If he will make a statement on his plans to support regional theatre. [41984]

The network of British regional theatres and touring companies is one of this country's great artistic achievements. We are determined to strengthen and develop that network.

Under the system of theatre funding by the regional arts council, two theatres in my region are funded at the expense and to the exclusion of all the others, including the successful Playhouse in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an unfair system of funding should cause concern? Does he further agree that regional arts councils should be charged with distributing their funds more equitably?

My hon. Friend and the new management of the Harlow Playhouse have been having discussions with the chief executive of the Eastern arts board. I wish them well in those discussions. My hon. Friend is right to say that the record of the Arts Council and regional arts boards in backing new companies and developments is less than inspiring—their priority has tended to be the defence and preservation of existing companies. I am confident that the new Arts Council and its chairman, Mr. Gerry Robinson, will want to take an early and positive look at that.

The new structure of the Arts Council has led to the resignation of the entire theatre panel. How will the perceived needs of theatre in the regions be communicated to the Arts Council?

The new chairman of the Arts Council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made it clear, in letters to the papers and in press statements, that they recognise that one of the Arts Council's great strengths lies in its professional, independent, detailed advice from specialist panels. That will continue, and my right hon. Friend's letters and statements have made it clear that that advice is valued and that the council will have access to it.

What does the Minister think about the resignation of the entire drama panel of the Arts Council and the unprecedented refusal by 58 theatre directors to fill the gap—coming on top of the closure of regional theatres such as the one in Farnham, the Liverpool Playhouse and Greenwich theatre? Does he agree that that is a shocking indictment of the Government's policies, as opposed to the false impression of support that was conjured up in the Secretary of State's book?

No, I do not. All those on the advisory group were eminent people who gave good advice, but, as I said to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), professional, expert advice of that quality is at the heart of all the Arts Council's decisions. I assure Opposition Members that that specialist advice, not just in drama but in other art forms, will continue.

If he will make a statement on the future of the major art houses in the United Kingdom. [41986]

The Government recognise the great contribution that the United Kingdom art market makes to the national economy. It employs some 40,000 people and has a turnover of £2.2 billion a year. The Government are determined to play their part in ensuring that the market continues to be competitive and to thrive.

I whole-heartedly support the Minister's response. Will he undertake to defend the art market against the threat of harmonisation of VAT across the European Union? He will know that the introduction of 2.5 per cent. VAT on the sale of works of art has already seriously affected the art market in London and in the rest of Britain. If VAT is harmonised, the art market may be driven not just from Britain but from the European Union, and may go to the United States and Switzerland. Will he take action to prevent that?

VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has caused problems for our art market, as has the possible threat of harmonising droit de suite. We have undoubtedly played a major part in trying to get a more rational debate on droit de suite in Europe. Other countries do not have such legislation and support us in being sceptical and critical of droit de suite. We continue vigorously to argue that case in the European Union.

Under what circumstances the Elgin marbles might be returned to Athens to mark the millennium. [41988]

The Government have no plans to return the Parthenon sculptures to Athens.

Hear, hear.

I suspect that I may not have the House with me on this matter, Madam Speaker.

Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view, we have had time over the intervening 13 years to reflect on the matter, and it is clear that the Parthenon sculptures were legally and properly acquired. They have been kept in very good condition—very great care has been taken of them ever since—and they are seen, for free, by 6 million people a year from all over the world. We believe that the British museum is the best place to keep them.

Without pursuing the matter of Commissioner Kinnock's marbles, which might be indiscreet at this stage, may I welcome what the Secretary of State has said? The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would lead to absolute chaos if we started down the path of relocating works of art, wherever they are in the world. The best, safest and most proper position is the one that he is adopting.

It is rare for me to agree whole-heartedly with every word that the right hon. Gentleman says, but on this occasion I do, because he is right: if we were to open this question, a host of other questions about the location of works of art throughout the world would arise. I do not believe that anyone wants such questions to be reopened.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 13 years ago I took this matter up with Mr. Neil Kinnock and that, with me at any rate, he did not seek to defend the position? Is he further aware that it would be one thing if the marbles could be placed on the Acropolis itself, but that it would be nonsense to take them from one museum and put them in another museum that is not as well looked after as ours?

My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the proposal is not that the marbles should be replaced on the Acropolis but that they should be housed on the Acropolis hill in a museum specially built for the purpose whose architecture has been widely criticised. The marbles were legally acquired; they have been where they are for a long period; and they are seen by many millions of people, not just from Britain but from around the world. We do not believe that the case for their return is in any way compelling.

If he will make a statement on the regulations governing media ownership. [41989]

New rules on media ownership were established in the Broadcasting Act 1996. The Government have no plans to change them.

I thank the Minister for that response, but I should like to ask him about the proposals for the privatisation of Channel 4. We understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to squeeze any amount of money out of any pocket that he can find, and I am sure that £1 billion-worth of proceeds from the privatisation of Channel 4 would make him very popular among his Treasury colleagues. What does the Secretary of State think of that proposed privatisation, especially given that, when it was proposed by the Conservative Administration, it was widely scorned by Labour Members?

The hon. Lady will probably know that, during the election campaign, we made it clear that we had no plans to privatise Channel 4. That remains the case.

What conversations on European media ownership has the Secretary of State had during our presidency of the European Union? Does he agree that the solution to the problem of United Kingdom media ownership is to be found in a broader European regulation?

Although we accept, and are seeking to implement, the television without frontiers directive, we do not believe that it is necessary to extend to Europe the purview of the entirety of media regulation. We believe that Europe has a role to play, and that is properly reflected in the television without frontiers directive, but we do not want to go further than that at this stage.

The Secretary of State should perhaps consider straight away a detailed piece of media regulation: the switch-off of analogue television services. Is he aware that his decision not to take a decision for two or three years will put in danger the development of digital television in this country, and will possibly damage the interests of an industry that is culturally and economically vital to our future?

The hon. Gentleman should have been present at the meeting of the digital television group to which I spoke last week. I said that we intended to make a decision on the switch-off of analogue as soon as possible. We are consulting on this matter: we issued a consultation paper a couple of months ago and the deadline for replies is within the next couple of months. We shall consider carefully the results of the consultation process, and shall then come to a view.

What plans he has to support the performing arts in Kettering. [41990]

Kettering has benefited from several national lottery awards totalling £1.7 million, including a £1.2 million award for a new performing arts centre at the Latimer school in Kettering.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We welcome the funding for the arts centre at Latimer school in my constituency, which will provide a much-needed facility for young people at the school and for the wider community. How will the latest lottery reforms help budding young artists and performers in my constituency and in the rest of the country?

They will make things worse.

They will not, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) suggests, make things worse: on the contrary, the reforms will help by getting more money out to the regions so that decisions can be made more strategically and money can be spent more coherently, especially on projects, such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency, which link community arts work to education. The strategy will develop a new generation of audiences in towns such as Kettering, and will bring out the creative talent of young people who may be the artists of the future.

The Minister will appreciate that probably the best and most well-known theatre in the Kettering area is that in Market Harborough.

The question is about the Kettering area. I know the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency very well, and the distance between the two areas. We are talking about Kettering.

You are quite right, Madam Speaker, although the distance between Market Harborough and Kettering is nought, because that is the boundary; besides, as you will know from your local knowledge, many people from the Kettering constituency come to the Market Harborough theatre.

But how many people from Market Harborough go to the theatre in Kettering? The hon. and learned Gentleman's question is not in order and we shall go no further with it.

If he will make a statement on the role of sport in combating social exclusion. [41991]

We will never know the answer to your question now, will we, Madam Speaker?

Will the Minister confirm that the Government's national lottery policy will ensure that the Sports Council's money provides for disadvantaged areas such as the inner-city area of North-West Leeds? Will he also ensure that, when such funding goes to professional clubs—if it does—there is a guarantee that facilities will be made available to local schools and local community sport?

The priority areas initiative of the Sports Council for England allows up to 90 per cent. lottery funding—the usual being 65 per cent.—for sports projects designed to give special help to deprived areas. So far, it has supported more than 350 projects with awards totalling £186 million. The National Lottery Bill, once enacted, will enable the Sports Council to adopt a strategy that directs lottery funding to areas where there is an obvious lack of resources and where there is a great need for such projects.

Will the Minister for Sport comment on the impact on the English football team of excluding Gazza from the squad?

That is a very ingenious interpretation of social exclusion, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on being the first to raise the matter in the House this afternoon. It is a subject of great national concern. I think that the national coach, Glenn Hoddle, is to be congratulated on his brave decision. Sport is even crueller than politics: if someone gets it wrong, retribution follows quickly. We must all keep our fingers crossed in the hope that the decision was the right one—my own feeling is that it was. I expect the English team to do even better now, despite the personal tragedy surrounding the footballing exclusion of that great character Gazza.

I know that my hon. Friend, like me, supports the widest possible dissemination of the benefits of sport, but does he agree that, when sport acquires large additional funds through sponsorship, television income or other commercial activity, it is desirable that the benefits of that additional income—I am thinking of football particularly—should be spread through the whole game? They should not result in an ever-widening divide between the haves and the have-nots.

My hon. Friend raises a point about which I know large numbers of ordinary football supporters feel strongly. I addressed a meeting of the Football Supporters Association in Wolverhampton on Saturday—the first sports Minister to do so, incidentally—where its members made the same point. Football must recognise that there may come an end to the enormous flow of money currently pouring into it. The game is fashionable at the moment; an awful lot of people who support football today may not do so in a few years' time. It is essential that resources are more evenly distributed throughout the game. Unless the grass roots are nourished there will ultimately be problems for the premier league. I hope that that message is taken seriously by the football authorities—I am always reminding them of it.

If he will make a statement on funding for museums. [41993]

Funding for the national museums and galleries was protected for the current year. Additional funding has been made available to five museums and galleries to enable free admission to be maintained.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The right hon. Gentleman pledged to provide free universal access to the national collections at an estimated cost of £40 million, yet he has succeeded in finding only £2 million, plus a further £7 million which he has raided from the lottery. Does not this latest betrayal prove that what needs to be preserved as a museum piece is Labour's list of broken promises?

The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that no such promise or pledge was ever given. Indeed, I am surprised that he is not more enthusiastic about the fact that we have managed to preserve the important principle of free admission to the national gallery, the Tate gallery, the national portrait gallery, the British museum and the Wallace collection.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that he has given so far to efforts to secure funding for the proposed imperial war museum of the north. However, is he aware that, although the project has already secured funding of £19 million from Europe and the private sector, the Heritage Lottery Fund is still refusing to consider the application? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which the heritage lottery fund has responded to this application and, more generally, with the way in which it is allocating funds as between London and other parts of the country?

I know that this is a matter of great importance to my hon. Friend, who has discussed it in some detail with me. Both she and I have also discussed the matter with the Heritage Lottery Fund. I would urge her to continue such discussions in the hope of eventually obtaining a satisfactory outcome.

One way of assisting museums is to ensure that, when artefacts are made available by Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, appropriate museums are given advance notice and an opportunity to buy those artefacts at a reasonable price. Will the Secretary of State support a campaign to ensure that that is done?

I certainly view that as being entirely sensible. I think that it happens in the vast majority of cases anyway, but if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I should be delighted to take it up personally.

How the lottery reforms will benefit the performing arts. [41994].

The National Lottery Bill will radically reform the lottery, making the process easier for applicants, distributing grants faster and therefore more effectively, and ensuring that in future more is spent on supporting artists and activities, rather than just on bricks and mortar.

Is the Minister aware of pioneering schemes such as the ladder of development which has attracted a grant of £275,000 from the lottery's arts-for-everyone programme to the Battersea arts centre, an organisation which specialises in enabling young performing artists to get their feet on the first rung of the ladder? I should add that I am the chairman of that organisation. Has the Minister seen a letter from the director of Battersea arts centre to the Prime Minister congratulating him on the impact of the new deal on young performing artists, many of whom have in the past used the dole while getting on to that all important first rung of the ladder?

My hon. Friend is quite right to state that Battersea arts centre is enormously resourceful in accessing lottery money. It has received £810 million for refurbishment and—

Thousand.

Yes, £810,000—there is a slight difference. It has now also received a further grant for development. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the potential of the new deal for young artists at a crucial stage in their career. Young artists want a chance to work and to get their work in front of audiences. The Government are determined, through initiatives such as the new deal, to help them to do that.

As I am not persuaded by the argument that the introduction of a sixth good cause will not adversely affect the money going to the five existing good causes, including the performing arts, may I ask the Minister at least to monitor what happens? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a need to help the performing arts institutions which, although not national institutions, are not regarded as regional institutions either—especially if they are in the outer London boroughs? The Old Bull arts centre in Barnet is a very good example of such an institution. It puts on some very good work, some of which, I understand, has recently fallen out of favour with new Labour.

It is absolutely essential that the benefits of the lottery grants, and especially those for the arts, get to every part of the country, feed grass roots and community developments and bring on a new generation of artists and audiences. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a priority, and it is something which is very close to the Government's heart.

When the national lottery New Opportunities Fund will start to finance out-of-school-hours clubs. [41995]

Subject to parliamentary approval of the National Lottery Bill, the New Opportunities Fund is likely to invite applications for the £400 million of funding for out-of-school-hours activities early in 1999.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. I greatly welcome the National Lottery Bill and the New Opportunities Fund, which provide for a fairer geographical distribution of lottery moneys—Wirral, South has fared particularly badly in that respect—but this is an important programme, and early next year seems a long way off. Will my hon. Friend consider what steps he can take to bring forward the programme—pilot applications, for example?

It is perfectly possible that pilot applications will be considered. I well understand my hon. Friend's arguments, which he put to the House very forcefully on 7 April and which we have taken into account. The policy directions that my right hon. Friend is issuing to all distributors will emphasise the importance of funding reaching all parts of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he has made his point.

Does the Minister not recognise that the £400 million of lottery money that will now be spent on out-of-school-hours clubs should come out of Government taxation and that, if the trend continues, the original five causes, which include charities and the arts, are bound to have their money reduced. How much further will the process go?

The hon. Gentleman must know that those hoary old arguments were totally exposed on Second Reading and in Committee. The Prime Minister said before the election that we do not believe it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibility. The policy that we are pursuing, with the overwhelming support of those who were consulted, is in addition and means that we can embrace social problems and social inclusion—issues which might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.

What the Government are doing to support local authority initiatives in tourism. [41996]

The Government fully recognise the major role that local authorities play in relation to tourism. Local authorities are closely involved in the Department's work on developing a comprehensive strategy for tourism which will identify how best to work together in future.

My right hon. Friend will know that many local authorities, including Burnley, are becoming increasingly involved in tourism. Regional development agencies will be key players in the development of tourism in the years ahead. Will local authorities be given a full role, working in co-operation with regional development agencies?

Yes, unreservedly. My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point. He will be pleased to know that almost all local authorities are members of their regional tourist boards, which, in turn, have taken the positive step of bidding to become partnership organisations of their regional development agencies, and we warmly welcome that.

Will the lottery be funding English tourism in future?

The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State, will know that—particularly because of the comprehensive spending round—all those matters are currently being discussed. I cannot respond to his specific point about the lottery, as the matter is still under discussion. He will understand that, because of the comprehensive spending round, he will have to wait just a little longer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authority initiatives to encourage tourism in my area may be undermined by the need to divert resources to fund trauma counselling for the younger members of the constituency after the departure of Geri Halliwell from the Spice Girls? Will he join me in encouraging Ginger Spice to think again?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I had the opportunity to meet the Spice Girls on location; I was also delighted to be at the premiere of their film. I am sure that what has taken place is simply a little local difficulty, which they are perfectly capable of sorting out. I wish them well.

It is good to hear that the Minister has a policy on the Spice Girls, as well as on Gazza's exclusion from the England team. Does he accept that local authority initiatives on tourism depend heavily on the work of the English tourist board? Will he confirm the report in The Times on Saturday that his Department has agreed to the board's disbandment as part of the comprehensive spending review? Does he accept that his Department spends only a twentieth on English tourism of what is spent per capita in Scotland? Does he understand how angry the English tourism industry and English local authorities will be about this apparent concession by a Minister who sits for a Scottish constituency, made at the behest of a Chief Secretary and a Chancellor who also represent Scottish seats? Does that not confirm that the tourism industry is simply an optional extra for him and his team?

That was a good try, but, as a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows better. He should not indulge in what he clearly knows is speculation. He knows that the Government are committed to tourism, which is the fifth biggest industry in Britain and is worth £40 billion. He will recall that comprehensive spending reviews have taken place under all Governments. Our commitment to the British Tourist Authority and the ETB is the same as the one we inherited from the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman should pay less attention to newspaper speculation and a good deal more to the praise that the ETB, the BTA and the regional bodies have given to the Government, and particularly to their excellent contributions to my right hon. Friend's tourism forum.

What recent discussions he has had with the ITC regarding the quality of commercial television; and if he will make a statement. [41997]

I meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission periodically to discuss a range of broadcasting issues. Quality of content of commercial television services is an essential ingredient of the Government's broadcasting policy.

Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern about the steady deterioration in the quality of commercial television since the Broadcasting Act 1990? Is he satisfied that the ITC has the powers and the will to reverse that trend? If not, what are his plans?

My hon. Friend will doubtless know that the report issued by the ITC on the 1997 performance review, which was presented to Parliament on 30 April, addressed some of those issues robustly. This is a matter for the ITC rather than the Government. The Government have a responsibility for the overall promotion of quality, but the assessment of individual programmes must remain a matter for the ITC.

The ITC is responsible for ensuring the application of the aspects of the Broadcasting Act 1990 that ensure that controversial subjects are dealt with with due impartiality. Will the Secretary of State raise with the ITC in his next meeting the discussion programme scheduled for ITV next Wednesday evening, which will feature a raft of conspiracy theorists, including one notorious fabricator and defamer, who intend to exploit the death of Princess Diana to put their crazy theories forward, to the distress of the families and without any balancing argument?

I am sure that the ITC and, indeed, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, will have heard very clearly what the hon. Gentleman has said.

What proportion of millennium projects will be outside London. [41998]

The Millennium Commission has awarded just under £1.24 billion to 185 capital projects across the United Kingdom; 89.5 per cent. of the total has been awarded outside Greater London.

Will the Secretary of State continue to consider the amount of funding going to the English regions, particularly the east midlands? Will he turn his attention to the coalfield community landmark scheme, which I know he supports, and look at the apparent difficulties between the Millennium Commission and the partners?

First, my hon. Friend is right to identify the issue of relative underfunding of the east midlands region. The Millennium Commission is seeking particularly to address that through the awards scheme to individuals, which is up and running and proving to be remarkably successful. Secondly, I very strongly support the coalfield community project in principle. I know that there have been some difficulties with the details of the project, but I shall ensure that the Millennium Commission approaches them sympathetically.

What allowance has been made for cost overruns in his estimates of expenditure on the millennium experience. [42014]

The project has a cash budget of £758 million. Within that, there is a prudent cost contingency provision of £88 million, which is subject to tight control and regular monitoring by the New Millennium Experience Company. The project, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, is on time and on budget.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has time to be concerned at the looming problem. There is always a danger that, if there were no purpose, one could be bought for the project by throwing money at the problem. Is he as concerned as I am at the report by Rowan Moore in last week's Evening Standard of delays, major cost overruns, a lack of sponsorship and private contributions, and a failure to have a central purpose down at the folks' dome? All those looming problems will have to be compensated for by the lottery, draining even more money from the arts, education, health, sport and charities, unless they are tackled.

The article to which my hon. Friend refers—I gather—is almost entirely unsourced, unchecked and untrue. Money is not being thrown at a problem—far from it. I would have thought that he would be rather more optimistic considering today's news and would be congratulating the New Millennium Experience Company, which has announced with Marks and Spencer, yet another founding partner of the millennium experience, the launch of Children's Promise.

What will happen if there is a shortfall—I hope that there will not be—in funding from sponsors? Will the proposals for the dome be scaled down, will further money be taken from the lottery or will the taxpayer be further called on?

I have every confidence that the New Millennium Experience Company will raise the necessary funds. Nearly £100 million is already committed and confirmed in the form of private sector sponsorship. That is nearly £100 million of a target set for the end of this year of £150 million. That is what we have gathered since February. I have every confidence that 12 million or more people will want to visit the dome, and that the company's income target from visitors is equally realistic. I do not think that the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers will arise.

The hon. Gentleman hyped up surfball as the new 21st century sport for the dome. Did cost overruns cause its mysterious disappearance, or was there a fabrication about a non-existent game? Was not the hon. Gentleman guilty of talking complete and utter surfballs?

The reshuffle beckons, Madam Speaker. The serious play zone, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will include explanations of the world of sport and games in the 21st century. It will cover the sort of 21st century game for which the term "surfball" was an illustrative title.

Will my hon. Friend keep careful track of the point when the Jeremiahs and detractors of the millennium experience and the dome suddenly and quietly become enthusiasts? My hon. Friend will know that, increasingly, businesses throughout the country—not just Marks and Spencer, which has today announced the £12 million Children's Promise—see the project not only as a way in which to show the best of British work, skills and products, but as an opportunity to benefit from tourism and travel, as people from all over Europe and the world will come to make this a profitable exercise for UK plc.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of the enormous progress that we have made during the last year that so many companies and organisations are flocking to the millennium dome to invest and to take part in the project.

If he will make a statement on the role of Camelot as the distributor of tickets for the millennium experience. [42015]

The New Millennium Experience Company announced on 24 February that it had reached agreement in principle with Camelot for it to be official distributor of tickets for the millennium experience at Greenwich. This will mean that there is a ticket outlet within three miles of 95 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Camelot has already contributed to the dome? Can he confirm that no additional pressure was put on Camelot to spend more money on the distribution of tickets or to pay for the commissions of those people who retail at the point of sale?

Absolutely no pressure has been placed on Camelot or on any of the other private sector organisations that are increasingly keen to take part in this unique national event, no doubt partly for perfectly laudable commercial reasons, but, more importantly, because they want to contribute to the nation's millennium celebration. It is particularly welcome that Camelot should be playing the role that it is, as ticket purchases to allow people to come to the dome for the millennium experience should be as simple, straightforward and accessible as possible—it should be as easy to get tickets as it is to play the lottery. I believe that Camelot's involvement will greatly help us in achieving that.

The House is aware that my hon. Friend does not believe that there will be a shortfall in sponsorship moneys. However, if there is a shortfall and the contingency money is swallowed up in cost overruns, for which such capital projects are notorious, where will the additional money come from—from the taxpayer or from lottery funds?

I do not envisage that the scenario that my hon. Friend describes will arise, as I do not believe that there will be cost overruns. I assure her, however, that in no circumstances will any deficit be met from taxpayers' money.

Leaving aside the extraordinary reversal in recent months in the Government's view of Camelot, does the hon. Gentleman agree that Camelot sponsorship of the dome is nowhere near sufficient to fill the huge gap that still exists? Will he confirm reports that the cost of the contents of the dome have been spiralling out of control and that, given the huge gap in sponsorship, his grandiose plans, which were revealed with such drama in February, are having to be radically scaled down as, in effect, the chief executive of the dome recently admitted? Has not the hon. Gentleman's stewardship of this important project been so catastrophic that a reshuffle is the only way in which he can hope to save face and to be taken out of a disaster area of his own making?

No. I shall be at the opening night on 31 December 1999 whatever my capacity. It is a great shame that, as the right hon. Gentleman bids farewell, he should be characteristically churlish in his contribution. I hope that he does not think that I am being equally churlish if I say that I hope that he makes as little impact in undermining the Government's economic policies as he has in his attempts to torpedo the dome in the past year.

If he will make it his policy to reallocate money currently provided for bishops' chauffeurs. [42024]

No.

I am disappointed by that answer. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many people regard as an affront the fact that £317,000 is being spent on chauffeurs for bishops when poor people could benefit from that money? Would not it be better if the bishops dispensed with their chauffeurs and used the money to help the poor?

The two are not mutually exclusive. The money spent on full-time and part-time drivers enables the bishops who make use of those services to work while travelling to their many commitments, both in their dioceses and nationally. The service can also remove pressure, especially as travel, often late at night, is an unavoidable part of a bishop's job. The money spent represents about 0.05 per cent. of the Church's annual running costs.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) became a Minister in any conceivable Government, he would expect to have a driver for exactly the same reasons? Does not his question represent a Liberal Democrat hypocrisy that we could do without?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance. In fact, seven bishops use their own cars and are paid a mileage allowance. In 1997, 31 bishops employed full-time or part-time drivers, which is hardly a heavy burden on the Church.

If he will make a statement on the returns made on the commissioners' assets for 1996–97. [42026]

The commissioners' financial year runs to the end of December. The total return on their assets was 17.1 per cent. in 1996 and 20.8 per cent. in 1997. In both years, their returns have been significantly higher than the performance of the United Kingdom pensions fund average.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Can he confirm that that means that the commissioners have now recovered the £800 million that they lost through their disastrous deals in the late 1980s and early 1990s?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's question, but the amount that he mentions relates to the fall in the valuation of the Church's assets between 1989, when the property market peaked, and 1992. Since then, the value of our assets has increased from £2.1 billion to £3.5 billion, and during my stewardship of one year, we have increased their value by £500 million. Success may have a thousand fathers, and I may be the 995th.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a large proportion of the income of the Church Commissioners goes towards meeting the stipends and pensions of a considerable number of clergymen? Should not the House encourage the Church Commissioners to maximise their assets, albeit within ethical constraints?

We do pay the pensions of clergymen and their widows. Following the Pensions Measure passed last year, they will be paid by the dioceses in future, but the hon. Gentleman's point is important: the assets that we accumulate today mean better possibilities for the Church in years to come.

What recent discussions he has had with the Church Commissioners on ethical investments. [42027]

Earlier this year, as a member of the commissioners' board of governors and of the assets committee, I was able to discuss and endorse the commissioners' revised statement of ethical investment policy. The secretary to the ethical investment working group also keeps me regularly briefed on ethical issues.

In view of GEC's long and continuing involvement in the arms trade with Indonesia, what exactly do the Church Commissioners think that they are achieving in their meetings with its board?

As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question.

Following the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and earlier questions on the same subject, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forthcoming Lambeth conference will seek to agree a tougher regime on ethical investment—especially in relation to countries where democracy is at stake, such as Indonesia, or where nuclear weapons may be developed, such as India and Pakistan?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that the ecumenical Church investors group met today to celebrate 25 years of working together on matters of mutual concern in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest. I have already drawn the Archbishop of Canterbury's attention to the last question on this issue that the hon. Gentleman tabled for the Lambeth conference to consider, and I am sure that his voice will be heard.

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financial implications of extending the scrutiny of the National Audit Office to non-departmental public bodies not presently covered. [42028]

The Comptroller and Auditor General has inspection rights in regard to virtually all the 265 non-departmental bodies; however, he is not the auditor of nearly half those bodies, and, in the circumstances, accountability to Parliament is exercised only by his inspection rights. If the Comptroller and Auditor General were to be auditor of those bodies, he would be able to provide a more efficient and effective service to Parliament. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I met the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March this year, and we raised the possibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General's becoming the auditor of all non-departmental public bodies.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. He is clearly dealing with the matter, and he clearly agrees with me that there are now gaps between the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of audit. Does he not also agree that, if Ministers cannot abolish quangos, they can at least regulate them properly?

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a great pity that the European Court of Auditors has access that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not, as that means that the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot undertake the scrutiny that the House has a right to expect.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission will recall that I have raised this matter with him before in oral questions, particularly in relation to housing associations. Does he agree that a huge number of non-departmental public bodies are not properly scrutinised and that, therefore, there must be a risk that public money is being ill spent, possibly even fraudulently so? Will he renew his representations to the Chancellor that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have an auditing role over such bodies?

I fully agree, as £1.2 billion of public money is being spent in that area, and the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to undertake the sort of examination that the House determines in so many other cases of that sort.

What the ratio of assets will be in (a) property and (b) shares for the financial year 1997–98. [42029]

At the end of the commissioners' financial year in December 1997, the proportion of their investment assets in commercial property was 14 per cent. Their agricultural and residential estates amounted to a further 8 and 6 per cent. respectively. The proportion of their assets in UK equities was 52 per cent. and in overseas equities, 9 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he as concerned as I am about the move that the Church Commissioners have been making into equities? Bearing in mind the turbulent nature of some of those markets, does he feel that that is an investment that gives the security that the electorate deserve?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the volatility of the equity markets, certainly those in the far east. Having studied independent research, the commissioners believe, however, that UK equities provide the best long-term match with their expenditure commitments and intend to retain them as the cornerstone of their fund, whatever the short-term fluctuations in the market.