What action his Department has taken to promote the role of arts and sport in tackling social exclusion. [98967]

In the spring of this year, we published the policy action team report, which demonstrated with a host of practical examples how effective arts and sports activity can be in tackling social exclusion. Last month I held a national conference on social inclusion to discuss with local government and partner organisations how the Department and others in the culture and leisure fields can best follow up the work of the policy action team. The Department, our sponsored bodies, local authorities, lottery distributors and the voluntary and private sectors will all play their part.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on promoting the role of arts and sport in combating social exclusion. Is he aware that there are many examples of that already happening and will he join me in congratulating Kettering rugby football club on its fifth annual mini-tournament, held yesterday, which involved more than 750 young people between the ages of seven and 12 from all sections of our community? Will he consider joining us at next year's tournament?

I certainly echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to Kettering rugby football club on what was clearly an excellent event. I shall need to consult my diary to see whether I can take up his kind invitation. This is indeed a good example of how arts and sport can play a real role helping the process of social cohesion and regeneration.

Is the Secretary of State aware that throughout the country museums, galleries and libraries are under unprecedented pressure, with many teetering on the brink of closure? Will he concede that access to and participation in sport by young people is imploding under this Government, with 30 per cent. fewer physical education teachers being trained and, as Sport England has shown, the highest number of playing fields under threat since records began?

That is a bit rich from a party that presided over the selling off of well over 5,000 playing fields during its time in office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has failed to notice the £15 million of funding that we have put in place for the designated museums throughout the country through the new challenge fund: the first time ever that national funding has been made directly available to regional museums in this country.

If he will make a statement on the changes introduced by the Lottery Act 1998. [98968]

The Act has allowed lottery distributors to be more proactive in making grants, to work more co-operatively and to allow decisions to be made closer to the grass roots. Distributors have produced strategic plans for their use of lottery money that will allow them to assess the extent to which their objectives are being met.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Stockport has benefited from more than £5 million of lottery funding, which has helped with major projects such as the Hatting museum. We look forward to help in due course with the renovation of Hollywood park. I welcome the increase in small grants from the lottery, which has benefited projects such as the Stockport and district mental health and arts project, which is an innovative and creative scheme that will improve the quality of life for the whole community. Can she assure me that the small grants programme will continue to increase for the benefit of small community groups?

According to my figures, Stockport has had £6 million of lottery money: slightly up on my hon. Friend's estimate. I agree that small community grants are important. They are crucial to ensure that small community organisations can benefit from the lottery. One of the most important things that we intend to do is to make it as easy and simple as possible, while assuring accountability, for those groups to apply for the money.

Is it not true that the distributors are now supposed to take much more account of policy directions from the Secretary of State? Is not that in clear contradiction to the need for charitable and voluntary organisations to innovate and experiment? I thought that that was what the national lottery was primarily intended for. Is the Minister happy with the direction that is being taken?

The directions would allow the innovation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are trying to move away from big spending on huge bricks and mortar projects and to concentrate on ensuring that lottery money goes towards making a real difference for people and communities. It is important that the distributors can now look at where the money has not been going and ask why, and try to go out and find the projects, working with and supporting people to ensure that all areas of the country benefit in the same way.

Is it not important to consider the money that is going into communities, and especially greenfield communities? May I also make a plea for the inclusion of seaside towns in the new opportunities fund?

My hon. Friend may be aware that the green spaces initiative under the new opportunities fund should allow constituencies such as his to benefit.

What calculations his Department has made of the impact on the tourism and leisure industry of Government regulations introduced since May 1997. [98969]

No new regulations affecting business are introduced without first being subjected to a regulatory impact assessment. This assessment examines the costs and benefits of proposed regulations across the piece, not just on individual economic sectors. Tourism and leisure are key growth industries and my Department works closely with others to see that new regulation does not impose excessive administrative and financial burdens on tourism and leisure-related businesses.

That reply is a travesty. Is it not a cruel irony that my constituency of Fylde receives some £3,000 of help for its tourism business, which is worth £40 million, but that benefit is immediately washed out by the regulatory burden of the working time directive alone? Is not it time that the Secretary of State undertook to object to any more regulatory burdens on tourism if they exceed the value of the help that his Department gives to tourism in this country?

I can do better than that, because I can point to a host of regulatory burdens on the tourism and hospitality industries—about which the previous Government did nothing—that we are actively considering lifting. They include the better regulation task force case study of hotels and catering, the wide-ranging review of the liquor licensing system, Government proposals to simplify the regulation of late night restaurants, Government proposals to remove the ban on admission charging for Sunday dancing and research into the impact of land-use planning systems on leisure-related development. The Conservatives did nothing about those when in government: we are doing something.

What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the consequences to tourism of returning to the Elgin marbles to Greece? If it were possible to return them to the Parthenon itself, the case for that would be strong, but not for transferring them from one museum to another. They were effectively saved by bringing them to this country, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that any such proposal is firmly opposed?

I do, indeed, agree with my right hon. Friend. The Elgin Parthenon marbles in the British museum are visited by some 6 million people a year for free. People come from all over the world to see those treasures, among many others. I believe that it should stay that way.

Government regulation has established the regional development boards, with a special remit for tourism. So far, I do not see many people connected with tourism on the boards that have been established. Little seems to have been done in the traditional seaside resorts, where money is required but help is not forthcoming.

Several representatives from the tourism and leisure industry sit on regional development agencies, although they do not all have such a representative. The development of the regional cultural consortiums that we have put in place will draw together representatives from the range of cultural, sporting and tourism interests in each region and will have a direct input into the work of the RDAs and will ensure that the voice of tourism is not lost.

While I endorse the Secretary of State's policy towards the Elgin marbles, I must say that the Opposition do not think much of his regulatory impact assessment. Can it be a surprise that we have the worst tourism balance of payments in history, when so many in the tourist industry have been hit by an avalanche of costly deregulations? Is he aware that the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors have shown that more than 2,500 new regulations now affect their businesses that cost them £5 billion a year? No sector is worse hit than the leisure and tourism sector.

One of those regulations is the national minimum wage, which I actively support, as do the great majority in the hotel and catering industry. They know that good remuneration and treatment of employees means a well-motivated work force and a better service to the customer. That was borne out in research conducted by Caterer&Hotelkeeper, which showed that 84 per cent. of hospitality staff and 65 per cent. of their employers supported the introduction of a statutory minimum wage. It is only the Opposition who want to get rid of it.

What account his Department takes of the range of ticket prices for theatre, opera and ballet in London in its funding policies. [98970]

The Government want to ensure that everyone in England has an opportunity to experience the superb range of arts that we have in this country. With the Arts Council of England and the London Arts Board, we encourage companies in London to ensure the widest possible access to performances, including through-ticket pricing, touring and promotional activity.

I am grateful for that reply, and hope that my hon. Friend will now make it a priority to introduce a strategy genuinely to deliver cheaper and increased access to the arts for those on low incomes. Does he agree that if Michael Portillo is elected this week, Labour Members will have excellent access to ringside seats for yet another Tory party performance of "Julius Caesar"?

Our policy is to balance excellence with access, and we write those objectives into the funding agreements that we negotiate with the bodies that we fund. Those objectives are further expressed in the funding agreements negotiated between funding councils and the bodies that they fund.

I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating the Royal Opera house on allowing disabled people to take full advantage of the full range of ticket prices. However, is it not a shame that, although good access will be provided for disabled people within the opera house, there is no provision for parking outside the opera house? Is there anything that the Department can do about that?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman expresses that concern. I am quite certain that, when we have a new Labour mayor for London, with his responsibilities for transport, he will be concerned to ensure that parking arrangements and facilities not only at the Royal Opera house, but at all theatres and cultural venues, will be such as to better assist disabled people to have access to those cultural activities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing access is not only about charging cheaper prices for tickets to places such as the Royal Opera house, but about changing cultural attitudes, particularly among young people and children? Would not such change be in line with the Government's policy to make such access available to the many, not only the few?

Of course, my hon. Friend is right. Access is not only about ticket prices, but about outreach policies and education policies, and finding imaginative ways of encouraging people who have not hitherto perceived themselves as the types of people who might go to the opera, theatre, museums or galleries to begin to realise that that is their entitlement and a source of enormous pleasure to them.

What assessment he has made of funding levels for the arts in Britain since May 1997. [98971]

The Government have made available an additional £125 million to the arts over this and the next two years. That is a step change in funding for the arts in this country.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, if that sum is so generous, why is it that everyone I meet in the arts feels let down by the Government? Is it because they were led to believe that they would receive £290 million, rather than £125 million? Is it also because they feel cheated by the raid on the lottery for money that should have gone to the arts, but is being used for social programmes?

I do not know to whom the hon. Lady has been talking, but I believe that a new and very positive atmosphere surrounds the arts in this country. It is very much to do with my right hon. Friend's success in securing the best ever arts funding settlement, and also with the fact that we have a policy. The Conservative party has no policy—it does not believe that it should because, deep down, it does not really believe in Government responsibility for the arts. We do, and our policy is to promote excellence and access, to ensure that education plays its full part in support of the arts—and vice versa—and that we support the creative economy. There is extensive recognition and appreciation of that among people who care about the arts in Britain.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the example of the Queen's theatre in Hornchurch when it comes to funding? It is one of the most successful theatres of its type in Britain, and has had an enormous increase in audiences of about 90 per cent. over the past two years. Will my hon. Friend try to bring pressure to bear on the chair of the London Arts Board—one Trevor Phillips—to ensure that in future the Queen's theatre's plea for regular funding is not brushed aside but taken seriously?

There has been an extensive increase in funding for the London Arts Board of about 10 per cent. It will, I trust, give the board some margin with which to respond to what my hon. Friend very understandably calls for. Moreover, we have asked the Arts Council to conduct a review of the condition of theatre in the country at large, and it has willingly agreed to do so. I do not doubt that the issues surrounding the Queen's theatre will be characteristic of those that it will examine.

When Trevor Phillips is able to identify the extraordinary developments in the arts in London that have been achieved as a result of the lottery, he may also be able to inform the Minister of the dramatic reduction in arts funding that has taken place as a result of the £200 million that has been confiscated and given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his pet projects. What disappointment does the hon. Gentleman hold in store following the next election when, presumably, on the basis of precedent, there will be a further raid on arts lottery funding?

The right hon. Lady's mathematics is surreal. We have committed one sixth of the proceeds of the lottery to the arts, with a guarantee that that amount will be provided for the arts for the whole of the next 10 years and beyond. The arts, heritage, sport and charity sectors can each count on £1.9 billion in the present licence period—that is £100 million more than the right hon. Lady's Government forecast.

What recent discussions he has had with the football authorities about the world cup 2006 bid. [98972]

The Government are providing the fullest support for the Football Association's bid, and will continue to do so between now and the decision by the FIFA executive committee next July. It is an excellent bid, and discussions with the footballing authorities are on-going.

Is it not a fact that the Government's 100 per cent. support for the bid, in accordance with the manifesto commitment, has played a significant part in the way in which the bid is proceeding? How does my hon. Friend assess the visit of the FIFA inspection team which I believe was here last month?

The FIFA delegates who visited England last month to inspect the facilities pronounced themselves satisfied with all that they had seen, and described England's bid and its stadiums as outstanding. Whether I can assess how likely we are to be successful is another matter. Certainly, we have an excellent bid, and FIFA's technical inspectors have said so.

The Minister will know that all of us who are interested in sport, from all parties, are committed to supporting the 2006 bid, and have fully supported it in this House and elsewhere. However, does she accept that there is a problem regarding Wembley's involvement in that bid? Although we recognise that the new Wembley will be a vital part of a successful bid, there appears to be considerable confusion over the suitability of the newly redesigned Wembley for athletics as well, a factor that will also be relevant to the 2012 Olympic games bid.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we await the independent report commissioned by the United Kingdom Sports Council on suggestions for designs that would put Wembley in the running for the Olympic games in 2012 or 2016. We shall receive the report within a week to 10 days and shall report to the House when we have considered it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for 70 years, football fans at Wembley have been 60 yd from the goal if they are sitting behind it? As 95 per cent. of the revenue for running costs of the new stadium will come from football, not athletics, it would be disastrous if that mistake were repeated. Surely the Olympic games will come to the UK only once every 50 years, and will be attended by 80,000 only on the opening day. The proposed design of Wembley with a capacity of 67,000 would be ample for athletics. Is it not time that the football fans who go to Wembley, and who pay for the stadium to be run and maintained, have a decent view?

I am convinced that the new Wembley will give all football supporters a wonderful view. It will be a stadium that we can all be proud of. We want to be sure, however, that it is a national stadium, and that it will be possible both to hold the world championships there in 2005 and to consider the possibility of a later Olympic games bid. That is why we have commissioned the independent report, which will shortly be with us. I assure my hon. Friend that all football supporters who go to the new Wembley will be able to enjoy a world-class stadium.

What assistance his Department is giving to the project for the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium. [98973]

Lottery funding of £120 million has been awarded by Sport England towards the purchase of the existing Wembley stadium from Wembley plc, and its reconstruction as a national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. I have established a monitoring committee involving all the key players to allow us to identify and deal with issues arising, which demonstrates the Government's commitment to the project. I have every confidence that the new Wembley stadium will provide a first-class venue for a number of different sports and events.

It has been suggested that the Minister for Sport's comments last week about the Olympics and athletics implied that her predecessor had put too much emphasis on football. However, the Secretary of State supported the Wembley redevelopment. More importantly, so did the Prime Minister, whose picture appears on the front cover of the world cup 2006 brochure with a redeveloped Wembley in the background. Does the Secretary of State accept that if the Government wish to will the end, taking credit for England hosting the world cup in 2006, as we all wish it to do, they must also will the means? Huge outstanding planning and transport issues remain unresolved with Brent council, and those must be tackled. Will the Secretary of State put his Department's full resources into ensuring a successful outcome to the bid? The last thing we want is a successful world cup soccer launch that is hampered as the rugby world cup was by a stadium having to be painted on the day before the first match.

When I saw the rugby world cup at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, everyone agreed that it is a fantastic stadium which provided a magnificent venue for the world cup. Exactly the same quality will be achieved both for the world athletics championship in 2005 and the football world cup in 2006. The Government will bend every effort to ensuring that that happens. However, we cannot, and should not, ride roughshod over the planning system. Proper rules are in place, and the necessary planning procedures will be undertaken.

Does my right hon. Friend share my incredulity that Sport England allowed the release of £120 million of lottery funding for Wembley to purchase the site of the new national stadium, when it must have been known that the proposed stadium could not function as a truly national stadium for the three sports for which it was intended—especially for athletics—not only because of the size of the stadium but because, under Olympic and international regulations, a warm-up facility must be provided alongside? Will he assure us that the trust that was supposed to be the guardian of the project and of the national stadium will—as the previous Sports Minister assured me in the House—ensure that the project also functions for athletics? Will he further ensure that the Football Association pulls its finger out to get the project, which it has delayed by more than 18 months, back on to the drawing board and on target?

My hon. Friend has played a major role, as the local constituency Member of Parliament, in promoting the Wembley project. He raises a number of entirely legitimate concerns. However, I assure him that, right from the start, our concern—like that of Sport England—has been to ensure that the stadium can be used not only for football and rugby league, but for major athletics events. Through the establishment of the Wembley task force under the chairmanship of Sir Nigel Mobbs, with the involvement of Brent Council and English Partnerships, we shall also ensure not only that the stadium is created in the right way, but that the surrounding area is treated in the right way.

May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), to the Treasury Bench? I am, however, delighted that the Secretary of State is answering this question, because, although the blame for this fiasco seems to be being shifted to the hon. Lady's predecessor, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the Secretary of State was present throughout all the proceedings. There is now a real possibility that we shall have a national stadium that cannot host the Olympic games.

"the wrong kind of stadium"?

Apart from misquoting my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, the hon. Gentleman, by that question, does the cause of creating a truly national stadium no good whatever. The aim throughout has been to ensure that we have a first-class, world-class national stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. As he will know, from parliamentary answers, the design for the new stadium was first shown to Ministers in the middle of July this year. As a direct result, I called a further meeting on 21 July with Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the chief architect and Sport England, to ensure that the interests of athletics were intimately involved in the further development of the designs for the stadium.

On what date pensioners will be allowed free admittance to national museums and art galleries. [98974]

Funds have been made available to permit free access for pensioners, from April 2000, to the currently charging national museums funded by my Department.

I thank the Minister for that response, and, on behalf of the pensioners in my constituency, I thank him for finding the £99 million extra that has made free entrance to museums possible for pensioners, in the same way as it is for children. Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how many extra children have been attracted to museums as a result of free entrance? Does he expect similar increases among pensioners?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, as we hoped, the project to allow children free entry to national museums and galleries has been a remarkable success. In the past year, the number of children visiting the museums and galleries that have participated in the scheme increased by no less than 22 per cent. I believe that there will be an equivalent beneficial effect when we have free entry for pensioners.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the robustness of his answer to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the Elgin marbles. Can he reassure me, however, that the Government are equally robust, so that, when he and I are pensioners, we shall be able to visit our best national museum—the British museum—and see the Elgin marbles free of charge? What will he advise the Prime Minister to tell President Clinton, who thinks that he knows better than the trustees of the British museum where the Elgin marbles are best placed?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made our position absolutely clear just now. We believe that it is proper that the Elgin marbles remain in this country. That is our position and the statutory position, and the position of the trustees of the British museum reinforces it.

How many pensioners will benefit from the provision of free television licences to those aged over 75 years; and what plans he has to reform the current system of concessionary television licences. [98975]

More than 3 million households will benefit from the provision of television licences free of charge to people aged 75 and over. The Government are still considering whether to make any further changes to the existing concessionary arrangements, in the light of the recommendations in the Davies report on the future funding of the BBC and the responses to the public consultation on the report. An announcement will be made early in the new year.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I understand that there is a separate regime for the licensing of television sets in Her Majesty's prisons. Should Lord Archer end up in prison, will he be given the same access to the television licensing regime as any other common criminal?

The short answer is yes. Because of Crown exemption, television sets in prisons do not require a television licence. Therefore, in such hypothetical circumstances, the noble Lord would be given access to a free television licence some 16 years ahead of his 75th birthday.

Who will pay for all this—the taxpayer or the licence fee payer?

In relation to the question about Lord Archer, the answer is that I am not sure. In relation to the general concession to pensioners aged 75 and over, the answer is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that money available out of Exchequer funds, and the cost is £300 million.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor's decision, announced a few weeks ago, is much welcomed by the age group that will benefit? Can he explain why the previous Government did everything that they possibly could to prevent the concession being granted to pensioners, despite the years of campaigning by Labour Members?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own dogged, persistent and extremely effective efforts to raise the matter in the House. He is right to say that my right hon. Friend's announcement has been warmly welcomed. The only place that it does not appear to have been welcomed is on the Opposition Benches. On 10 November, the Daily Mail—which, of course, I always believe—said:

"Tories dismissed the free TV licences as a gimmick".

However well received this concession is—I am sure that it will be well received by Baroness Thatcher, as by many other people of that age group—can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the free licence scheme will not extend to the cost of any extra fee that may be payable for digital television services? What is to stop every household with a 75-year-old switching the licence into the 75-year-old's name and watching television for nothing? Does not the scheme mean that, in future, the Government will take a direct stake in the funding of the BBC of at least £300 million a year? What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman offer the BBC that that will not compromise its independence?

From those questions and the hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the point that I have raised, I have to take it that the Opposition would remove this benefit if they ever got into government.

What plans his Department has to support the Tower Opera tour of England. [98976]

I am aware of the admirable work of Opera Box in providing opera to new audiences and of the enthusiastic response that there has been in Wales to Tower. As my hon. Friend knows, however, my Department does not provide direct support to artistic organisations. Funding for the arts in England is channelled through the Arts Council of England and regional arts boards. It is for them to take decisions on the funding of individual organisations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As a former member of the Arts Council of Great Britain, I find it extremely parochial of the Arts Council of England to turn down the application for a touring grant for the "Tower" opera, which tells the story of a highly successful workers' co-operative. Despite the best efforts of the Conservative party, which wanted to close the co-operative down because it said that it had no future, it is now a successful enterprise, making a profit year on year.

The whole House recognises my hon. Friend's passionate commitment both to the Tower colliery and to the "Tower" opera. She will be a doughty champion of the cause. May I offer her a ray of hope? Since the Arts Council conveyed its decision that it would not support the touring of the "Tower" opera in England, it has reconsidered its commitment to touring and proposed to increase its funding for touring. If my hon. Friend can demonstrate that 15 or more theatres in England would welcome the opportunity to stage this production and that the production has been received with critical acclaim in Wales, it may be worth her while to pursue another conversation with Mr. Peter Hewitt, chief executive of the Arts Council.

What action he is taking to ensure a fair regional spread of the proceeds from the national lottery. [98977]

Following the National Lottery Act 1998 and my revised policy directions, distributors must now take into account the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding and the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation. Working with the lottery distributors, we have commissioned research to establish what more can be done to help areas where the take-up of lottery funding has been low.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the pro-active approach of the National Lotteries Charities Board, working with me and others in my constituency, to encourage more applications from voluntary organisations. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that, to many people in the west midlands, it still appears that lottery funders think that interest in art and heritage stops at the end of the Northern line? Will he ensure that arts, culture and industrial heritage projects in the west midlands and other regions receive their fair share of lottery cash? Will he consider putting a moratorium on any new appointments to the lottery board of people who live in London and the home counties?

I am ever anxious to ensure that membership of the boards of lottery distributors and, more importantly, the decisions that they take on the distribution of funds reflect properly the regions of this country, not just London. That is why, for example, the new directions that are in place insist that lottery distributors take account of the need to ensure a fairer geographical spread of lottery distribution. That is also why the development of the small grants scheme, which is available throughout the country and which has an easy application process, has been so successful. I am pleased to report to the House that, in the past year, the number of small grants being supported by the lottery has doubled.

Accepting that the fair regional spread of national lottery proceeds must depend on the number of applications coming from the various regions, is the Secretary of State prepared to discount lottery funds that go to national institutions in London, because outer London boroughs in particular feel that they may not be getting their fair spread of lottery funding?

The hon. Gentleman is partly right, although the number of applications that are approved depends on the quality of applications as well as their number. He has a valid point in that the overall London figures can sometimes be distorted by the presence of national institutions in the very heart of London, and some parts of London may get disregarded unfairly as a result of that. A fairer geographical spread means exactly what it says, both for other parts of London and for the regions.

How he will ensure that poorer communities in need of sports facilities will receive a larger share of allocations from the Lottery. [98978]

The Government are determined to ensure that a greater share of lottery money goes to sporting projects in areas of deprivation. Sport England's priority areas initiative provides extra funding to such areas, and sport action zones will provide extra help in focusing funding towards areas of particular need.

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. It is a pleasure to see her there. Does she intend, in the sports strategy, to consider an audit for sports facilities—[Interruption.]

I apologise, Madam Speaker.

I should think so. Pagers should be switched off before hon. Members come into the Chamber.

Will my hon. Friend consider, in her sports strategy, an audit of what facilities are currently available in communities? That audit should include not simply how many playing fields and swimming pools there are, but how many facilities are needed per adult. Areas where there is poverty, such as my community in Sheerness, have been told time and again that we should have more sports fields, but alas there are no fields to buy, so that is no good to us at all.

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. It is absolutely clear that, before we can make significant decisions about where and how money should be spent, we need to know what base we are starting from. We are seriously considering some form of audit, helped by local authorities and others.

Given the importance of providing the maximum number of sports fields to benefit poorer communities, how does the hon. Lady reconcile the statement by the Minister for School Standards on 7 June that the new opportunities fund would provide £125 million to facilitate bids by cash for the creation of new playing fields with the issue on 29 September of that fund's consultation document, which specifically stated that the purchase of land would not be a priority?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is right and wrong—although perhaps I am being unfair. The buying of playing fields certainly will be allowed under the new initiative, although it will not be the only measure, and it will not necessarily be any more of a priority than some of the other initiatives.

I very much welcome the steps that my hon. Friend has taken to make sure that money ends up where it is most needed. However, we still do not have a level playing field. In the west midlands, particularly in my constituency, playing fields have no adequate drainage and there are no proper facilities where people can play sport. We desperately need the support of a sports action zone. Will my hon. Friend consider the criteria carefully and think about those areas that do not have a level playing field?

I would expect Sport England to consider precisely the kind of problem to which my hon. Friend has referred when deciding where sports action zones will be.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the millennium dome project. [98980]

The team at the New Millennium Experience Company continue to make magnificent progress, finalising delivery of all aspects of the millennium experience at the dome. The dome is on course to be a centrepiece for the country's millennium celebrations, both on its opening night and throughout 2000. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of Bob Ayling, Jennie Page and all involved.

That statement contrasts with recent press reports that the dome may not be completed in its entirety by 31 December. If it is not, who will be held responsible and what will happen to them?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the press. The dome will indeed be completed in its entirety, with all its zones, in time for the opening on 31 December.

What funding he has received from English Heritage in 1998 for the upkeep of the Church's historic buildings. [98996]

In 1998-99, 12 million was made available through English Heritage towards repairs to churches of all denominations and religions—Christian and non-Christian churches, historic places of worship in regular use and grade 1 or 2 listed buildings.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that £12 million is significantly less than the Treasury grabs in value added tax on church repairs and renovations? If, as I suspect, that is so, has not the quite ridiculous system of the Treasury giving with one hand and grabbing back with both hands gone on for too many years? I lend my support to the hon. Gentleman and his commissioners in their campaign for the vexed issue of VAT on church repairs to be looked into.

As I reminded the House during my Adjournment debate on 17 November, the total available funding for 1999–2000 of £10 million from English Heritage and £10 million from the heritage lottery fund falls far short of the total bill for major repairs which, for the Church of England alone in 1998, amounted to £123 million. Of that, £18 million was paid in VAT. So, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point; the Treasury has taken with one hand what it has given with the other.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that churches that receive restoration grants as part of our heritage are brought back into community as well as religious use, as was intended when they were built? Will he also assure me that facilities and access for disabled people are considered when grants are made?

English Heritage money is limited to urgent, high-level structural repairs and repairs to historic fabric at risk of imminent loss of grade 1 and 2 churches. Heritage lottery fund money is available for similar work to grade 2 churches and non-structural repairs of any grade, provided that they lie within certain prescribed local authority areas. I am very glad to take up my hon. Friend's point about disabled access and facilities, and will ensure that it is heard.

What representations the commissioners have received concerning any proposed investment in JC 2000; and if he will make a statement. [98997]

I am happy to associate myself with JC 2000. As a member of its committee, I must state how pleased I am that 18,000 schools have registered to be part of the millennium arts festival for schools. It is very important that schools help pupils understand the true meaning behind the millennium. JC 2000 has gained support from the Department for Education and Employment, Church leaders and representatives of other faiths. I should add that, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I have received several representations.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous support for the project. Will he do his utmost to ensure that the somewhat creaky communication network of the Church of England operates to best possible effect, reminding churches and parishes throughout the United Kingdom that, should they want to put on a festival, a massive reservoir of the Church's work is waiting to be exhibited and displayed in concerts and other millennium celebrations?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small; the same is true of the administration of the Church of England, but I shall make sure that his words are heard. The commissioners have consistently encouraged every appropriate attempt to mark the millennium year as the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. I am happy to encourage pupils, teachers and schools to devise drama, music and dance productions inspired by the impact of the Christian story; such productions are well within the framework of JC 2000.

What contribution the Church Commissioners are making to the millennium celebrations. [98998]

In my role as Second Church Estates Commissioner, I have made a modest contribution in helping to raise 75 per cent. of the total £4 million cost of the faith zone at the dome, and I echo the words of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of its success. Two million pounds has been donated by the Laing family trusts and £1 million comes from other Christian sources. The faith zone will contain a number of impressive exhibits and installations relating to the way in which the story of Jesus Christ, which lies at the heart of the millennium, has made a difference in this country.

Have the arrangements for Christian participation in the millennium celebrations now been finalised; and, if so, what are they? Will the hon. Gentleman consider discussing with the commissioners whether, next year, they could put some of the funds to which they have access into increasing the number of people at work as Christian ministers in the field? I have no idea of the figures, but I reckon that the percentage of Christians in Britain was larger 1,000 years ago than it is now. If we are to reverse the trend, we might have to employ more people to do the job.

The other day, I read a story in the Financial Times stating that only 4 per cent. of our community goes to church. However, 96 per cent. are born into the Church, marry in the Church and die in the Church: that makes a strong and Christian country.

Given that the content of the faith zone was decided by the Lambeth conference, chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from which those of us who believe in no god were excluded entirely, how are we to be represented within the faith zone? In addition, how much will the Church of England give directly to the faith zone?

After my last exchange with the hon. Gentleman, I recall someone telling me, "I'm an atheist, thank God," although that might not represent my hon. Friend's views. The Lambeth conference was a conference of all the faiths, so all the faiths have had a say in the faith zone; the zone will be inclusive and display aspects of other faiths. As for the contribution of the Church, as I said earlier, £2 million has been donated by the Laing family trusts and £1 million by other Christian sources; therefore, 75 per cent. of the money raised for the faith zone comes from sources other than the Church itself.

What plans the commissioners have to revise the structure of bishops' salaries and allowances. [99000]

Bishops' stipends are set by the Church Commissioners on the recommendation of the Archbishops Council as the central stipends authority.

What possibility is there of linking theological orthodoxy and evangelical zeal to remuneration, especially expenses payable, so that occupants of the pews can be reassured that they are getting value for money?

The clergy are there for the salvation of souls, and I am sure that they do a wonderful job. As for expenses, it is important to bear it in mind that bishops' expenses are only 1.5 per cent. of the total running costs of the Church.

If he will make a statement on the financial implications of the churchwardens Measure. [9900]

In response to comments by the Ecclesiastical Committee, the General Synod has made a number of amendments to the power in the Measure to suspend a churchwarden, including a new appeal provision. The only situation where the Measure might have measurable financial implications would be where there was such an appeal. That would be likely to arise only rarely, and I am sure that all those involved would be concerned to keep the expenses to a reasonable minimum.

I am sure that many of the parochial church councils that have written to me recently to express their concern about the Measure will be encouraged by that response. Will the hon. Gentleman give an indication of the progress that this Measure will make through the House, to enable parochial church councils to shape their representations to Members on this subject?

I am glad to be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. The Measure, with the amendments made by the General Synod, has been re-submitted to the Ecclesiastical Committee, which will consider it further as soon as possible. From there, we shall voyage on to the Floor of the House.

What are the funding implications for the National Audit Office of its remit to evaluate the methodology of the Red Book figures. [99002]

The commission is responsible for ensuring that the NAO has sufficient resources to carry out the statutory duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In our previous report to the House, the commission noted the CAG's assurance that the cost of carrying out his new statutory duties in respect of the Budget assumptions is not expected to be high or to exceed the capacity of existing expertise available within the NAO. On the basis of the current scope of Budget assumptions work by the NAO, I remain satisfied that that is the case.

May I ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission to allocate a specific sum so that we can ensure that the figures in next year's Red Book are truly transparent and that we do not have a situation, as we have had with this Government, where the same amount of money is repeated two or three times over and is accumulated for several years before it is actually spent? The public should be able to see properly what is being spent on health and education.

The National Audit Office certainly carries out its remit thoroughly and properly. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's criticism because it is the task of the Public Accounts Commission, together with the Public Accounts Committee, to ensure that this work is done satisfactorily. I have no reason to doubt that that is still the case.