What discussions he has had with Sadler's Wells over the impact of the decision to close the Royal Opera house. [57241]

I met representatives from Sadler's Wells, the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board on 23 September. All parties agreed that Sadler's Wells should not suffer as a result of the Royal Opera house board's closure strategy.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Following those discussions, can he give any assurances on the long-term job security of the employees, especially the musicians and the artists of the Royal Ballet and Royal Opera house, given that they are the innocent victims of mismanagement and the gross ineptitude of his Department?

No one disputes the artistic excellence of the ballet and opera at the Royal Opera house over the years, but it is widely acknowledged that the standard of management has not been what it should have been. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that primary responsibility for that must rest with the management, although some industrial practices have perhaps not been conducive to cost efficiencies.

Will the Minister confirm that he has complete and unqualified confidence in the present chairman of the Royal Opera house?

Certainly I do. Sir Colin Southgate and his colleagues on the new board have addressed their responsibilities seriously and realistically. I believe that the way is open to finding a resolution to the difficulties and that we can secure a future for world-class opera and ballet at Covent Garden.

In what ways environmental projects have benefited from the national lottery. [57242]

The Heritage Lottery Fund, the Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board have all funded environmental projects. Next year, the new opportunities fund will launch an initiative to help urban and rural communities across the country to understand, improve and care for their environment, in particular through the creation, improvement or acquisition of green spaces.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. My constituency, like many others, includes both beautiful countryside and large concentrations of people. That can be a problem for the countryside, but we want to use the potential for opening up the countryside to more educational and leisure uses. How, practically, can the lottery help us to get such projects off the ground?

Our proposals for further initiatives under the new opportunities fund specifically aimed at environmental improvement will help to do precisely that. We will shortly issue a consultation paper on them. We will be interested to see what the public have to say and will then come to Parliament with specific proposals on the new initiatives.

In view of the substantial funding for environmental projects by the lottery in Regent's Park, why is it necessary to introduce parking charges there at weekends?

I confess that I am unaware of the particular lottery funded scheme or schemes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, he touches on an extraneous matter: the Royal Parks agency proposal to introduce weekend parking charges to assist with the general upkeep of the parks and their management at weekends, when their usage is greatest. That is ultimately a matter for the agency to determine.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many areas of Britain could qualify under the new funding arrangements for environmental projects? Does he also agree that, in the coalfield areas, which have suffered greatly as a result, in some cases, of 100 years of pit life and which are now scarred by the closure of all those pits, a lot of work needs to be done, not least in order to provide additional work? Will he give a guarantee that, when he speaks at Barnsley tomorrow, he will pay attention to those issues, so that coalfield areas will be able to benefit from the available funding?

I can indeed give my hon. Friend precisely that guarantee. As he knows, we are holding a major conference in Barnsley tomorrow, which will look at ways in which the lottery can provide assistance to the coalfield areas. The extent of the problem is perhaps most graphically illustrated by the fact that, to date, the amount spent by the lottery good causes in Barnsley is £17 per head, whereas the national average for England as a whole is –70 per head.

Does the Minister agree that parks are an essential part of our national heritage? To that end, will he use his good offices to influence the national lottery people, some of whom do not work like normal people, to consider giving parks more lottery funding? I have in mind some of the parks that are rotting in many local authority areas, and it is to local authorities that are strapped for cash that help should be given. One such park in my area is Hesketh park, which is based on Lord Birkenhead's design and which we really want to preserve.

The hon. Gentleman is assiduous and effective in promoting the interests of his constituency. I was delighted to see that his representations regarding the fate of the pier at Southport have now been fully taken account of by the Heritage Lottery Fund. He will know that the fund has for some time had a major programme of support for the improvement and enhancement of urban parks. I strongly support that programme: it has already done a lot of good work and there is more in the pipeline. In addition, the work that the new opportunities fund is able to put in place under the green spaces initiative will also help.

In what ways education projects will benefit from the national lottery. [57243]

How education projects will benefit from the national lottery. [57256]

The new opportunities fund will provide £400 million for out-of-school-hours activities, including child care; it will spend £300 million on new technology training for teachers and librarians; and next year it will help to increase access to lifelong learning, particularly by contributing to the creation of the public library network. That is in addition to the work that the Millennium Commission is already doing in funding projects such as the university of the highlands and islands and the Everyman books for schools.

Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on that answer? I am sure that he is aware that Coventry was one of the pioneers of adult education. Although we welcome his announcement about children's education, will he tell us more about how he plans to develop adult education?

Alongside the green spaces initiative to which I have already referred, one of the key proposals for new opportunities fund initiatives is support for lifelong learning in the community—precisely the area to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper setting out our ambitions in that respect.

Although we greatly welcome the £500 million for education from the lottery under the new opportunities fund, will my right hon. Friend consider initiatives for the most deprived areas?

Yes, indeed. I have already issued a new set of directions to all the lottery distributors, including the new opportunities fund, to ensure that they pay attention to the particular needs of areas of social deprivation. One of the things that I have always felt is important in lottery policy is that it should not be only wealthy areas of the country—represented by the well heeled, the well advised and the people who can afford consultants and readily produce business plans—that benefit from the funds of the national lottery. People of all classes and from all parts of the country play the national lottery; people of all classes and from all parts of the country should benefit from it.

In view of the answers given to the three questions on the Order Paper which have already been reached, has the right hon. Gentleman dispensed with the additionality principle?

Not at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the additionality principle is that

"we will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure".

The Secretary of State has given the game away. He is not in favour of case-by-case reductions; he treats the whole budget as one case and makes a reduction accordingly. Given that lottery funds are now being used to fund mainstream education projects, is it not the case that the additionality principle is worth no more than a discarded Labour election pledge? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has been exposed as a pickpocket of lottery funds, will he tell the House how many other instances of such pickpocketing it should take into account?

Judging by the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he disagrees passionately with the former leader of his party. That does not surprise me in the least, given the extent of division in the Tory party these days.

What representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to the teaching of music in schools. [57244]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has policy responsibility for the teaching of music in schools, but my Department has a vital interest in ensuring that the value of the arts is recognised in the curriculum and other education policies. My right hon. Friend and I work closely with education Ministers on that and other subjects of mutual interest to our Departments.

Will the Minister acknowledge that there is much concern among musicians and educators about the Government's decision to axe music from the early years school curriculum, despite the availability of a small fund that will help schools that are already well organised in that field? Will he give an assurance that he will continue to press the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that all children can benefit from a well rounded curriculum that includes the arts and music?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong—no such decision has been made. I acknowledge that there is confusion about the matter—clearly the hon. Gentleman, too, is confused. I assure him that there has been no downgrading of music or the arts in the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is on record as emphasising that

"the development of a child's creativity and imagination is an essential part of a balanced education."

How much talent is lost simply because some parents cannot afford to pay for classes for their children to learn the violin, the piano, the 'cello or a wind instrument? Surely that is a waste that the country can ill afford.

I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been a worrying decline—charted, for example, by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music—in the proportion of children in some groups playing musical instruments and taking music lessons in school.

When he expects to conclude his review of the arrangements for concessionary television licences. [57245]

Our aim is to reach final conclusions on all aspects of the BBC funding review by the end of next year.

Will the Minister comment on the press report that the review group will be chaired by the Chancellor's favourite millionaire? While I have nothing against millionaires per se, does the Minister agree that such a person is not well placed to understand the difficulties that many older pensioners, in particular, face in affording a television licence?

The hon. Gentleman will know that no official announcement has been made, and I am sure that he would not expect me to comment on speculation. I reassure him that the Government recognise that the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory. It is time for a detailed examination of the scheme, and the review panel will conduct such an examination.

The licence fee is extraordinarily good value and should be retained. However, does my hon. Friend accept that many pensioners find it increasingly difficult to pay the licence fee, even though, as they grow older—certainly as they enter their 70s—they are bound to spend more time at home watching television? Does my hon. Friend therefore recognise that—together with all the other anomalies of which we are aware—it is simply just that pensioners should receive far greater concessions than they do at present? I hope that they will before too long.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I share his concern about this matter, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent work that he has done in this area.

I am sorry to press the point, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome this opportunity to scotch rumours that the BBC funding review will be conducted not by someone who knows about broadcasting but by an economist who is one of the Chancellor's closest friends and married to the Chancellor's special adviser. On reconsideration, would the hon. Lady not love to take this opportunity to dissociate herself from the culture of cronyism that seems to be invading every aspect of this Government?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is pure speculation, and I am sure that he will not expect me to comment until an official announcement has been made.

The important factor in this review will be the terms of reference for the review committee. There is tremendous discrimination in the way concessionary licences are issued at present, and it is important to ensure that those on pensions receive the assistance they need in the form of concessionary television licences.

I reassure my hon. Friend that the panel will be asked to consider in detail the present arrangements governing the concessionary scheme. Although we cannot make any promises that the review will lead to a general concession for all pensioners or for other groups of people, we recognise that the current system is unfair and unsatisfactory, and should be considered in detail.

What moneys his Department allocated for sports provision on housing estates in the (a) current and (b) next financial year. [57246]

As this is the first sports question, may I, on behalf of the House, convey congratulations to Greg Rusedski on Sunday's victory in the Paris indoor open? He is not only a good tennis player but a very nice guy.

Three cheers for tennis, Madam Speaker. The Minister's comment about Greg Rusedski was more specific than the answer that followed; may I push him further? He knows from his constituency and his London background that, for very little money, it is possible to provide cages, creating football, basketball and netball possibilities in urban areas, close to where people live and safe; and that if the cages are properly looked after they are secure and very good value for money. Will he consider an initiative to try to get such proposals up and running—with partners, if possible—in local authority areas where large numbers of people live in council housing? If I presented him with a proposal for the borough of Southwark, to be run as a pilot scheme, would he consider it to see whether it might be extended to other local authorities throughout the country?

The short answer is yes to both questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that the sports lottery fund injects a great deal of money into inner-city areas. I may risk the ire of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by saying so, but London has received £100 million in lottery sports grants, a great deal of which has gone into inner-city areas such as my constituency in Newham. I hasten to add that that has nothing to do with me, as Sports Minister, but it is rewarding to see the amount of money that is going in.

Will my hon. Friend agree, however, that one of the best ways to improve sporting facilities—and to put money into those facilities—in housing estates and other poor areas of the country is to switch from bid-led to need-led lottery funding? The Government have begun to do so and we welcome the changes that have been made, but the process could be taken considerably further.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The English Sports Council's draft lottery strategy identifies several ways in which more help could be given—for example, by using the small grants programme and developing the priority areas initiative. We must pursue those avenues.

Given that a housing estate could presumably, if correctly sponsored, make an application under sportsmatch arrangements, is it true that the Government are contemplating moving the funding for sportsmatch from the Department to the appropriate lottery distributor; and how does the Minister square that with additionality, as it appears to be direct substitution?

I do not know which council estate the right hon. Gentleman comes from, but we are looking at sportsmatch—a wonderful initiative, which we totally support—and consulting on it at the moment. There is much to be said for shifting its operation to the English Sports Council, which is doing something very similar, but in that case the money would be ring-fenced so that it went with the scheme from the Department to the English Sports Council. Money would not be lost; additional money would go to the ESC. We are still consulting on the matter and listening carefully to what people say.

What assessment his Department has made of the resources needed to make all Premier and Nationwide football grounds all-seating. [57249]

None. Clubs in the Football Association Premier league and the first division of the Football League were required to go all-seater by August 1994. Clubs newly promoted to the first division since that date have had three years from the date of their promotion to install seating at their grounds. Bury, Bradford City, Crewe Alexandra, Oxford United and Stockport County, which have all gained promotion to the first division since August 1994, are the only clubs in the top two divisions in England still to go all-seater. Bradford and Oxford have until August 1999 to do so, and the other three clubs have until August 2000.

The Government last year were quick to extend the resources available to the Football Trust to enable it to play a major part in ensuring that we had the widest range of high-standard grounds in the world and high safety standards, which will be important in our 2006 world cup bid. However, many clubs in the lower divisions have severe financial problems. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Football Trust will be able to continue that work, to ensure that every ground can provide the safest and best possible facilities for spectators?

I certainly want to encourage that development, because I appreciate that the grass roots of football in this country are becoming rather dry. There is a great deal of money sloshing around in football, but it is not filtering down far enough. That is essentially a matter for the football authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that anything that I and the Government can do to induce them to bring about a more equitable distribution of that money throughout football we will do with great enthusiasm.

I welcome what the Minister said, and share the concern of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The second and third division clubs—as the Minister knows, I am the president of York City—simply do not have the resources to build all-seater stadiums, even if we could get planning consent.

The hon. Gentleman tries to take me into other areas, which are dealt with by competition Ministers.

What responses he has received from the good causes to the announcement about their future after 2001. [57250]

I announced in July that each of the good causes—arts, sport, heritage and charities—will continue to receive one sixth of lottery good cause funding after 2001.

I welcome that announcement. Does that mean that the lottery boards will be able to engage in long-term financial planning? What other measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind to allow such desperately needed long-term planning to take place?

Yes, indeed. For the first time, the guarantee that we have put in place post-2001—which is new; it was never done by the previous Government when they were in office—gives each distributor a guarantee of forward funding, and enables that distributor to plan ahead properly. In addition, the development of strategies—which, again, is for the first time a responsibility on each of the distributors—will enable them to put the plans into written form for public consumption, so that everyone knows precisely where they stand.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the latest figures, which we produced with the help of the Library, that show that, between now and 2005, about £3.7 billion which should have gone to the arts, sports, charities and heritage will be siphoned off, to help fill the Chancellor's economic black hole, into the new control freak fund? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by turning the national lottery into the Government's lottery, he has betrayed the original good causes and also his party's policy before the general election?

"The lottery was not supposed to be a fund-raising mechanism for the Government. That makes it simply another form of taxation. Why should people have to pay more taxes? … why give the Government a great big bucket of money?"—[Official Report, 25 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 1095-96.]

It may come as no surprise that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may have noticed, for example, what the Arts Council of England said when, in September, I was able to announce the £1.8 billion guarantee for income over the present licence period for the council and an additional £50 million. The council's response was as follows:

"The Arts Council is delighted … at the announcement of an additional £50 million".

What representations he has received regarding the Lodge Hill residential centre in West Sussex. [57251]

I was quite stunned to note that I have received no representations about the Lodge Hill residential centre, not even from the hon. Gentleman.

I was under the impression that Lord Cowdrey has made certain representations to the Minister for Sport. Lodge Hill is a youth centre in West Sussex that has provided residential courses for hundreds of thousands of students. The county council can no longer afford to maintain it, so it is being set up on a charitable basis. Will the Minister consider, within the powers available to him, some back-up support from lottery funding, and also the possibility of the centre being used in connection with the Government's new deal facilities?

I will certainly consult Lord Cowdrey, whom I see pretty regularly, to ascertain what has happened to his letter. Perhaps it was lost in the post.

What assessment he has made of the impact of digital broadcasting on local radio stations. [57252]

Digital radio will increase listener choice and improve the listening experience. I am aware of considerable interest in local multiplex licences from a number of consortiums, and I look forward to the response when the Radio Authority advertises local multiplex licences shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that many local commercial radio stations that are the only broadcasters will not have access to digital broadcasting? That includes Radio Northants, which covers my constituency. Will my hon. Friend investigate with colleagues the possibility of getting the Ministry of Defence to bring forward its release dates for its current allocation of the digital spectrum, which I think is scheduled for 2007? Is she aware that, if the MOD did that, it would be possible for all local commercial radio stations to provide the advantages of digital broadcasting to their listeners?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I assure her that we recognise the concerns of radio stations, such as her local station Northants 96. The Government recognise that there is insufficient spectrum to enable every local radio station to take part in digital radio. We are aware of the fact that the industry is currently preparing an assessment of its further needs and we shall consider that assessment carefully. The Government's aim is to ensure that the advances of digital radio are available to as many people and as wide an audience as possible.

Although the broadcasting developments affecting local radio stations are welcome, does the Minister share my concern about the removal from many stations of regional broadcasters that cover our activities in the House of Commons? What action is she taking to compensate for what I consider to be a direct consequence of the lack of attention that the Government pay to the House and the contempt in which Parliament is held?

That is a matter for the broadcasters. The hon. Lady may not be aware that there was a comprehensive debate about this matter in the House only the other day, so she may wish to refer to my response to that debate.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the New Millennium Experience Company in raising sponsorship for the millennium experience. [57270]

What is the total amount of moneys currently identified for sponsorship of zones within the Millennium dome. [57274]

How much of the funding for the millennium experience from sponsors is (a) committed, (b) promised and (c) made in kind. [57275]

If he will list the sponsors currently involved in the Millennium dome. [57276]

The New Millennium Experience Company is to be congratulated on the significant progress it has made in raising sponsorship for the millennium experience. More than £100 million has been committed by Tesco, Manpower, BT, BSkyB, Marks and Spencer, British Airways, the Corporation of London, BAA, Camelot, GEC, British Aerospace and Thames Water. A further £60 million from 10 major companies is subject to detailed negotiation. It is not possible, at this stage, to divide sponsorship support into specific categories, but the distinction will be made in the company's annual report and accounts, which will be published and laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

In raising sponsorship for the millennium experience, does the right hon. Gentleman think that his real and perceived power over these companies as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry helps or hinders?

My role in relation to the dome is as shareholder, not as head of the sponsorship team.

Of the £100 million committed, what percentage is subject to an irrevocable, signed contract?

The companies have committed in the way I have described, and I am pleased that they have done so. No one has ever denied that raising £150 million of private sponsorship is a considerable challenge: of course it is. Then again, no one has ever taken the decision to stage such a unique national event. The sums and the event are without precedent. Our best and most forward-looking companies are picking up the challenge because they see their commercial interest coinciding with the national interest. It would be nice if, like those companies, Conservative Members identified with the national interest.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman finds that answer unsatisfactory and he wants to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Good, I have got the point, thank you.

I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend exuding confidence about the prospects for raising the money, but, if we are still £60 million short and money is trickling in as slowly as press reports suggest, will not that create the real danger that, instead of being the celebration of British history, achievements and prospects that it should be, the millennium experience will be a mammoth piece of commercial hucksterism in which companies from McDonald's to Tesco are allowed to parade their products on the back of £580 million of public money?

I do not think that my hon. Friend was listening to my reply. I said that a further £60 million from 10 major companies is subject to detailed negotiation. If my arithmetic is correct, that takes us over the target that we have already set. We are getting a great deal for our sponsorship. For example, the children's promise scheme, which is a joint campaign between the New Millennium Experience Company and Marks and Spencer, brings together seven children's charities. It will encourage everyone to donate their final hour's earnings of this millennium to the children of the next. That is something that the entire House can and should support.

I look forward to receiving my card—

The hon. Gentleman will be getting his cards very shortly.

Not as soon as the Minister will get a yellow card.

I will happily give that commitment, because the sums that we need have already been identified—they are coming. I understand that Conservative Members are desperately disappointed with the good news that I am able to share with the House today—they will not be happy until the private sponsorship finally fails to materialise, the doors fail to open and the public fail to turn up. Conservative Members will be very disappointed and there will be a lot of long Tory faces at the beginning of 2000, because the millennium dome and experience will be a tremendous success. They will be sorry that they have lacked the enthusiasm and patriotism to support them throughout.

Can I put it to the Minister, gently, that there is at least a perception of a conflict of interest between his roles as Minister responsible for the millennium dome and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? For example, he is involved in regulating Manchester United's possible takeover by BSkyB while sponsorship from BSkyB is coming in for the millennium dome. Would it not be better—having his best interests at heart—if responsibility for the millennium dome were transferred, perhaps to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but the bid by BSkyB for Manchester United—let us get it the right way round—has been referred by me to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My responsibilities for competition policy as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry require me to act fairly and impartially, and to be seen to do so. In carrying out these functions, I can categorically assure the House that I am in no way influenced by actual or potential offers being made by companies in support of the dome.

Setting aside any possible conflicts of interest, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the damage to the dome that has been done by his ridiculous announcements, including those on the sport of surfball, the androgynous figure, the use of a nappy, Siamese twins and so on? Given his failure to secure the total funding sum thus far, in retrospect was he not unwise to liken himself to St. John the Baptist—who, far from attending champagne parties, lived on locusts and wild honey; whose message was never spin doctored, but one of repentance; and whose head, duly severed, ultimately landed up on a plate?

I do not know how long it took to write and rehearse that question before it was delivered. These are very tired remarks from Opposition Members; we hear constant cavilling, nit-picking and thread-pulling from the usual carping quarters. Opposition Members are absolutely desperate for the project to go wrong, are they not? They will be very disappointed.

What discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's small breweries about promoting local beers during the period of the millennium experience. [57271]

The New Millennium Experience Company announced in April that it wanted to serve visitors to the dome with the United Kingdom's best traditionally brewed and popular beers. The company is in discussion with a number of local and regional brewers.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Black Dog Brewery Ltd. in Whitby will be one of the breweries approached? Without doubt, such a regional flavour will spread the millennium experience around the country. May I also make a plea for Whitby kippers, which would go particularly well with the beer?

I am sure that the very appropriately named Black Dog beer will be among those that are very hotly considered by the New Millennium Experience Company. As for Whitby's kippers and all the other magnificent products and services, moving the town into the dome might not be a bad idea. The town will certainly have an opportunity to tell its story in the dome under a project called "Our Town's Story", which will enable people from all over the country to tell their story for the benefit and enjoyment of millions of our fellow citizens.

What impact there has been on the commissioners' assets arising out of the collapse of (a) hedge funds and (b) other financial institutions. [57280]

I am delighted to say that the commissioners have no investments in hedge funds or any other financial institutions that have collapsed. World stock markets have retreated considerably from the exceptionally high levels of earlier this year. The United Kingdom market, however, which is of most significance to the commissioners, has given up only the advances that we saw earlier in the year, and since the end of September it has started to show greater stability and recovery.

I recognise my hon. Friend's points. Can he assure me that lower stock values have not made it impossible for the Church Commissioners to meet their commitment to provide the Church with funds to meet clergy stipends and pensions?

The commissioners use long-term financial assumptions when assessing their distribution capability and policy. They value their assets on an actuarial basis, rather than using current market values. That system looks to the income generated by investments and the likely growth of that income as the basis for levels of distribution, which helps to smooth the volatility in market values to which the question refers.

What impact there has been on the commissioners' assets as a result of the turbulence in the world's financial markets. [57282]

The commissioners' United Kingdom equities comprise a diversified portfolio, which has moved broadly in line with the markets. The commissioners' portfolio continues to out-perform both the index and its benchmark. The commissioners also have significant holdings in commercial, agricultural and residential property. Such diversification of risk has helped to cushion them against any short-term volatility in the stock market.

Given the problems in Japan and the far east and, indeed, the threat of recession nearer to home, will the hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming about some of the commissioners' changes to their investment portfolio? Who advises them on changes to their asset allocation strategy?

The commissioners use a range of advisers in making their decisions, including their actuaries Watson Wyatt and property advisers DTZ Debenham Thorpe; the WM company and the Investment Property Databank. During 1997, the commissioners conducted a comprehensive review of their investment and asset allocation strategy which aims to provide stable and long-term support for the Church's ministry. As a result, they are rebalancing their assets in favour of securities—primarily UK securities—while reducing their property exposure. In relation to far eastern equities, the valuation losses have been proportionately minor compared with other institutional funds, due to our relatively low exposure to those areas.

We have seen the effect of turbulence on the Church's portfolio, but what has been the effect of Viagra on the Church's financial standing and that of its portfolio?

I am happy to say that our investment in the drug company—which fulfils our ethical investment policy to the hilt—has turned over a recent profit of about £3 million in three months.

If the Church Commissioners will make it their policy not to invest in countries where state organised torture, murder and disappearances are or have been prevalent. [57283]

The commissioners' ethical investment policy is not to invest in companies whose management practices are judged by us to be unacceptable in whatever country they operate. We also aim to invest in companies that are conscientious concerning issues of human rights.

Can my hon. Friend therefore explain why one of the companies in which the Church Commissioners invested was responsible for the armoured carriers on the streets of Jakarta, which sprayed unarmed demonstrators with dye and which are, quite clearly, being used for internal repression?

I take this opportunity to reiterate our investment policy on investments in companies before I refer specifically to my hon. Friend's point. The sale of military equipment to regimes with poor human rights records remains a strong concern. Companies in which the commissioners invest confirm that none of the equipment they have exported could be used for internal repression.

Following the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), will the hon. Gentleman put it to his colleagues that, rather than having an English-centred view of what is acceptable in terms of international investment, it might be an improvement if, in future, the decisions were also approved by a representative body of the Lambeth conference of worldwide Anglican churches? Without prejudicing the view of some of us that the Church of England should be disestablished, could he also ensure that once a year the commissioners talk to English Members of Parliament and take their advice on what investments should be made on behalf of the Church?

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. The statutory responsibility of the Church Commissioners is, of course, to this House, and their duty is to provide the wherewithal for the Church to meet its commitments. In relation to the wider question to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred, the commissioners look to the United Kingdom Government and the recently formulated European Union code on arms transfer to put in place safeguards to prevent the sort of sales to which my hon. Friend referred. In that context, the Foreign Office's recent announcement that it will ask two non-governmental organisations—Save the Children and Amnesty International—to advise on human rights issues is most welcome.

What assessment the commissioners have made of the compatibility of holdings in GEC with their investment policy. [57284]

The commissioners' investment in GEC is consistent with the ethical investment working group's view that nations have a right to defend themselves and to engage in peacekeeping initiatives and with the group's belief in the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. Given GEC's corporate restructuring, however, the commissioners' holdings in the company will continue to be kept under close review by the working group.

If the holdings are consistent with the ethical investment policy, that policy is at fault—for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Why are the Church Commissioners, who presumably have some connection with Christianity, investing so heavily in a company that produces weapons of mass destruction?

The ethical investment working group represents the entire Church; it covers not only the Church Commissioners but the General Synod. As responsible shareholders, our duty is to make representations to companies on issues about which we are concerned and about which concern is reflected in the House. As part of that process, a meeting with Lord Prior, the former chairman of GEC, was held on 2 September to discuss the corporate changes in the company that have resulted in a greater focus on defence electronics. We find that GEC continues to listen to our concerns and to respond positively to them.