would want to be extended. I can assure my hon. Friend that as long as I hold a grip on this ministerial position I will continue to argue for more funds for those causes.

If he will make a statement on the introduction of the sixth good cause category of national lottery funding. [21446]

The National Lottery Bill will create a new good cause for health, education and the environment. This will support a rolling programme of targeted initiatives, the first three of which will be new technology training for teachers and librarians, out-of-school hours activities, including child care, and healthy living centres.

I thank the Secretary of State for that statement, but will he concede that the introduction of a sixth good cause must lead to national lottery funding replacing public expenditure? Given that the experience of many people who have run national lotteries shows that revenue from the lottery will inevitably decline, will that not be a double blow to the interests of the five good causes?

No, on neither count: first, because the money that is going to child care, out-of-hours school activities, information technology training for teachers and healthy living centres is entirely additional to any existing Exchequer expenditure and, secondly, because the money that each of the existing distributors will get will be exactly in line with their expectations when the lottery was first established, as I have told the House on many occasions.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the National Lottery Bill were enacted unamended, he or his successor would have the power by order to reduce the proceeds allocated to the existing good causes from the existing 20 per cent. to no more than 5 per cent. and that 75 per cent. of the proceeds could therefore be allocated through the new opportunities fund to Government initiatives promoted by Ministers?

The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect: no Government-administered good causes are to be established by the Bill. The new opportunities fund will operate at arm's length from Government exactly as the existing distribution does. We will of course examine any amendments tabled by anyone, either in the House or in another place, entirely on their merits.

When he will meet next leaders of the British film industry to discuss the growing use of product placement in films. [21447]

I have not received any representations on product placement.

When my hon. Friend meets people in the film industry, will he raise product placement with them? It is in some senses more dangerous with generic rather than specific products. There has been an increase in both Hollywood and British films showing people smoking. As advertising becomes more regulated, there is a great fear that tobacco giants will put more money into influencing young people through their heroes on the silver screen.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Unlike in television, there is no legislation to deal with the matter in the film industry. I will pay close attention to the point.

I hope that the Minister will give the House an absolute assurance that he will not be tempted by the politically correct, modern health fascists, or any other minority group, to seek to interfere with the artistic freedom of those who make our films.

Those in the industry would be the first to remind us that they, and indeed the audiences, have a say. They clearly know exactly where they are going, and the achievements even of the past eight months show that they have a successful future.

If he will reintroduce tourism grants in England under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. [21449]

The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants.

Since the removal of section 4 grants by the previous Government, seaside towns and the north-west have lost heavily, while Wales and Scotland have achieved benefits by their continuation. Will my right hon. Friend consider their reintroduction?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in the achievement of no fewer than 25 awards in Chorley for projects ranging from sport to tourism. Those have been helpful in achieving the objectives that he set out. We are delighted that we have maintained the expenditure for the English Tourist Board and for the British Tourist Authority. I can assure my hon. Friend that I know that the north-west will have a great deal to say; indeed, it has already welcomed the Government's proposals for regional development.

I hope that the Minister enjoyed his recent visit as a tourist to Ambleside in my constituency and that he will feel welcome to return on many future occasions. When he considers how to help tourism in my constituency and elsewhere, will he lend his weight to the campaign by many tourism businesses, and especially small guest houses, for the Chancellor to increase the value added tax threshold in the Budget?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Lake district, and to Ambleside in particular. I hope that he will note the fact that his constituents are very grateful that the Minister for Tourism should have recognised the beauties of their area. His question was, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will use his opportunities to pursue it with him.

When my right hon. Friend considers the opportunities for the development of tourism, will he place special emphasis on supporting short-term breaks? Many seaside towns, including Blackpool, benefit from the promotion and support of such breaks, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that.

My hon. Friend is right. I know that Blackpool, in common with other seaside resorts, will want to make its contribution to the tourism forum that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up a few months ago and to which he will contribute a strategic paper that will be available to the public and will cover issues such as those that my hon. Friend raised.

What steps he is taking to increase the number of British-produced films showing in (a) domestic and (b) international markets. [21450]

What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of British-produced films shown (a) domestically and (b) internationally. [21454]

I share my hon. Friends' aspirations for British films. A key element will be the work of my film review group, which will report shortly with proposals for increasing the market for British films.

Did my right hon. Friend see Barry Norman's review of last year's films, in which he pointed out that, although 125 British films were begun last year—compared with only 47 five years ago—more than 40 per cent. remain unreleased despite having been completed 12 months ago? Will my right hon. Friend take action to improve the distribution network for British films in this country and abroad? Will he go the full monty in improving the selling of British films?

My hon. Friend is right and well informed on this matter, as on others. That important issue is being considered by my film review group, which will report in a few months.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but can he reveal how the British film industry is doing in the British market, which is as important as the international market?

My hon. Friend and the House will be delighted to know that we have, in the past eight months, increased from 12 to 23 per cent. Britain's share of the film market, with marvellous films such as "Bean", "Mrs. Brown", "The Full Monty" and many others. We are determined to build on those wonderful achievements.

If he will make a statement on the accountability to Parliament of the New Millennium Experience Company. [21470]

As a shareholder of the company I am accountable to the House and I am delighted that, from next month, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will allow me twice as long to answer questions on the millennium experience.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the National Audit Office recently identified serious problems in the procurement process for the dome before the establishment of the New Millennium Experience Company. In the light of that, why does my hon. Friend continue stubbornly to refuse to lay interim accounts and contractual information before Parliament in the Library? His argument in the past has been that to do so would put the New Millennium Experience Company in a different position from similar entities. I would argue that the company is different from similar entities, because it is spending £750 million. It is the people's dome and, largely, the people's money—why cannot the people know how that money is being spent?

I am not denying the House or anyone else any information, stubbornly or otherwise. All the information that such a non-departmental public body needs to make available will be made available and deposited in the Library. I gather that the next accounts are required to be laid in September and that will be done. As for other financial and contractual information, an enormous amount of such information was made available to a Select Committee of the House.

I thank the Minister for being good enough to come to the House. Will he confirm that the blood row between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not affect the millennium project? Will the Minister also agree to publish, on a monthly basis, the cash flow forecasts for the New Millennium Experience Company?

No, I will not.

On accountability, may I draw to the Minister's attention page 1 of the ministerial code, which states:

"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest"?

I answer questions fully in accord with the requirements of the House. Far from the House being denied information about the finances of the company or any other aspects of its operation, the opposite is the case, as the Select Committee was kind enough to acknowledge. As for accountability, I have answered more than 100 written parliamentary questions since June. That compares with a mere 24 written and oral questions answered by my predecessors when the Conservative party was in power.

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his victory in the titanic struggle to persuade the Leader of the House to allow him to answer questions for 10 minutes rather than five? In the same spirit of full parliamentary accountability, will he now answer the only written question that he failed to answer on Friday by telling the House what meetings took place in Britain during 1997 between his officials, the New Millennium Experience Company or him and representatives of the Disney Corporation, why they were not publicised and what was discussed?

I am happy to publicise any meetings between the company and Disney, because the Select Committee urged us to take advice from and consult the acknowledged world leaders in entertainment. At the Select Committee's behest, I travelled to Florida for discussions with Disney, not to import ideas about attractions but because I wanted to discuss managing the flow of visitors, catering, internal transport and other logistical aspects; and a very useful series of meetings they have been, too.

How much has been spent on the millennium experience at Greenwich out of public funds. [21471]

No taxpayers' money is being spent on the project other than that already committed by English Partnerships to prepare the site for development. The New Millennium Experience Company is receiving a lottery grant of £399 million net from the Millennium Commission, of which the company had spent £58.5 million by the end of 1997.

I understand that the Minister does not want to give us much information about the financial aspect of the millennium dome and the millennium experience, but he has said that he wishes it to be the best of British. Will he elucidate why he needs to find out about the best of British in Disneyland in Florida and why his boss the Prime Minister needs to go to Japan to find experiences that will clearly not be the best of British?

The hon. Lady cannot have listened to my reply about my visit to Disney. My responsibilities as Minister in connection with this matter have received commendation, most recently from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who in an interview last week said:

"I think that he's doing it as well as it can be done. It is a difficult and controversial job to do and there's no easy precedent."

If he will take steps to allow all qualified lawyers rights of audience in all courts. [21475]

What reforms he is proposing in the rights of audience before the courts. [21476]

The Government are not satisfied that all of the current restrictions on who may exercise rights of audience in the courts are in the public interest, nor are we satisfied with the current procedures for granting or extending those rights. We will announce our detailed reform proposals on the subject in due course.

Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Is he saying that the last great closed shop monopoly of the professions, that of the barristers, is about to be reformed, and that my constituents who complain that their solicitors have not been allowed to take their cases into all the court areas into which they wish to have them taken will now be allowed to do so? Is this modernising Government about to reform the last great Tory restrictive practice?

I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no statutory bar on solicitors appearing in the higher courts; it is the Law Society's own rules that prevent them from exercising rights of audience in those courts unless they have the Law Society's higher courts qualification. It is obviously open to the Law Society to amend its rules if it wishes, but the Government are dissatisfied with the complex, bureaucratic and slow procedures that currently affect rights of audience, and we are determined to reform them.

What does my hon. Friend intend to do about the Bar Council, which has been dragging its feet on introducing the necessary mechanisms to allow barristers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to appear in the courts? Is that not yet a further example of the restrictive practice referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), which is exercised by people who are trying to increase public expenditure unnecessarily? The CPS has trained and professionally qualified barristers who are not allowed to appear in the courts because their brethren want the rich pickings from those courts.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He has highlighted one of the underlying reasons why we believe it is necessary to reform the present arrangements. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the matter is not entirely in our hands. Employed solicitors were granted limited rights of audience in the higher courts in February last year. I, for one, find it surprising that the Bar has not yet made a formal application to the Lord Chancellor for employed barristers to be given the same rights as employed solicitors. We would welcome such an application.

Has the Minister given any thought to the effect that the Government's proposals to change the legal aid system and the tax system with reference to the legal profession will have on the number of qualified lawyers remaining in practice and available to appear in the courts? Will not the changes that the Government are ramming through mean that there will be fewer lawyers in practice to assist the least well off and the needy? Does he not realise that he is not reforming Clement Attlee's welfare system but dismantling it?

I am interested to note the hon. and learned Gentleman's use of the expression "ramming through". The proposals were first announced in October last year. We said that we would consult on them before issuing a consultation document, which is likely to be published at the end of February. Thereafter, we will consult on the proposals in it and listen carefully to the representations that we receive. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply not used to the idea of a Government who listen to the reactions to the consultation documents they publish.

If he will make a statement on his Department's guidance to judges in relation to disability issues. [21478]

The Judicial Studies Board has an advisory committee whose responsibilities were recently extended to cover all aspects of equal treatment training, including training on disability issues. The committee will be considering guidance for members of the judiciary on disability questions.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that expressed by organisations such as the Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People about the case of Mary Nevin, who asked to use an alphabet board in court because she suffers from multiple sclerosis but was refused permission by a judge? Will that decision be changed in the future so that disabled people are not discriminated against in court? Will the rules on accessibility of evidence be altered to overcome that problem?

My hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor's Department about that case. It is obviously not appropriate for me to comment on its details, but I emphasise that it does not set a precedent—each case must be considered on its merits.

What the Minister says about making the judiciary acutely sensitive to the needs of the disabled will be welcomed throughout the House. Does he agree, however, that that requirement should be carefully circumscribed? What does he make of the comments made by one of his Department's officials who, speaking at a conference in Cambridge at the weekend, raised the possibility of greater investigation of the political background of judges and the evolution of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords into

"something like the Supreme Court"?

I am not aware of those comments, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the matters raised in the question. As I said earlier, it is important that, whatever is the response of particular judges to the disabled, that should not impair their impartial role in the operation of the court. In response to his further observations, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that information is already gathered about the political sympathies of an important element of the judiciary—magistrates.

If he will make a statement about the court system's treatment of those with serious learning difficulties. [21479]

The Department is committed to providing a high level of service to all court users. In particular, it is playing an active and vigorous role in the vulnerable or intimidated witness working group, which was set up by the Home Secretary and is looking at improving the whole criminal justice process, including court procedures, for people with learning difficulties.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that people with severe learning difficulties are at particular risk, not least from physical and sexual abuse? It is therefore important that they receive justice in the courts. What are the implications of that for court facilities and for the training of the judiciary?

I am aware of that concern. Sympathetically providing for and dealing with those who suffer from disability is covered in the training with which the Judicial Studies Board is to be involved. In addition, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently issued a direction that magistrates courts committees should meet specified standards of performance relating to disabled court users. The good practice guide, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library, makes it clear that that includes people with learning disabilities.

What assessment he has made of the likely use and effectiveness of conditional fees in England and Wales. [21480]

By the end of 1997, at least 34,000 conditional fee agreements had been made, half of them in the past 12 months. That shows that, throughout the country, conditional fee agreements are not only an established way of funding litigation, but providing a means of access to justice for people who, in the past, were denied it.

As that is a comparatively small use of conditional fees since their introduction from Scotland and as there is no indication from those figures, or from any research that anyone has seen, that such arrangements can protect the less well-off in compensation cases as well as legal aid can protect them, why does not the Lord Chancellor rethink his proposal to replace legal aid in compensation cases with conditional fees and run the two systems side by side for a period, so that we can study the effects and benefits of both systems instead of taking a leap in the dark?

My hon. Friend and I have debated this subject on a number of occasions, so I shall spare him the repetition of detail that I have set out previously. As I said earlier, the Government are determined to consult, in detail and in depth, about the proposals. I emphasise that, from that wide consultation, we shall not exclude any category of case that would be unlikely to attract a conditional fee agreement.

Does the Minister accept that, although conditional fees have been introduced only recently, there are considerable concerns that we could be going down the same road as courts in the USA and that a class of ambulance-chasing lawyers might start to grow here? In his further consultation, will he take seriously into account those concerns, which have been expressed by many people both inside and outside the legal profession?

Of course I shall take them seriously into account, but I hasten to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Government he supported that first allowed conditional fees to be introduced. Although my memory does not serve me fully, I assume that he expressed similar concerns at the time of their introduction. Conditional fees have been outstandingly successful: some 34,000 fees had been taken forward under conditional fee arrangements by the end of last year, but that statistic disguises the fact that the rate of use of conditional fees is increasing month by month.

In his speech to the Law Society in Cardiff on 18 October last year, the Lord Chancellor said that he intended

"to co-ordinate these services"—

"under a coherent scheme which will provide a service to the whole public which is both easy to access and to understand."

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding of citizens advice bureaux is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am, however, keen to see their involvement in providing legal and other advice in the not-for-profit sector out of available funds. There has never been any promise of funding to any particular citizens advice bureau other than through the franchising process; that exercise is currently under way. There is no suggestion that any specific funds have been withdrawn from any organisation.

What representations he has received about the first annual report of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [21481]

To date, I have not received any such representations.

Does the Minister accept that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has received representations? The number of complaints has risen 7 per cent. over the previous year. As well as an increase in complaints there is a persistent view among complainants that their complaints are not treated either seriously or quickly enough. When my hon. Friend has the opportunity, will he raise those issues with the organisation and look for better performance measures?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter once again. It is clearly important that the public should have confidence in the way in which complaints against solicitors are addressed. I am determined that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, established by the Law Society, should have the opportunity to demonstrate that it is dealing effectively with complaints. It seems that one test of the office's success will be the reaction of hon. Members and their constituents. I know that the OSS would welcome visits from hon. Members so that it can listen to their concerns in person and explain what it is doing to meet them. I encourage my hon. Friend to take up the offer of a visit to the OSS.

Given that the office has a role in overseeing the activities of solicitors, and further to the Minister's earlier answer that it is the Law Society, among other organisations, that is preventing the right of access of solicitors to higher courts, will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to examine the system that exists in New Zealand whereby solicitors, along with barristers, have a right of audience in higher courts?

Perhaps I inadvertently misled the hon. Gentleman: solicitors have the right of audience in higher courts and have had that opportunity for some time. They have to be approved by the Law Society before they are able to appear in the higher courts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves of such prior approval, as it demonstrates competence among quite a limited number of solicitors who presently satisfy the Law Society's rules in that respect.