What recent representations he has received concerning the status of chess in the UK. [77368]

I have in recent months received a number of representations on chess from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and from members of the public, and all of them have been in favour of chess being classified as a sport. Hon. Members will be aware of my strong support for chess and of my recent announcement that, at the earliest parliamentary opportunity, we intend to amend existing legislation so that chess can be "recognised" as a sport.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome very much the support that he has shown for reclassifying chess as a sport. Does he agree that chess is an excellent pursuit in which boys and girls and men and women may learn concentration, strategy and tactics? Does he also agree that it is an excellent pursuit for children in after-school clubs—where it may have an immediate impact by increasing our younger children's concentration in school?

Both the Secretary of State and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's view, which has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that chess is enormously valuable not only to young people, but to all people—although it does seem to be a sport that is better played the younger one is. We have an 11-year-old champion—Jessie Gilbert, from Croydon—who was the youngest adult winner of the world championships, which was absolutely amazing. We have 50,000 children playing chess in clubs across the country. Furthermore, the new opportunities fund offers another opportunity for chess to be taken into after-school clubs. There are, therefore, plenty of opportunities. Chess is a wonderful British success story in sport. We should recognise it as a sport, as do 11 of our partners in the European Union.

Given the hon. Gentleman's reported remark that chess should be reclassified as a sport

"because we are very good at it",

The hon. Gentleman—who does a very good impression of a small pawn in the House—makes a point. I said only inter alia that we should recognise chess as a sport because we are good at it. Although that does not seem to be a bad reason for recognising it as a sport, there are many other reasons why we should do so. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in saying that it does not meet the definition of a sport under the 1937 Act—which is precisely why I said that we shall seek the earliest parliamentary opportunity to amend that Act.

What initiatives have been introduced to improve (a) access, (b) quality of service and (c) value for money in local library services. [77369]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has required all library authorities to produce annual library plans for the first time. Books are at the heart of a public library service, and annual library plans report on, among other matters, the range and adequacy of the stock of books and accessibility of service. My right hon. Friend has also announced substantial additional funds for libraries, totalling almost £300 million, to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by information and communications technology.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is considerable scope for modernisation and innovation in our library services? Will he congratulate my local library service on introducing innovations—such as implementing smart cards to enable self-issuing outside working hours, linking library services to sports centres and linking provisions for schools and communities to provide enhanced facilities for both? There is probably more innovation across the country than we are aware of. What role might my hon. Friend play in disseminating good practice and promoting modernisation throughout our councils?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and should like, very readily, to add my congratulations to those that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed on his visits to her library service. We have seen some very remarkable increases in usage of libraries in her authority—particularly where libraries have been linked to leisure centres. That seems to be a good example of innovative good practice, and she is right to draw attention to it. With the instrument of the new annual library plans, we shall be able increasingly to establish standards to be applied consistently across the country, and to have better opportunities to identify good practice and to disseminate that practice. We shall certainly be keen to do so.

While the Minister is in congratulatory mode, will he join me in congratulating Conservative Kent, Surrey and Bedfordshire county councils on preserving all their library services, despite the cuts in funding from central Government? Will he urge Labour-controlled councils such as Brent, Camden, Lambeth, Haringey, Merton. Wolverhampton, Wirral and Southwark to follow that example, because they are busily engaged in closing libraries? Will he have a special word with the Secretary of State, who has a particular relationship with Islington council, which is closing five of its 10 local libraries? That is hardly likely to encourage access, quality of service or value for money, is it?

I am afraid that I cannot offer the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman invites me to. He is at his most selective and biased, as is all too plain to the House. He cited the example of Surrey, which was a very close-run thing; the council tax payers of Surrey had a narrow squeak. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about Islington, which has withdrawn the proposals to which he referred.

In what ways the millennium fund has promoted volunteering. [77370]

The Millennium Commission is making a major and enduring contribution to promoting volunteering in the United Kingdom. Its millennium awards scheme is enabling 40,000 individuals to put their bright ideas for community projects into action, and many of the capital projects that it is supporting will provide significant encouragement and opportunities for volunteering.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 4,000 people who have already received awards, particularly the two from my constituency—one for an environmental project and the other for a family learning project? How does he envisage the fund contributing towards dealing with social exclusion.

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all the millennium award winners on their work in developing their skills and giving something back to their community in the process. The aim is that 40,000 individuals will be assisted in that over the next five years. There are also many initiatives in the capital projects funded by the commission. The commission has granted £22 million to the changing places scheme, which is an umbrella scheme incorporating 21 community projects in England and Wales that will reclaim wasteland and enhance local environments. It relies heavily on local volunteers and 70,000 are expected to contribute to the project, which will make a major contribution towards tackling social exclusion.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Department for Education and Employment is also producing what appears to be an excellent scheme on millennium volunteers. Will it be possible to produce a directory of the many worthwhile millennium initiatives for use by Members of Parliament, local councillors, citizens advice bureaux and others? It is also important to know the local contact points for such schemes. The millennium volunteers project is a great idea, but it will not be great in practice if people do not know with whom to get in touch.

The hon. Gentleman's point about the millennium volunteers programme will be fully addressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. We are working closely with him and the Millennium Commission to ensure that all the initiatives are properly co-ordinated and that detailed information is available. The millennium voyager bus is going around the country—it has recently visited Birmingham—full of information about what is happening in each area, how to contact the organisations involved and what is planned for the millennium year.

What progress has been made with the implementation of the football task force report "Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters". [77371]

On 25 November, I wrote to all the organisations identified in the report as having a role to play in implementing the task force's recommendations. The responses that I have received have been positive, indicating that the task force's proposals either have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. On 17 March, I wrote to those organisations that have yet to reply, asking them for an indication of the progress that they are making.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree with me that facilities for disabled people at most English grounds still leave a great deal to be desired? Will he ensure that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are fully implemented by all those clubs? Does he also agree that, to succeed with the world cup 2006 bid—which is a key priority for the Government and for most hon. Members—the new national stadium and access to it for the disabled must be world class?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will undoubtedly improve access at sports venues for people with disabilities. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we now have a real opportunity in the construction of the new Wembley to ensure that it is a state-of-the-art stadium for not only able-bodied but disabled supporters, whatever their disability. The building of the new Wembley stadium is crucial to our 2006 bid, and I am delighted that we have cleared the hurdle of the approval of Wembley plc, and we can now proceed to the design stage.

Does the Minister agree that we should try to improve facilities for disabled supporters not only of football, but of other sports? Will he bear in mind the needs not only of disabled spectators, but of paralympic athletes? I have discussed this matter with the Minister, and I know that he is aware of the concerns of many paralympians about the lack of proper facilities for disabled competitors at Crystal Palace. I hope that he can tell us that that matter is being addressed.

I most certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I acknowledge the part that he plays in the promotion of disability sport in this country. He is right to point out that our paralympians are among the finest in the world. We should see them in terms not of their disability, but of their sporting achievements and prowess, about which we have much to feel proud. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will apply to all sporting venues, not just football stadiums. There is much that we can do to improve our grounds, whether for athletics or for football, to ensure that we provide the best possible facilities for disabled spectators and our disabled sportsmen and sportswomen.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some clubs have made considerable progress in opening up their grounds and making football accessible particularly to the disabled, but also to families and children? Does he also agree that the decision by Chelsea football club to keep open the job for Graham Rix after his conviction shows cynical disregard for the views of the family of the victim, and is a step back in making football accessible to all?

Football clubs such as Blackburn and Northampton have provided facilities for disabled supporters. That is admirable and should be replicated around the country.

If he will make a statement on the renewal of the BBC charter. [77373]

The BBC charter was renewed in 1996 to run for 10 years. It will next be reviewed in the run-up to 2006.

Will the Secretary of State try to ensure that the BBC spends a greater proportion of licence payers' money on programme making? Is he aware that the BBC is awash with—indeed, submerged in—management strategies, management consultants and mission statements, and that the situation has reached such a point of absurdity that Broadcasting house has no broadcasters in it, only managers? Will he ensure that licence payers get better value for money by having more spent on programmes and journalists and less on gobbledegook managers?

I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is entirely a matter for the governors to allocate the BBC's resources, and it is very important that the Government do not intervene in those decisions; but it is also important to ensure, as hon. Members of all parties would wish, that the BBC devotes as much of its resources as possible to making good programmes for its viewers and listeners.

Since the BBC is the prime cultural institution in the country, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to promote its cause up to and beyond the renewal of the charter?

I will certainly seek to do that. The BBC is our premier public service broadcaster, and I was delighted to read a week ago of the comments made by Mr. Alan Yentob, who seized strongly on the point that the BBC's pre-eminent task is to act as a benchmark of quality in the broadcasting environment.

If the BBC is indeed a benchmark of quality, is the Secretary of State not concerned about declining standards in both television and radio? What does he think about the recent announcement that the licence fee is to be increased to more than £100? Is that not too much for, for example, the elderly, the disabled and the housebound? Would not some of the money be better used in finding rebates for them?

We are, of course, following the five-year programme of licence fee settlements put in place by the Conservative Government. We felt that it was correct to follow that prospectus, because all the BBC's plans had been based on it. It is, however, important to bear in mind the affordability of the licence fee, especially for those who are not particularly well off. The review panel that I established to report to me in July on the licence fee is considering that issue.

Has my right hon. Friend seen last week's BBC report, showing that 3 million fewer people now listen to parliamentary coverage because of the transfer of "Yesterday in Parliament" to long wave and the dumping of "The Week in Westminster" in a graveyard slot? Is he aware that, according to the same report, the "Today" programme has not gained a single new listener between 8.30 and 9 o'clock? Does that not show that the BBC's decision to move parliamentary coverage out of the mainstream was a complete disaster? It was a disgrace when it was made last year, and it should be reversed. There has been a general drop in BBC listening and viewing figures. which are now at 30 per cent. To what percentage of the national audience does the BBC have to drop before the licence fee itself is called into question?

The BBC has indeed published its study of what happened following the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". I know that it is of great concern to many hon. Members, and indeed to you, Madam Speaker. The report is out for consultation, and the closing date for responses is Friday 30 April. I very much hope that hon. Members of all parties will express their views forthrightly to the BBC.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a subsidy of £2 billion from the licence fee payer means that the BBC has a clear obligation to protect the public interest? I echo the comments by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane); in that regard, does the Secretary of State share my concern that, since the Radio 4 changes a year ago, "The Week in Westminster" audience has dropped 65 per cent. and the "Yesterday in Parliament" audience has fallen by fully 73 per cent? Will he remind the director-general of the corporation's clear public service responsibility to react to those figures?

I will remind the BBC, the governors and the director-general of their duty as a public service broadcaster not only to entertain, but to educate and inform. My personal view is that accurate and full coverage of what happens in Parliament is part of that duty, and I am sure that that is a point that many hon. Members will wish to make. However, it is not, and should not be, up to the Government to make a Government view known to the BBC about its programming decisions: it is up to individual Members of Parliament to do so. I shall do so, and I am sure that many colleagues will also do that.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002. [77374]

We want to see a highly successful Commonwealth games in 2002. I am pleased to say that £112 million of lottery money will help to build facilities that will not only house the games, but provide a lasting sporting legacy for the people of Manchester. I am pleased also that a detailed sports programme for the games has been agreed and that the programme for athletes with disabilities has been fully integrated. Manchester 2002 Ltd. will now be able to work up a detailed budget and pursue television sales and sponsorship.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Manchester Commonwealth games will be an excellent showcase for Britain in the year of the Queen's golden jubilee and that their success will enhance our chances of attracting similar prestigious international events? Is he, therefore, seriously considering the case for central Government financial support for the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies and security?

There is already substantial support for building the facilities. It is early days yet in determining the revenue needs of the games, because much will depend on accurate estimates of the costs, both of running the games as a whole and of the opening and closing ceremonies. Much will also depend on the sale of television rights and the amount of private sector sponsorship that is sought. At this stage, it would not be right to pre-empt decisions on those issues.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, at last week's meeting of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, we were informed that there might be a danger on the site that has been proposed for the Manchester games stadium, because deep mine workings are still in operation underneath that site? A fortnight ago, we visited the site and we were not informed of any difficulties. What will the Secretary of State do about that problem?

I am aware of the issue. A number of former mine workings are near the site of the facilities that are due to be built. All those have been identified, and the stadium and other facilities will be sited in areas that are unaffected.

If the BBC funding review panel will review the basis on which concessions are given for television licences. [77375]

Yes. The terms of reference for the review panel require it to

"consider the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available".

Does my hon. Friend agree that the present system is unfair, riddled with anomalies and downright divisive? That is the view of most pensioners and older people in my constituency. Furthermore, is my hon. Friend aware of the miserly £1.25 rebate that blind people can obtain off their licence? Will those two concerns be passed on to the review panel?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent job that she does in representing the views of her constituents. The Government accept that the current concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory. I can confirm that the review will consider the concession for blind people, which the Government accept is currently of little help, but the way forward must be considered as part of a wider review of concessions.

Is not the hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) absolutely right? Is it not absurd that two pensioners in Frome, who live next to each other in identical flats—one in a sheltered scheme, one outside it—are asked to pay totally different amounts for their television licences? Should we not have a system that treats all pensioners equitably?

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail firmly on the head. The unfairness of the current scheme is a problem. The Government accept that the concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory, but we must be aware that any substantial extension of concessionary arrangements could be expensive. We shall consider in detail the outcome of the review.

Obviously, I welcome my hon. Friend' s statement. However, will she consider ensuring that the people who benefit from a cheap licence will not suddenly face an increase when the anomalies are removed? Will she consider ensuring that all pensioners benefit from a £5 licence?

May I say, as I have said already, that we must be aware that any substantial extension of the concessionary scheme could be very expensive? We await the deliberations of the review, and we shall give detailed consideration to them. Let me repeat that we recognise the unfairness of the present scheme, which is undoubtedly imperfect and unsatisfactory.

If he will make a statement on the future of funding for smaller theatres. [77376]

In recognition of the important contribution that smaller theatres make to my Department's objectives of access, excellence and education, we are discussing with the Arts Council a review of regional producing theatres to be undertaken in the coming year.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. May I extend to him an invitation to visit Cambridge Arts Theatre, if he has not recently done so? He will find the theatre working hard towards accessibility, excellence and education through its work with local schools. What does he expect the quantum of funding to be for small regional theatres? When he comes to discuss accessibility, will he bear in mind the fact that accessibility to theatre may include support for touring companies from west end theatres in London that are able to visit regional theatres?

Yes, indeed. We have put in place £125 million of additional funding over the next three years for the performing and visual arts, through the Arts Council. I am pleased that a major proportion of that money has already been made available to the regional arts boards. Eastern Arts, for example, has received a 15.4 per cent. increase in funding for the coming year, and I expect a proportion of that money to support regional theatre. We have also put in place new audiences funding for the Arts Council, and some of that is already going into support of touring.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my name is listed among the members of the Shadow Arts Council, despite the fact that I have never been asked to join such a group? Does that not raise doubts about the credibility of that organisation, especially as it refuses to accept that the Government are giving an extra £125 million to arts organisations over the next three years?

I do indeed understand my hon. Friend's surprise at her inclusion as a supposed sponsor of that organisation. It is shared by several others among those included on the letterhead list that the organisation issued. I very much welcome any group of people who wish to act as advocates for the cause of the arts in the United Kingdom, but I wish that that organisation would get its facts right before entering the public prints.

Does the Secretary of State agree that small theatres up and down the country, including the Palace theatre in Newark, can perform valuable services to their local communities? Is he concerned that it is now Arts Council policy to let small theatres that it funds go to the wall, perhaps because they do not fit into some great managerial scheme? If not, how does he explain why so many theatres face closure or crisis when the Arts Council is apparently sitting on a £7 million fund that it could extend as a lifeline for core funding for those theatres instead of keeping it up its sleeve? That threatens their survival. Will he call on the Arts Council to release those funds to ensure the survival of regional small theatres?

Of course, the Arts Council has already made available in quite a number of cases substantial additional funding to regional theatres. The Bolton Octagon had a 7 per cent. increase; the Chester Gateway, 14 per cent.; Duke's, Lancaster, 29 per cent.; the Manchester Royal Exchange 8 per cent.; the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough 39 per cent. Substantial additional funding is going to many regional theatres. Having said that, there is concern that regional theatre in general has been suffering financially over many years, principally through decisions taken by the previous Government in cutting money for them. That is why I am asking the Arts Council to take a thorough look across the board at the state of regional theatre right the way across the country so that proper funding decisions can be taken.

What progress is being made in securing adequate transport arrangements for visitors to the dome. [77398]

Excellent progress is being made in delivering new transport infrastructure services that support the public transport objective of the millennium experience project. For example, the first of six new boats for the riverbus services was launched last month and construction work on the new dome pier is on time. The transit link guideway and vehicles that will bring people to the site from Charlton railway station are under construction. Phase 1 of the Jubilee line extension is due to open at the end of April, and phase 2 in the late summer. The on-site coach park is complete. The arrangements for park-and-ride car parks are progressing to plan. The travel industry has confirmed a range of attractive and competitive package offers for travel to and entry to the dome.

I am grateful for that comprehensive answer. If the millennium dome is the rip-roaring success that the Government are working hard to achieve, is the Secretary of State confident that the planned infrastructure, when it is all in place, will be sufficient to carry passengers to the dome? Does he accept that the Jubilee line has been given signalling inferior to what was originally planned, and that the line through Charlton station, which is serviced by Connex South Eastern, already operates at 1.8 per cent. above capacity, according to figures released today? What contingency plans exist to deal with a success so fantastic that there are not enough public transport places?

We anticipate that the dome will, indeed, be a fantastic success and that at least the 12 million visitors currently expected will wish to visit. We want them all to come by public transport. That is why we have been careful, with our colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the various operating companies, to ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place.

Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the news that National Express will offer an all-in package of travel and admissions to the dome? Given that nearly half the visitors are expected to arrive by rail, what discussions has he had with London Underground about arranging a similar package for people using the Jubilee line extension, assuming that it is indeed finished on time?

Discussions are continuing with a large number of other travel and transport operators to ensure that a comprehensive range of packages is available. The National Express package announced a week and a half ago is but the start.

Will my right hon. Friend consider making tickets to the dome available in the north-west? People must be able to use west coast main line services efficiently and get to the millennium dome on time.

The New Millennium Experience Company is conducting detailed discussions with all the train operating companies, including those that handle the north-west main line and its branches. I am confident that announcements will be made shortly about any conclusions that are reached.

What will be the religious content of the celebrations planned at the dome on 31 December 1999. [773991]

The New Millennium Experience Company is currently developing plans for the opening celebrations of the dome on 31 December this year in discussion with Government and others, including the Lambeth group. The nature and scope of the celebrations will be announced in due course.

I am glad that we still have time to make representations to the Minister. Will she take this opportunity to acknowledge that 2000 and the millennium mean only one thing: the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ? Will she find a way of ensuring that there is a moment for quiet Christian reflection in the dome during the opening ceremony on 31 December, led by leading clergy from the Roman Catholic, Church of England and non-conformist Churches?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the significance of the millennium as a Christian anniversary, and discussions are continuing to decide how that will be reflected on the opening night. We hope to make an announcement in due course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as many people will travel to the millennium dome next year, it will provide an ideal opportunity not just for Christian worship and for displaying Christian beliefs but to present the many religious faiths that exist in this country? That will be an important experience for communities that are overwhelmingly of one faith and may not have knowledge of the range of faiths in the United Kingdom.

We understand that we must recognise the interests of all faiths represented in this country. Discussions are continuing about the matter, and we hope to make an announcement soon.

The House will be grateful for the Minister's announcements as far as they go. However, can she confirm that those in charge of the events have received a request from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster that some time be set aside in the minutes before midnight on new year's eve for a Christian act of worship? Why is there any delay in the Government's saying, "Yes, of course", since it is very simple request and that is the most obvious occasion?

As I said earlier, discussions are continuing. We are seeking to ensure that those who want to be involved are part of the opening celebrations. We will make an announcement about the matter as soon as possible.

How the multi-faith nature of Britain is to be demonstrated in the dome. [77400]

The New Millennium Experience Company has worked hard in partnership with the Lambeth group to ensure that the multi-faith nature of the United Kingdom is reflected sensitively in the dome. The zone that will provide the focus for faith issues will encourage visitors to explore moments in human experience. The architecture of the zone will evoke the idea that it is a stopping place on people's spiritual journeys—whatever their faith. The NMEC is also providing a separate quiet space that will be available for private prayer and meditation by all faiths, and space has been made available for the performance of daily prayers by Muslims, which will be funded by that community.

I congratulate my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the work that he has done to ensure that the Lambeth group truly represents all faiths in Britain. Will the Minister assure the House that the celebrations will not be hijacked by the Archbishop of Canterbury? We must recognise that many faiths in Britain wish to be represented in the dome and present at the ceremony. Will the Minister give a further assurance that other faiths and other races will be invited to the dome to make it and the opening celebrations truly representative of the diverse nature of Britain in 1999?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our attempts to ensure that all faiths are properly represented. [Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that we are trying to give as detailed a response as possible. I am sorry that he is taking the trouble to denigrate that; he should welcome what we have said.

Does not the Minister understand that she cannot have it both ways? If she accedes to the request of her hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that faiths other than Christianity should be well represented in this millennium experience, that must, to some extent, be at the expense of what the festival is all about. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, the festival is about Christianity; if the Government cannot come off the fence and understand that it should be a glorious celebration of 2,000 years of Christianity, and get the Prime Minister on-side, what on earth do they think they are doing?

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening earlier, so I repeat that we do recognise the Christian significance and importance of this event, but I am extremely sorry that he should imply that we should exclude large sections of our population who follow different faiths. The Government's intention is try to include everyone; I am sorry that that is not the Opposition's position.

If she will make it her policy to announce the likely dates of periodic adjournments at the start of each Session. [77408]

I understand that hon. Members would prefer to have a greater degree of certainty about Parliament's timetable, and recognise that that would contribute to efficient management in the House and for individual Members. However, it is not possible to predict the progress of business with sufficient accuracy to give so far in advance dates as precise as those sought by my hon. Friend.

I find my right hon. Friend's answer disappointing. I realise that she has inherited a ramshackle system for running this place—probably one that William Rufus would have recognised—but if we are to modernise and to have joined-up government, we need a modernised Parliament and a modernised parliamentary calendar. No other Parliament in the world has a system as absurd as ours, in which we do not set dates. The system is unfair on Members with families, and on Members who want to plan things in their constituencies and to undertake other political and parliamentary business outside the House. Can we consider the matter again and try to institute a parliamentary calendar that stands for a year, allowing for emergencies and special exceptions? That would be welcomed by all Members of the House.

I understand the attractions of a more fixed calendar. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that, broadly speaking, the House has a pattern of sittings with which hon. Members are familiar. We try to give as much notice as we can. For example, on 4 February, I gave notice of the weeks that would be included in the Easter and Whitsun recesses. In recent years, the warning for the spring recess has been 67 days on average. In one year, notice was only seven days; I gave 116 days' notice, so I think that we are moving in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.

Could not the right hon. Lady move a little further towards her hon. Friend, who expressed such disappointment in her original reply? Will she give the House the full dates of the Whitsun recess? She has told us the week, but she has not told us which days before and after that week might be included. Will she also give us a target—for example, the end of June—by which date she would hope to announce the dates for the summer recess?

I understand that for the past 10 years the dates of the summer recess have not been announced before the middle of June. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about giving greater notice, but I fear that the progress of business is sufficiently uncertain that at present I am not able to give him the extra dates for which he has asked. I shall do so as soon as I possibly can.

What recent assessment she has made of the readiness of Government Departments and the wider public sector for millennium compliance. [77409]

On 16 March, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council announced the results of the fifth quarterly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug in Government Departments, agencies and key parts of the wider public sector. The Government continue to make good progress on tackling the bug and the majority of bodies have nearly completed work on business critical systems. Encouraging progress has been made across the wider public sector. However, a concerted effort is necessary in some areas, and is being made, to ensure that the remaining work is finished on time.

This Government have done far more than most Governments throughout the world, and certainly more than the previous Conservative Government, to ensure that we shall be ready for 2000. However, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a patchy picture across local government, and will he explain what central Government are doing to encourage colleagues in local government to ensure that they are ready in time?

By any international standard, the United Kingdom is in the top handful of Governments who are taking matters forward. However, it is important to recognise that the bug problem is everyone's problem—private sector and public sector together. Good progress has been made in the public sector, but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there are problems in some of the smaller councils. Several initiatives have been taken, including the setting up of small groups of teams in Government offices to work with local authorities.

What draft Bills have been made available for scrutiny by Committees of the House before Second Reading; and if she will make a statement. [77410]

Five Bills have been published in draft and I expect at least two more later this Session. Three such Bills have been considered by Select Committees of this House, and one by a Joint Committee with the Lords.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity to provide early scrutiny of Bills helps to avoid poor drafting? Has she noticed that, in the back of today's Order Paper, there are more than 100 amendments to the Employment Relations Bill tabled by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Does she share my hope that pre-legislative scrutiny of a wider range of Bills will obviate the need to table so many amendments at a later stage in the Bill's passage?

My hon. Friend will recognise that, because we are at a relatively early stage in this Parliament, it is more likely that such problems will arise. However, I strongly share her views, first, that it is undesirable in principle for there to be many amendments to Bills and that it would be better if they could be avoided; and, secondly, that they are more likely to be avoided if Bills are published in draft and there is greater scrutiny of legislation before it comes before the House.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in pursuit of her objective of ensuring better scrutiny of Bills, it would be good to look back on the policy initiative of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley and the concept of the Special Standing Committee, which enables the Standing Committee in question to take evidence before Committee stage? Will she consider reviving that practice and committing Bills to such Standing Committees?

The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently before a Special Standing Committee, and I endorse that practice. During this Session, we are exploring several options to try to determine which are likely to be the most fruitful. However, I believe that having a variety of measures available is the best way forward.

A Bill that is soon to appear in draft form is the freedom of information Bill. Has my right hon. Friend read the observations on that legislation contained in the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry; and can she give the House an assurance that Macpherson's comments will be incorporated into the draft Bill?

I am not in a position to pre-empt the drafting of the Bill. As we debate the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report later today, such matters can be explored, but I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have taken careful note of that report.

Pursuant to her oral answer of 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 734, concerning a Select Committee on the effects of sanctions against Iraq, to which relevant colleagues she has passed on the concerns of the hon. Member for Linlithgow; and what was their response. [77412]

I asked that our exchange on 1 March be drawn to the attention of the relevant Foreign Office Ministers. However, the Government's position remains the same: that there is no need to set up a specific Select Committee on Iraq, when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Select Committee on Defence are already able to examine issues relating to the Government's policies toward that country.

For how many hours the House sat in the latest parliamentary Session; and what were the figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago. [77413]

Last Session, the House sat for 2,117 hours and 36 minutes. In the 1992–93 Session, the figure was 1,985 hours and six minutes, and in the 1987–88 Session, 1,978 hours and 40 minutes. In 1983–84, the first Session of that Parliament, the House sat for 1,909 hours and 29 minutes. In other words, I confirm that the House sat for longer last Session than in the past.

In view of those worrying figures, does it not concern the Leader of the House that the Government are not subject to daily scrutiny for long periods during recesses? In view of Members' increased work load, might there not be a case for reducing the length of recesses and, perhaps, adjourning the House earlier than the normal 10 pm?

The parliamentary calendar and timing of the parliamentary day are kept under continual review by this Government, as they have been by many Governments. The hon. Gentleman will know that, up to now, although we have made some improvements following the Jopling reforms and in this Parliament, all the complications that arise from making major changes have led to their being incremental and experimental. I suspect that that will continue.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, luckily, the common sense of the House of Commons is such that most Standing Committees are ignoring the suggestion that they should meet at 9 o'clock on Thursday morning. So far, modernisation has not caused too much difficulty. I trust that she will consult very widely with those who operate in Committee—Standing and Select Committees—before she makes any changes. On a personal note, since I am working longer hours than I was when I came here in 1966, and still spending Fridays in my constituency, I hope that she will not modernise our practices any more—otherwise I shall find myself working 24-hour sessions.

I know that my hon. Friend, like so many Members, is permanently on duty, although I understand her wish to have more freedom about how and where that duty is exercised. I certainly assure her that we keep under review the changes that have been made and, indeed, would think very carefully about further changes. The motivation behind such changes is always to make this House more efficient and effective in the way in which it carries out its work.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, owing to the hours that we now work, particularly on Wednesdays and Thursdays, members of the public cannot see the House of Commons as they used to be able to? Has she any idea about how to facilitate members of the public seeing the House at various other times?

The House has considered these problems. Of course, it can be something of a moot point; some members of the public would rather see the House working than merely its facilities. People can always, of course, see the facilities of the House during recesses. We keep under review the degree of access that the public have to the House, and take it into account.

What progress has been made with plans for the creation of a Main Committee. [77414]

The Modernisation Committee agreed a report on Wednesday, and I expect it to be published on Tuesday 13 April. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to debate it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she elaborate on whether she expects that the creation of a Main Committee will allow greater scrutiny and debate than the current Select Committee structure?

The motivation behind examining and making such a proposal is to allow more time for ordinary Members to raise matters on which they would want debates, and to provide extra time for some of the excellent business for which, sadly, it is difficult to find time on the Floor of the House, such as debates on Select Committee reports.

What assessment she has made of the preparedness of (a) Government Departments and (b) the wider public sector in dealing with millennium compliance problems. [77416]

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle).

Given that programmes dealing with the financing of 2000 will be running by Wednesday night, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the monthly reports that are due out very shortly will begin to include contingency plans that are built on the excellent work that the Government have already done?

I assure my hon. Friend, who has taken a very close personal interest in this matter, that the Government are engaged actively on this issue. Contingency plans are being made. As he knows, monthly statements to the House will begin to be made in the very near future.

If she will make a statement on recent Government proposals for reforming the procedures of the House. [77418]

The Modernisation Committee has considered a number of proposals based on evidence from the Government and elsewhere. The Committee's most recent report recommends an experiment with a parallel forum sitting in the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. What does he regard as the principal outstanding problem relating to the procedures of the House, and how and when does he propose to address it?

The problem is that 659 hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, want to raise issues on the Floor of the House and have their say. The Government welcome that and seek new opportunities to give Back-Bench Members the chance to raise issues.