What recent advice she has given to Historic Royal Palaces regarding the imposition of charges to the public. [129551]

My noble Friend Baroness Blackstone told the trustees of Historic Royal Palaces that they have the power to introduce charges for entry to the gardens at Hampton Court palace provided that the cost is reasonable, related to upkeep, and not at a level that effectively restricts public access.

Does the Minister have any constructive proposals to deal with a basic inequity, arising from a ruling of the European Court of Justice, that local people who use royal palaces—Hampton Court gardens in the case that we are considering—or other national monuments cannot be exempted from or given any sort of preference with regard to charges, which are designed to apply to tourists who visit those places perhaps once in a lifetime?

I know that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues will meet my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for media and heritage on Friday and I am sure that they will be able to hold a dialogue. I assure him that no final decision has been made about the subject. "Not to be announced" appears more times on the briefing sheet than I have previously seen since becoming a Minister. That is unfortunate, but I am sure that all will be revealed to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that what is under discussion will be helpful in dealing with not only the concern that he raised directly, but others.

Does the Minister know what happens in royal palaces in other countries? For example, visitors to Swedish royal palaces properly pay, but do local people have free access to the grounds? Can the Minister find out?

Royal palaces in other countries probably experience the same problems with visitor numbers as those here. That is why they are revisiting the issue of charging. However, I do not have the information that the hon. Gentleman requests to hand.

Whether it is the Government's policy to seek to legislate to permit certain mind sports to be recognised as sports for the purpose of receiving national lottery funding. [129552]

The Government recognise the benefits of participation in chess and other mind games and continue to look at the case for amending the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. That could allow the sports councils to fund mind games. It would then be for the councils, including those of the devolved Administrations, to decide whether to recognise individual mind games as sports for funding purposes.

I am grateful for that response and the moral support that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills have given to chess and bridge. However, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the unfairness, which means that British top-class and world-class players, especially juniors and disabled players, are sometimes unable to access the international competition that we should like them to experience because, consequent on the 1937 legislation, they cannot get lottery funding?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but chess is funded directly by the Exchequer to the tune of £50,000. Indeed, in 2003, the figure will be £60,000. It has also received just under £500,000 directly since the lottery's inception. Funding streams can therefore be accessed for chess and other mind games. I am aware of the world-class performance, but until the problem of the 1937 Act is resolved and chess is included in the definition of sport, it cannot have access to direct funding from the Sports Councils.

I wish to support the line of questioning of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is my bridge partner in the House of Commons team. However, my question does not constitute special pleading because although I do not believe that the House of Commons team will apply for any grants, we are considering a serious issue. In my constituency many people play contract bridge, but travel to events, booking halls and so on are restricted to those who are reasonably wealthy. Recent studies clearly show that Alzheimer's and such conditions can be ameliorated by engagement with mind sports. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to continue to use his best efforts to widen the canvas on which his brush is currently painting.

Notwithstanding all those points, I suggest that my hon. Friend gets a partner from either Scotland or Wales who could put some pressure on the respective Sports Councils. I have raised the matter at the sports cabinet, which Sports Ministers of the devolved Administrations attend. I am bound to say that there is currently no appetite for change. Unless there is such appetite in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it will be difficult to proceed with changes to the 1937 Act.

If she will make a statement on the most recent funding settlement from the Arts Council for the performing arts in the regions. [129553]

While the allocation of funding is a matter for Arts Council England, I am pleased that so many arts organisations in all regions of England are benefiting from the increased funding that we secured for the arts in the last spending review. This will see arts expenditure increase to £410 million by 2005–06, a 117 per cent. increase since 1997.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. She will be aware that theatre provision in my constituency has been inadequate since the closure of the Barnsley Civic theatre several years ago due to the necessity for structural repairs. Unfortunately, successive bids for lottery funding have failed, and the Arts Council obviously now has less money available to distribute to such causes. Will my right hon. Friend examine this situation to see whether any further assistance can be given to my local authority, so that it can provide a theatre in my constituency?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, in view of the fact that the theatre in his constituency has now been dark for some years and was unsuccessful in the last bidding round. It is not for me to say whether any help can be given, because it is important that the allocation of funds by Arts Council England is independent of the Government. I note, however, that Barnsley is one of the priority areas in Yorkshire for development by the Arts Council, which recently funded a development officer in the town to help with cultural regeneration. I am delighted that culture is forming such an important part of the economic regeneration there. I would also point out to my hon. Friend that it is possible to bid again, and I hope that careful contact with the Arts Council prior to the bid being put in will secure a better result next time. If that were the case, I would join him in being absolutely delighted.

Is it not the case that the Arts Council and other organisations expected additional money when the Millennium Commission was wound up? Notwithstanding that, is the right hon. Lady aware that the Arts Council has given a generous grant to the Garrick theatre in my constituency, which the Secretary of State opened when she visited Lichfield recently? Does this not just go to show that when bodies have decent organisation and make decent applications, money can sometimes be found?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many good quality bids have been funded. I was delighted, on my only other appearance at DCMS questions, to celebrate with him what has happened at the theatre in Lichfield, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the following day. I would, however, question something that he said. I do not think that he meant to give the impression that the bid from Barnsley was no good. I am sure that in Yorkshire, as in the west midlands, Humberside and other regions, there are good quality bids. I am pleased to say that the bids coming in from cultural organisations for investment in regeneration are now of such quality that it is becoming difficult to make final decisions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that we should always ensure that we have as much money as possible to fund good bids, as such projects form an essential part of the economic infrastructure of the country and provide for people to enjoy their leisure time.

If she will make a statement on Government-funded provision for athletics in the north-east. [129554]

Since 1998, a total of just under £2.8 million has been awarded to athletics in the north-east by Sport England from Exchequer or lottery programmes, comprising four community capital programme awards totalling just over £2.5 million, one award of £50,000 through the community athletics refurbishment programme—part of the legacy money given to UK Athletics—and 33 Awards for All grants totalling£113,000.

I know that the Minister is looking forward to doing the great north run next week. When he does so, he will pass Gateshead stadium, which he will see is in dire need of investment. Is he aware that the stadium has been turned down for an £11 million lottery bid, while at the same time the Duke of Northumberland, one of the richest men in the north-east, received an £11 million grant from the lottery for some old painting that he did not want any more? When the Minister is up there, will he intervene in this matter and get some public resources in so that we can get this worthwhile scheme going?

I can assure my hon. Friend that when I am doing the great north run on Sunday, I shall be keeping my eyes in front and looking for the 13-mile marker. Seriously, though, my hon. Friend raises an important question. Sport England's review has been looking at the facilities for elite development, and it took the decision in July to review that. I was up there a few weeks ago, and it was pleasing to see how all the parties involved have come together. A meeting was called by Sport England, which has given a commitment that there will be some elite facilities there, and the development agency, the Government office and the universities are all now involved, together with the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that in the next few weeks or months, there will be a resolution to the problem to which my hon. Friend refers.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about funding for athletics, I assure him that athletics clubs in the north-east, in common with sports clubs throughout the country, will react with shock-horror at his decision, as outlined to me in his letter of 20 August, that clubs will have to pay the full fee for alcohol licences in future. In Committee on the Licensing Bill, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said in response to the three amendments that I had tabled to reduce licensing fees payable by voluntary sports clubs in the north-east:

"Having regard to the strength of the argument that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the Committee"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 6 May 2003; c. 4021—

Order. The question is out of order, so I cannot allow the Minister to answer.

If she will make an assessment of the criteria used by the lottery funding bodies to distribute their resources to applicants. [129555]

The criteria vary from distributor to distributor, but they are based on national lottery financial and policy directions issued to distributors by the Department, and on distributors' own strategic plans and funding policies.

Does the Minister share my concern that the current use of highly selective types of disadvantage and deprivation by many lottery funding bodies to target their funding is causing frustration, disillusion and even anger among many other groups facing similar levels of deprivation, but who feel excluded from access to lottery funds?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter with me. He has sent a letter to the Department, which we will reply to shortly. I took the trouble to look into the background of that letter, because I thought that it may have been the reason for his question. On the face of it, the matter that came before his constituent has been clumsily dealt with by Awards for All in the west midlands. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I have no control over what Awards for All writes in letters, but had I been the hon. Gentleman's constituent and read about the priority for funding as explained to him, I may have had the same response as he had. I hope that that message gets back.

The letter to the hon. Gentleman's constituent was clumsily written, but the policy is not clumsy or ill-thought-out. It is important that all lottery distributors examine how money is being distributed and ensure that under-represented groups are assisted to make better quality applications or to get their fair share. The letter was a reflection of that. The groups that were highlighted in the letter have been significantly under-represented in applications and awards from the Awards for All lottery fund. The issue could have been described in a much better way that would not have antagonised people.

Groups other than those highlighted receive funds from Awards for All. May I compare the hon. Gentleman's constituency with mine as an example? His constituency has had £500,000 in 147 awards, whereas my constituency has had £31,000 in eight awards. On that basis, perhaps it is me rather than him who should be complaining about the criteria and the priorities.

Will my right hon. Friend pause to consider the winner of last night's "Restoration" programme? Victoria baths, which lies between my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), was refused lottery funding on a number of occasions. That does not necessarily reflect on the lottery per se, but it shows that the people sometimes have very different priorities from those of the lottery. Will she join me in congratulating Gill Wright and all the many people who made the bid for Victoria baths so successful?

Of course I will join my hon. Friend. With my connections, affection for the city and knowledge of the area, I am delighted that the people expressed that view. In the consultation paper on the national lottery, we are looking for ways in which the general public can make clear their priorities. Perhaps there is a message from last night, which may reach the ears of those who make the decisions. If so, I would be thrilled.

We could argue until we are blue in the face about the distribution of lottery funds. Is not the issue the reduction in sales of lottery tickets, as a result of which less money is available to distribute? When the lottery began it was supposed to be a competition with one big jackpot. Since then it has fragmented. What proposals does the Minister have to increase lottery sales that do not involve further fragmentation?

Ours is still the most successful lottery in the world. Since it was launched in the mid-1990s, £14.77 billion has been raised. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the pattern of sales and receipts for lotteries elsewhere in Europe and beyond, he will find that sales fall off and plateau after a number of years, and new games are needed. I have no plans to launch new games because that is not my responsibility, but the hon. Gentleman will know from an announcement made last week that Camelot has launched its first new game for some years, and it plans to diversify the games over the next few years to increase funds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more sales mean more money for good causes.

What benefits for UK regions she estimates will accrue from the London Olympic bid. [129556]

Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games in London in 2012 should provide benefits throughout the UK as a whole. Some events, such as sailing and shooting, require specific venues and are therefore likely to be staged outside London. The Olympic football competition is also likely to be held in stadiums around the country. In addition, there will be opportunities to secure investment in improved sporting facilities around the country by some of the visiting teams as they arrive for training and preparation in the year leading up to the games. We intend to do all we can to ensure that as much of the country as possible benefits from the opportunities that the games will create.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I am sure that the whole country will take great pride in a successful London bid for 2012, but that pride might just turn to resentment if people in the regions feel that more money is being sucked into London's infrastructure when London already receives more per capita funds by a mile than any other region. I am particularly anxious that lottery money used for the bid should be seen to be distributed equitably. As my right hon. Friend knows, a number of Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for a fairer share of lottery money, and I hope that she will give special attention to that aspect.

I shall certainly do that. I pay tribute to the efforts, led by my hon. Friend, to focus on the problem that lottery money is not always distributed equitably.

As for the balance between London and the rest of the country, it should be remembered that a substantial part of the estimated cost of hosting the games will be met from London as well as the lottery and income from the International Olympic Committee. While preparing the detailed case for bidding, however, the Government consulted all the regional development agencies to test the very issue raised by my hon. Fiend. The response was unanimous across the country: RDAs recognised that hosting the games in London had the potential to benefit every region if it was done properly. We need to ensure that those benefits are realised in practice wherever people may be.

I can confirm that the official Opposition support the bid and expect the UK regions to benefit if it succeeds. But should not the House be more than a little concerned about the fact that the Government have still not appointed a chief executive officer, while Paris has more than 100 people working full-time on its bid? It appears that our preparations are behind even those of Havana. If the Government are serious about the bid, should not senior Ministers be treating the matter with far more urgency?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his Front-Bench responsibilities. I also welcome the cross-party support for the bid. However, it is not the Government's job to appoint the chief executive of the bidding company; that is the job of the bidding chair, and she has that process in hand. She is determined to recruit the best possible person—[Interruption] That is a judgment that she will make, with great respect. On Friday she announced the names of board members, and I think all who have seen them will recognise the strength of the sporting interests involved and the commitment to representing and promoting regional interests, as well as drawing on the experience of the very successful Commonwealth games in Manchester last year.

Therefore, progress is being made, greatly helped by the very detailed preparation that was undertaken in advance of the Government's decision to bid. In addition to the announcement of the board, the bidding chair has announced the name of her chief operating officer, so the organisation is being put together. The work is proceeding and the important thing now is that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not simply talk about support, but deliver it in practice at every turn.

Can my right hon. Friend shed some light on why neither of the two candidates for the post of chief executive took the job? Can she explain why that was the case?

No, these are decisions for the chair of the bidding company and I do not think that it is right that I should speculate on the reasons why Barbara Cassani is continuing to interview candidates for chief executive.

Does the Minister accept that the eastern region and Essex in particular have a major part to play in the London Olympic bid? Will she ensure that the Government bring forward resources and co-operate with Essex to ensure that Essex can benefit from the bid and that the bid is successful?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman, as a diligent constituency MP, wishes to highlight the interests of his constituents but I do not have anything to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), which is to state in broad terms the Government's commitment to ensuring that the whole country benefits as much as possible from the investment in the Olympics.

What responsibilities the Government have regarding the availability of (a) analogue and (b) digital television services in Greenock and Inverclyde. [129557]

The Independent Television Commission and the BBC are jointly responsible for television broadcasting in the UK. As my hon. Friend knows, analogue coverage is provided in Greenock and Inverclyde by the Rosneath and Rothesay transmitters. However, reception in parts of Greenock and Inverclyde is affected by local topography.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. As she knows, many of my constituents in Inverkip cannot get an analogue signal, so they have subscribed to BSkyB Digital. Now, on a Saturday afternoon when they want to watch on the BBC a live football match, they get a blank screen with a sign saying, "Switch to analogue to watch this match because of other contractual arrangements." That is not an option for them. Should there not be one simple principle written into the new BBC charter that, if one pays one's licence fee, one should be able to watch the BBC, irrespective of any other commercial or technological impediments?

Obviously, comments about the future of the BBC charter will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in future months and years, but I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents. Less than 1 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom cannot receive analogue television, but for his constituents it is 100 per cent. I can imagine their dismay at not being able to watch Scottish football on a Saturday afternoon. He makes a powerful point. All I would say is that the rights and ability to watch analogue television are as important to his constituents as they are to anyone else's throughout the UK. We will do as much as we can to put pressure on the relevant authorities. We will take up his point with them.

If she will make a statement on the (a) governance, (b) independence and (c) accountability of the BBC. [129559]

We are committed to a BBC that is independent of Government and accountable to Parliament and licence fee payers and to a governance regime that delivers on those requirements. The forthcoming charter review will provide the opportunity for a full public and industry debate about those issues.

When does my right hon. Friend intend to launch the review of the charter of the BBC and what form will it take? Who, for example, will undertake it? Will it be civil servants in her Department or an independent commission? Among other things, will the charter review look at the proposition that the BBC should be regulated in terms of the quality of its programmes by Ofcom, in the same way that ITV and independent radio are?

There are two answers to my hon. Friend. First, when I spoke recently at the Edinburgh television festival, I made it clear that, over the next few weeks, I would set out in detail the way in which the Government intended to approach the charter review, which will run over a period of time. The present charter is in place until 2007. I repeat today that I attach enormous importance to the charter review involving public consultation in every way that we can. That will be one of the features and I will make the announcement over the next few weeks.

Previous charter reviews have coalesced in about four areas. Governance, funding and the BBC's position as a monopoly—less the case now, but certainly an issue in the past—have always been issues. Also, building on the Communications Act 2003, we will want to look at the BBC's role in a multichannel world. These questions are not new and recur every time the BBC charter is up for renewal. We are strongly of the view that the voices of the people of this country, who pay for the BBC, should be powerful in shaping the charter review argument.

Does the Secretary of State accept that despite her assurances that the charter review will not be influenced by the Government's arguments with the BBC about Andrew Gilligan and the "Today" programme, the process has not been helped by the reports of threats against the BBC from Ministers and, indeed, former Ministers? Does she agree that it is all the more important that the process is seen to be objective and transparent? Given that we have known for 10 years that the review is to happen, why is she not in a position today to announce how the Government intend to go about it?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can state categorically that the conclusions of the Hutton report will impinge on the charter review only where any conclusions are relevant to the process of the charter review. I have made that clear and the position has not changed. There have been no threats, nor anything else that would undermine the integrity of the process, which is crucial. Given that the charter review process will take up to three years, it is right that all the preliminary work—leading on from the Communications Act, which received Royal Assent in the summer—is done properly. We will make an announcement when the work has been undertaken, rather than at the prompting of the Opposition.

The report of the Secretary of State's interview in The Times said:

"Ministers have long favoured handing the board of governors' regulatory responsibilities over to Ofcom."

That came as news to the Opposition, as we argued that case throughout the passage of the Communications Act. Does she accept that the events of the summer have once again highlighted the need for the BBC to be made accountable to an external and independent body, rather than the rather cosy arrangement that exists at present?

During the passage of the Communications Act, it was clear that the issue of governance would be revisited at the time of the charter review, but that the Act represented a broad settlement for now. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), that is not new. There will always be malicious forces seeking to misrepresent and distort, but I restate that decisions about the future funding, organisation and governance of the BBC will be affected by the outcome of the Hutton inquiry only where there is clear and direct relevance. That is the position, whatever kind of mischievous or malevolent spin Opposition Members try to put on it.

Is not the current state of the governance and accountability of the BBC utterly unacceptable when the head and deputy director of BBC News and the editor of the "Today" programme are allowed to get away with colluding in the back-door briefing of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and that editor is able to get away with approving a contentious article written by Andrew Gilligan for The Mail on Sunday? Apart from the resignations at all levels that we need to expect from the BBC, is it not time that, instead of buckets of whitewash, the BBC's accountability should be the sole responsibility of the new body, Ofcom, as recommended by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee?

My right hon. Friend has set out some of the evidence received by the Hutton inquiry. I do not intend to be drawn into that—we will wait until the inquiry has concluded before making any judgment on any of the points that he raises. My right hon. Friend refers also to the governance of the BBC. His Committee's view is well known, but the Communications Act 2003 takes a different view. However, none of us must forget the BBC's importance not just in this country, but in term; of the way that the rest of the world sees us. That is why it is so important that we get the charter review right, and that at its outcome we have a BBC that is strong and independent of government, and that does the job for the people of this country, and across the world, for which it is so respected and admired.

Leaving aside the Hutton inquiry, and given that members of the public both abhor fence-sitting by politicians and applaud those politicians of all parties who say openly what they think, can the right hon. Lady tell the House this afternoon, on the criteria of governance, independence and accountability, what marks she would award the BBC on a rising scale of one to 10?

With great respect, that was an elegant but insubstantial question. The hon. Gentleman has repeated the framework of first-stage questions for charter review, which we will engage with over the next two to three years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that through their recent actions, the BBC governors have in fact confirmed the value of their role, independent of government and of commercial regulators, first by stoutly rebutting claims of anti-war bias; secondly, by instituting a review of the rules on BBC journalists writing for newspapers; and thirdly, by upholding a complaint about the use of footage of two dead British soldiers during the "Correspondent" programme—a complaint which, unlike that of Mr. Alastair Campbell, was formally made to those governors?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the duty of impartiality and accuracy defines the governors' regulatory responsibility. The contributions that we have heard give a flavour of the debate to come, in the context of charter review, on the future governance, funding and nature of the BBC.

Notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady says about her willingness to consult the people about their continuing desire to pay £116 a year for the privilege of watching "Fame Academy" and so on, can she say whether she and the Labour Government remain committed in principle to the licence fee as the means of funding the BBC?

Again, the charter review will address that issue. As I have said on many occasions, we want the review to be wide-ranging and fundamental, so it would be wrong at this stage for the Government to express a view that would constrain a debate that is just beginning. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, in his characteristic way, will have many robust contributions to make in the months ahead.

If she will make a statement on her policy on rate relief for amateur sports clubs. [129561]

I am pleased that the Government were able to introduce an amendment to the Local Government Bill on 10 September. The amendment will provide mandatory rate relief for registered community amateur sports clubs. That further demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting our 110,000 amateur clubs, and I believe that it is excellent news for sport.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news and for the Government's commitment to supporting grass-roots sport. I can assure him that the secretary of Chepstow rugby club, whom I spoke to this morning, knows that 80 per cent. rate relief on the £4,000 that the club currently pays to Monmouthshire county council will be immensely beneficial. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all the amateur sports clubs that stand to gain from this excellent policy will be informed and encouraged to apply?

Very much so. I received a letter congratulating the Government—such letters are not very common these days—from the National Playing Fields Association. It reminded me of the association's annual report of 1930 and provided rather more detail than appeared in the Hansard when the matter was discussed at the time. That letter also referred to the annual report of 1931, which referred to efforts made

"to obtain rate relief from the additional rate burdens that now oppress sports clubs".

That letter continued:

"70+ years later you deserve the credit for introducing something very simple, obvious and helpful to community sports".

From time to time the National Playing Fields Association has bashed the Government. but on this occasion I thank it for congratulating us.

The Minister's announcement and the amendment to which he referred are extremely welcome, as his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) rightly said. However, will he ensure that his definition of registered community sports clubs leaves no room for political correctness and, in particular, allows target-shooting sports access to the rate relief?

We provided a definition of community amateur sports clubs, or CASCs, about 12 months ago and we have sent out 110,000 leaflets to the nine regions, establishing a one-stop shop for any amateur sports club that wants information on the subject, so it is not the burden that some people have suggested. We agreed the definition with the Treasury and that definition has been sent out to the clubs. I do not know whether the shooting fraternity has applied for CASC relief, but I shall look further into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

What discussions she has had with (a) ITV, (b) Channel 4, (c) Channel 5 and (d) BSkyB regarding their policy on free-to view access to their services on digital satellite television. [129562]

I accept that this question deals with a serious matter that many constituents have raised with their MPs of all political parties. The position is that, until May, the BBC provided Solus viewing cards to satellite viewers who did not have a subscription to a pay-TV service. That allowed them to receive BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 free-to-view. In May the BBC moved its services to a new satellite, which meant that viewers could receive them without any viewing card. The BBC ended payment to BskyB for the provision of the cards, and it is now for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to find an arrangement to ensure that customers continue to receive their public service channels without the need to subscribe to Sky. I have written to the chief executives to ask about their intentions and their responses indicate that the broadcasters are considering various options. I am closely monitoring the discussions, which I understand are making progress.

I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts thus far. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), I know that this is a serious issue. The problem is not just the lack of an analogue signal in some localities, but the lack of cable and free-view in rural parts of Dumfries and Galloway. The recent decision to broadcast unencrypted on satellite and to withdraw support from free-to-view viewing cards means, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, no signal for ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 unless people subscribe to Sky. Will she therefore highlight to broadcasters the complete lack of access to free-to-view channels for those viewers and, if broadcasters are not prepared to find an answer, will she use the provisions of the Communications Act 2003 to empower Ofcom to insist on finding an answer?

I thank my hon. Friend for posing that question on behalf of his constituents. It is important to be clear that we are not at that stage. Negotiations are proceeding and we are optimistic that the broadcasters will develop a solution. As I have made clear, we will keep the situation under review and we recognise the concern and anxiety that it causes to the thousands of people who are directly affected.

To ask the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on the use of marked electoral registers in political campaigning. [129572]

The Speaker's Committee has had no such discussions. However, I am informed by the commission that it is currently reviewing the use and supply of, and access to, marked electoral registers and intends to make recommendations to Government when its review is complete.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. In any discussions he has with the Electoral Commission, will he remind it that the Chartists campaigned for the fundamental human right to vote, and in secret, not for the fundamental human right to keep secret whether one voted or not? If the Electoral Commission did not allow marked registers to be made available to political parties, would not that represent yet another erosion of the idea of voting as a duty, rather than just another lifestyle consumer choice?

I hear the representation made by the hon. Gentleman, but issues of law and principle, human rights and data protection are involved, as well as practical issues about the provision of an accurate register, especially during the campaign period itself. The commission is assessing those issues alongside the views of political parties and the public.

Will the hon. Gentleman put the other side of the argument to the Electoral Commission, especially with regard to Northern Ireland? En the past it has been the practice of certain political parties in Northern Ireland to make use of marked registers to see who has not voted for the purpose of personation.

The Electoral Commission is considering all those matters, but it takes the view that if the marked registers can be made available—subject to the caveats that I have just described—it would be in the general public interest for them to be made available.

Whether the Church Commissioners have set or intend to set a requirement relating to sexual orientation for any of their employees in non-proselytising roles; and if he will make a statement. [129573]

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The Church Commissioners and the other national Church institutions are committed to an equal opportunities policy that provides comprehensive safeguards against discrimination on those and other grounds. The policy is currently being examined to ensure that it is consistent with the two new sets of employment regulations that will come into force in December. It is unlikely to need fundamental change.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the sexual orientation employment regulations were changed at a late stage to allow organised religions to set an employment requirement on grounds of sexual orientation in order to comply with religious doctrine or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of their followers. That exemption has been questioned by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as possibly being ultra vires, and a judicial review is threatened by the trade unions. Therefore, how can he say what he has just said and how does he justify his remarks earlier this year, when he said that the Church

"is opposed entirely to discrimination of any sort and, in particular, to the discrimination of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers."?—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 17.]

Furthermore, a letter from the Archbishops Council, dated 23 January, requests the Government to add to the regulations the very words that I have cited.

I surmise that that supplementary was written before the hon. Gentleman heard my reply. All anti-discrimination legislation carries the scope for organisations to apply genuine occupational requirements to jobs for which it can be objectively demonstrated that a person with or without a particular characteristic is required. Our policy is comprehensive, and it covers discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, colour, culture, sexual orientation, disability or age.

I wonder, therefore, whether my hon. Friend will comment on the fact that at present the Church is able to discriminate on the grounds of gender against its women employees taking high office in the Church?

There is no such discrimination in the Church and I beg to differ from my hon. Friend. She will be aware that 2,000 women have been ordained in the Church of England since the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993. As I have already pointed out, we are anti-discriminatory in our Church and will continue to be so.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer; it is about as clear as it can be that dinner ladies employed in Church of England schools are not going to be sacked because they are lesbian and that caretakers are not going to be sacked because they are gay. Could the Church also take on something of a proselytising role and persuade other Churches to follow its example and, for that matter, in its own proselytising jobs, including bishoprics, could it adopt the same policy?

I am always grateful for interventions from my hon. Friend. He relieves me somewhat, however, as the question dealt only with non-proselytising roles.

What plans the Church Commissioners have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with regard to access to churches and church buildings. [129574]

The Council for the Care of Churches and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission, within whose remit those matters lie, has issued a guidance note which explains the Act and its ramifications for the Church. That document can be found on the Church Care website.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that churches and chapels should not feel threatened by the Act, as it requires that reasonable steps be made and in fact many churches and chapels make reasonable steps? However, given the age and design of many churches and chapels, it would be a great help if they were able to apply for public moneys to adapt churches and church entrances for the benefit of people with disabilities.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The question of public moneys is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for the Church, but the Church takes reasonable steps to ensure that any disabled person who has difficulty can take communion. There is also provision of auxiliary aids, such as hearing loops, large-print hymn sheets and handrails. We are careful to ensure that there is no discrimination as regards worship or access to churches.

While of course we all support, in spirit and in law, the provisions of the DDA, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his hope that there will be a light touch where meeting those provisions involves serious alterations to buildings of outstanding architectural merit? As many of our churches are among our country's 500,000 listed buildings, it would be wrong deleteriously to affect their design by meeting the provisions of the Act, so a sensible compromise is needed, such as that we have found, I hope, in the Palace of Westminster.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Modifying churches to allow access is relatively inexpensive, although lack of funds is never an excuse to ignore the requirements of the Act. However, awareness of our heritage and of the number of buildings that are either listed or extremely old is a point well worth making.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many churches have an outstanding record in responding to the needs of people with disabilities, especially in the provision of hearing loops, to which he referred? Will they continue to do that in the interest of best practice in public buildings?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I, like many other hon. Members, remember his sterling work for disabled people over many years and of the particular private Member's Bill that he put through. His point is well taken and will be well received in the Church.

Further to the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), does he agree that, although it is essential that our churches are available to everyone who wants to visit them or worship in them, it would be wrong for structural changes to compromise the outstanding beauty and architectural merit of some of the historic churches that are part of our national heritage?

That point was well made. However, we would not wish to deny any member of our society—disabled or otherwise—access to holy communion, so any necessary steps should be taken to allow participation. In fact, to act to the contrary would be unlawful.

If he will make a statement on the commission's assessment of measures necessary for the prevention of intimidation of postal voters. [129575]

In its reports, "Absent Voting in Great Britain" and "The Shape of Elections to Come", which were published earlier this year, the Electoral Commission has recommended a range of measures designed to reinforce the arrangements to prevent the abuse of postal votes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware that our forebears fought for the secrecy of the ballot and that that secrecy would be compromised by having to mark ballot papers or being able to mark them in public, whether in the presence of a landlord, a trade union official or the head of a household. What is the Electoral Commission doing to ensure that no undue influence is exercised on people because of the requirement for them to mark their ballot papers in public?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the Electoral Commission has to balance that against the clear advantage of the increase in voter participation with postal ballots. The commission has recommended a wide range of measures, including replacing the current declaration of identity with a new security statement, signed by the voter; new secrecy warnings on postal voting literature and ballot papers; more effective tools for prosecutors; a new police power of arrest on reasonable suspicion of personation at any location, not just at polling stations; a marked register, showing who has cast a vote by post, available after elections; and a new code of practice on handling postal ballot papers by candidates and party workers.

The hon. Member will recognise that most recent election disputes have been over postal and proxy votes. As we are increasingly moving into an era of all-postal votes, is he absolutely certain that local police, local authorities and returning officers will have adequate powers to ensure that votes are in fact cast in the way that was intended by the said voters, so that the voting is not a sham?

The Electoral Commission will propose that we move forward on the basis that I have just described, but of course, it will keep the situation under review, and I am sure that, if further action is required, it will be anxious to proceed with that as quickly as possible. I have to inform the House that, having examined the operation of the pilot schemes, the commission has recommended that all-postal voting, if backed by changes in the law to minimise the risk of electoral abuses, should become the standard approach at local elections. That is the commission's proposal; it will be for the Government to decide whether to act on it; and then, of course, ultimately for the House to implement any change.

What provision is made to assist stakeholders interested in local government and boundary reviews to obtain information to help them to make submissions to the boundary committee: and if he will make a statement. [129576]

The boundary committee provides a wide range of information to assist stakeholders in making submissions, including leaflets, information in the local press and through the committee's website. The committee also holds briefing meetings in the areas under review.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the report that the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued after taking evidence from the chairman of the boundary commission and the boundary committee which identified that people in the wards under review are at a disadvantage because maps, statistics and professional help are not available to them, but are available to the local authority. I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's response because the real issue has apparently not been addressed: the need to give that information to stakeholders to help them to submit an alternative to the boundary committee's proposals. That lack of information denies many people their democratic right to have some say in their own destiny. Will the hon. Gentleman relay that point to the boundary committee and ensure that information is made available to stakeholders, so that they can compete with local authorities when submitting a response to the boundary committee?

I am instructed that the Electoral Commission and its boundary committee give equal consideration to all submissions that are received. Where appropriate, it requests that the local authority provide interested parties with further detailed information and some assistance. The boundary committee will also make its information available to interested parties. The main consideration is always the argument and evidence that accompanies any submission.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the boundary committee is in the process of a major review of local government boundaries in three regions in this country, including the north-west, which I represent, as a result of the proposed referendums on regional government. In terms of providing information to stakeholders and others, will the committee publish how much that review will cost?

I must say to my hon. Friend that the work undertaken by the boundary committee is at the instruction of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to which any questions on that subject should be put.