What proposals he has to support theatre venues in market towns. [135336]

This is a matter for the Arts Council of England—as the main funding body for the arts in England—in collaboration with the regional arts boards, to decide within the context of its current review of regional theatre. The Arts Council has already announced additional theatre funding from 2002–03 and decisions on how this will be distributed will be made in the near future.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am thinking of the Merlin theatre in Frome, which is excellent but which failed, unfortunately, in a recent lottery bid. Does he agree that the lottery process is not necessarily the right way of providing for capital improvements to smaller theatre venues, precisely because it is a lottery? We need a mechanism to ensure that funds are made available not only to the big—the regionally important—venues, but to those that provide an essential service to local people.

I would counsel the hon. Gentleman and his constituents who are involved with the Merlin theatre and arts centre not to despair of the lottery. I appreciate the disappointment felt by Merlin when it was unsuccessful in the previous lottery application to the Arts Council. I know that the South-West Arts Board tried to give helpful advice, and I understand that Merlin is putting together a new bid to South-West Arts—that organisation now has more resources to distribute under the regional arts lottery project. I wish Merlin well in that application. Of course, from 2002, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards will be able to start to use the extra £25 million revenue funding—the huge increase that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has provided for theatre.

Will my hon. Friend consider visiting the new theatre at Milton Keynes? Within a year of opening, it is achieving 85 per cent. occupancy and is a splendid example of the use of public money in extending regional theatre. Will he spread the lessons to be learned from the Milton Keynes theatre to other less successful regional theatre venues?

It would give me nothing but pleasure to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. I greatly look forward to having the opportunity to visit Milton Keynes. I am sure that the lessons that can be learned from the success of that project will be eagerly followed by others elsewhere, as she suggests.

What action he is taking to promote the take-up of digital television. [135337]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 31 October that we have been working closely with broadcasters, manufacturers, retailers and consumer groups to ensure that viewers get accurate and sensible information. A set of clear and simple messages has been agreed and will be used to promote and encourage take-up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that internet access is an important part of digital television? Hopefully, it offers a mechanism to ensure that there will be a narrowing between the information haves and have-nots. Will she ensure that internet access forms part of the standard digital package on offer to consumers?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. She will be aware that the Government are most anxious to ensure universal access to the internet and also to ensure that we do not end up with an information-rich/information-poor society. Currently, we know that one in five homes already have digital television, which, of course, gives them access to the internet. Perhaps most interestingly, 50 per cent. of homes where there are children have digital television.

The hon. Lady will be aware that the United States has set an analogue switch-off date of 2006, while Italy and Germany have set a clear date of 2010. Does she agree that her conditional date for analogue switch-off will not encourage the growth of digital technology in this country? Furthermore, is she aware that the provision of internet television cannot be a reality until we have broad band throughout the United Kingdom? We certainly do not have that at present.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will bear with me if I set out our proposals for analogue switch-over. The matter is very important to us all.

I call Mr. Rapson,

My question has already been answered, Mr. Speaker.

That was a very rare piece of honesty.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has been on uppers again.

My hon. Friend is quite right.

What steps he is taking to give schoolchildren greater access to qualified coaching in the major sports. [135338]

We announced earlier this year that we would double the funding available for the school sports co-ordinators programme. The additional £60 million that we are providing over the next three years means that the 1,000 co-ordinators whom we will have in place by 2004 will also have funding to buy in coaches and officials. High-quality coaching goes hand in hand with our desire to see more competitive sports played in schools and between schools and to give many more pupils the chance to play sport.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, if we are to harness the talents and sporting enthusiasm of every child, we need more sports co-ordinators and fully qualified coaching staff in our schools as well as new and improved sporting facilities? Will he confirm that the money for the co-ordinators that he has just told us about will not be taken from the additional money announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for extending school sports facilities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of ensuring that good-quality coaching is available to pupils. One of the great tragedies of school sport in this country is the decline that came about as a result of the dispute that the previous Government had with teachers in the mid-1980s. We are now in the process of putting that right.

Although I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about improving sports coaching in schools, does he not recognise that the biggest decline in school sports came about because, for about 30 years, Labour spokesmen and Labour activists were against all competitive sport in schools? The Government are now trying to go two steps forward when he and his predecessors took us three steps back.

No, I would not agree. The two major reasons for the decline of sport in our schools over the past 20 years are, first, the withdrawal of teachers from after-school sporting activity as a direct result of their dispute with the previous Government, and secondly, the previous Government's presiding over a bargain-basement sell-off of school playing fields.

Although the interest given to sports in schools is encouraging and, indeed, welcome, quality coaching in some sports is done away from school—I am thinking of swimming. I have constituents whose children are making a wonderful grade in swimming but need assistance. Can we have some advice on how such people can obtain specialist coaching away from school in sports that are part of the school curriculum?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which, together with Sport England, we are addressing. Swimming, along with games, gymnastics, dance, athletics and outdoor-adventure activities, is a national curriculum entitlement for school children at key stages 1 to 4. That means that those activities are a statutory part of the education of every child in this country. We must ensure that that education, training and coaching are as good as possible.

Does the Secretary of State agree that fitter children get better examination results? If he does, does he further agree that it is unacceptable that children aged between 11 and 16 receive on average only 20 minutes' physical activity a week? If he agrees that that is so, as statistics show, will he explain how in an already overcrowded national curriculum more time will be found for children to undertake physical activity?

I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Fitter children who engage in sport undoubtedly perform better in their academic work. That has been proved by study after study. Engaging in sport also makes children healthier and, incidentally, helps to curb anti-social behaviour. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I are determined to increase the amount of sporting activity available to children, both within the curriculum and after school and at weekends. Both are important objectives. The school sports co-ordinators programme that we are implementing will help to achieve them.

How many mutual football supporters' trusts have been set up with the help of Supporters Direct. [135339]

Supporters Direct has assisted in the establishment of seven supporters' trusts to date, and has helped set up a further six trusts that are agreed in principle. Supporters Direct has received inquiries and requests for advice from groups representing supporters at a total of 85 football clubs in the FA premier league, in the football league and in non-league football. It is also in discussion with supporters' groups in other sports. That is not bad for two months' work.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. One of the seven trusts that he mentioned is at my local club, Enfield Town, which has also elected a supporter-director to the board. The chairman recently called the trust unrepresentative, which I believe reflects its growing influence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a structure should be spread throughout sport? If he does, what measures will he take to publicise it further?

My hon. Friend rightly points to the progress at Enfield. As he points out, not only has a supporters' trust been established but a supporter-director has been elected to the board. Most football clubs at which supporter-directors have been elected and supporters' trusts have been established have warmly welcomed the formal participation of supporters in the running of the club. I certainly hope that football clubs and, indeed, clubs in other sports will recognise that the direct involvement of supporters in the running, decision making and financing of their club is only to the clubs' benefit, because, after all, supporters are the lifeblood of a great football club.

We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's news and we wonder whether he has also sought football supporters' views regarding the European Commission's attempt to invade our pitch by ruling that the football transfer system is illegal. Does he agree that supporters' loyalty to their football team applies equally to players, that fans are unhappy when good players leave, and that fans will lose the most if their team is impoverished or ceases to exist because the current system is scrapped? Does he agree with our Football Association, football league and premier league that any new transfer and contracts system must ensure that players honour their obligations, that opportunities to break contract are strictly prescribed, and that smaller clubs are properly compensated for the transfer of talented young players to bigger clubs?

For once, I agree absolutely with everything the hon. Gentleman says. The matter is one that we have discussed with football authorities and supporters, as well as with our fellow European Governments. We believe that, although the current transfer system is by no means perfect, rewarding clubs for the investment that they make in players and ensuring that money cascades down from larger, richer clubs to smaller, less wealthy clubs are important aspects of the system and values that we should try to retain.

What discussions he has had with local authorities in east London and the Greater London Authority about the future of the millennium dome. [135340]

The matter is, of course, one for the competition team. Throughout the competition process, the competition team has involved and informed east London and Thames gateway organisations, including local authorities and community groups. Frequent consultation with the London borough of Greenwich has featured throughout the competition process. Following the withdrawal of Dome Europe from the competition process on 11 September, my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer, sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company, has met representatives of the London borough of Greenwich. The Greater London Authority and the London borough of Greenwich will be fully involved in any future planning application for the dome's future use.

I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. Lady provide an assurance that, if the dome has to have recourse to yet more public money, not only will there be full consultation with the borough of Greenwich and the Greater London Authority, but Parliament will be fully informed in advance? Will she give a further assurance that, if a wind-up takes place and more public money is needed, she will come to the House and make clear how much is required? Furthermore, will her noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer do the honourable thing and resign?

Before he made his final, cheap, point, which I shall treat in the manner it deserves, I was beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman was approaching the subject in the spirit we expect of all parties. I assure him that we shall continue to keep the House fully informed. The New Millennium Experience Company is satisfied that it has sufficient funding to carry through trading until the end of the year. He will know that we are engaged in discussions with Legacy plc about the future of the dome. I am sure that he does not expect me to predict the outcome of those negotiations; however, I can say that we hope to be able to make an announcement very soon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives' constant attempts to make political capital out of the dome ring hollow, given their part in setting it up? Does my hon. Friend also agree that although all alternatives for the future of the dome must be considered, it is essential that the dome remain in existence? We must find an alternative that will ensure that. Does she agree that it has already become almost an icon building, and one that should be maintained?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who, sadly, is not in his place today, said:

Our task is to maximise the national gain and recognise that this is a non-party-controversial issue; it is an all-party endeavour.—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 271.]

For once, I shall give the Minister some all-party support. There is no doubt that the original motivation for the dome was the regeneration of that part of the Thames, and I hope that she will continue it. I am glad that Nomura has backed out of its bid, so there are no more beer-swilling concepts of leisure developments there. Will the hon. Lady please make sure that the Legacy bid is taken seriously? It is an opportunity to build a science park there and to help smaller companies. I hope that the negotiations are progressing as well as she suggested, so that an early conclusion can be reached.

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Although I cannot predict the outcome, the Legacy bid is interesting and exciting. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need an early conclusion. I can confirm that we have been having discussions with Legacy plc, the remaining bidder from the final shortlist of two, and the competition team is currently analysing the proposal from Legacy. I cannot predict what the outcome will be, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want an early solution and we will make an announcement shortly.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the national botanic garden of Wales, which is also backed by the Millennium Commission, and has just exceeded all expectations by—

Order. The hon. Lady might try to pick another question, as that does not relate to the one before us.

Will the Minister now treat the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in the manner that it deserves, and answer it? Does she think that Lord Falconer should resign?

Lord Falconer is doing an extremely good job. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

We will see whether that opinion still holds on Thursday, when the National Audit Office report is published. On regeneration in east London, will the Minister confirm reports that the chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company has told Ministers that the site could be worth at least £300 million more if the dome were taken down?

I can only say that I am not aware of any such advice from the chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company. I repeat to the hon. Member that we, in common with local authorities in the Greenwich area, consider the building very much part of the area's regeneration. That should be taken into account.

What plans he has to address regional anomalies in television reception where viewers cannot receive appropriate regional variations of free-to-air broadcasts. [135342]

I understand the reason for the question—my hon. Friend has a particular problem in his constituency. It is difficult to know how to resolve it, because the spectrum available for the improvement of terrestrial television services is currently limited. It is difficult to prevent regional anomalies from occurring through analogue and other terrestrial means. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I understand the problem, which is also experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). If there is any way we can resolve it, we shall try to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that she has shown in the matter, and especially for coming to my constituency, where she heard how irritating it is to be interested in the news of Norfolk but to have to watch news that is targeted at Yorkshire.

My hon. Friend is quite right. I congratulate him on the tireless campaign that he has conducted in his constituency and in the House on behalf of his constituents. He is right to say that digital television uses the spectrum more efficiently and enables the number and range of services to be increased significantly.

Will the White Paper consider the fact that Yorkshire Television cannot be received everywhere in North Yorkshire?

The hon. Lady cites yet another example. I am not sure of the number of such examples, but there are several around the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I appreciate that people in particular areas would like to receive their own ITV regional service, especially regional news. We understand the concern that that causes. If we can do something about it, we shall.

What steps he is taking to improve the architectural quality of public buildings. [135343]

We have established the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—CABE—to promote good architecture and design. We have published a statement of our commitment in a document entitled "Better Public Buildings", copies of which have been placed in the Library. It has been wholeheartedly endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his foreword to the document.

In a recent debate that the early years network hosted in the House, the motion that public architecture is failing children was carried overwhelmingly. That is a great worry. In Corby, there is an early years excellence centre which is an example of excellent design for children in my constituency. Through sure start and the early years excellence programme, we are spending approximately £350 million on public buildings for children in the next few years. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the excellence that we have seen in Corby will encourage the rapid growth in, and injection of, capital into public architecture, to benefit children throughout the country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that the people of Penn Green in his constituency like the sure start building that has been built there. Large and increasing amounts of capital are spent on public buildings, but for decades, far too many were mediocre—if not downright ugly—in design, depressing for those who visited and worked in them, and unnecessarily expensive to operate and maintain.

I recognise that the quality of architectural design is a subjective issue, and I say that with some feeling. Does the Minister agree that the lottery funding of many buildings has aroused much greater public interest in the need for quality of design? I say this diplomatically: will the hon. Gentleman put his money where his mouth is and require that when Government Departments become clients they insist on good-quality buildings—even if that means more expensive buildings? Even if they are more expensive, good-quality buildings are a much better financial, as well as environmental, investment.

The hon. Gentleman has certainly carried the flag for high-quality public architecture for many years, as I well know, and I pay tribute to him for that. From the beginning, the lottery distributors—this has been a commitment shared by Governments of both parties—have been insistent that the buildings funded from that remarkable source of capital funding should be of high quality. The Arts Council and the heritage lottery fund have done excellently in that regard.

May I inform the Minister that I have a rather commodious office in Portcullis House, which regrettably rather resembles a Novotel? However, the architecture of the atrium of Portcullis House is stunning and wonderful. What will my hon. Friend do to encourage greater public access to that atrium, so that people can enjoy the architecture for which their tax has paid?

My hon. Friend also has long been committed to high-quality architecture. Of course, he is always a lucky fellow. I am glad that he has a commodious office. Responsibility for the construction project—that is, Portcullis House—has been a matter for the House and not for the Government. All parties have been involved in the oversight of the project. I am sure that the House authorities will wish members of the public to have the best opportunity to see the remarkable piece of architecture by Michael Hopkins and Partners, which is also a remarkable piece of structural engineering. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend, who is always the most assiduous and conscientious of parliamentarians, will be receiving many delegations who will come to wait upon him in his office.

If he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome after 31 December. [135344]

The Government are currently in discussion with Legacy plc, in relation to Legacy's proposal for a high-technology business campus at the Greenwich site. The Legacy proposal is currently being analysed by the competition team in advance of any decision on preferred bidder status. We hope to make an announcement in due course, but I can assure the House that the Government are determined to get the best possible deal to continue the regeneration of east London.

One thing that the dome and its contents will not be doing next year is fulfilling the Prime Minister's boast that they would form the first paragraph of his general election manifesto. Is the Minister aware that last week the national health service pulled the plug on four community hospitals, including a long-awaited £22 million community hospital serving New Forest? How many more future consequences will there be for the people of this country as a result of the squandering of three quarters of a billion pounds on the millennium dome and its contents?

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to ask that question. What the Government have done through the new opportunities fund has been popular. I refer him to a comment made by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who said that health and education are things on which lottery money should not be spent? Perhaps the Conservative party would like to tell us what it would cut, in addition to £16 billion-worth of cuts in public spending. Would the Conservatives cut sport in schools? Would they cut the green spaces initiative? Would they axe the additional equipment for cancer patients, the after-school clubs and the healthy living centres? People outside the House will want those questions answered.

When he expects the first grants will be made to primary schools under the space for sport and arts scheme. [135345]

There is a two-stage application process for the space for sport and arts scheme. In the first, which is already under way, local education authorities have received the prospectus and will return outline proposal forms by the end of the year. In the second, which will run from the end of January onwards, LEAs will be invited to work up projects which have been given in-principle approval and to submit detailed applications. We hope that the first grants will be made during the summer of next year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that schools will not have to match the funding? We should focus on the most needy schools, but they are precisely the schools with the most claims on their resources. If we want the programme to be effective, it needs to carried out without the requirement for match funding.

I can confirm that. The principal element of funding for the space for sport and arts for schools scheme comes directly from the Exchequer as part of the capital modernisation fund. Lottery money is being provided in addition. The running costs, once the projects are up and running, will be met by the Department for Education and Employment through the normal funding arrangements.

Given that sports facilities in schools are increasingly coming under pressure, and that the time for sport in the school curriculums is already under pressure, will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that it is very important for local sporting clubs to augment the sporting facilities that are available to schoolchildren? In that context, will he consider visiting the Bowdon hockey, cricket and squash club in my constituency? By working closely with local schools, it allows schoolchildren to benefit from professional coaching and to take advantage of other opportunities that they should have but which will be affected by the proposal of the Labour-controlled local authority of Trafford to allow house building on one of its most heavily used playing fields. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could take the opportunity of a visit to say whether he shares my view, which I hope he does, that that would be an act of vandalism which should be stopped by the Government.

The activities of individual sports clubs are a matter primarily for the clubs themselves and for sports governing bodies. We will shortly announce additional funding for the national governing bodies for sport to assist them with their work. However, in relation to school sport, we have taken measures drastically to reduce the number of school playing fields that are being sold off. We have also taken measures through the new opportunities fund, and through the green spaces initiative, to create playing fields and recreation space. There is also a proposal to spend £750 million on school sports facilities—also through the new opportunities fund. That combination of measures will help to put right the damage done by the Tories when they were in government. Once again, we have not had a clear answer from the Tories. Will they cut the new opportunities fund projects or not? Those are the projects that will put sports facilities back into schools, to the benefit of our children.

How much (a) national lottery and (b) Treasury money has been spent on the millennium dome. [135346]

The New Millennium Experience Company has been awarded total grant of £628 million from the Millennium Commission for the millennium experience at Greenwich and its associated national programme of events and activities. No Exchequer funds have been spent on the dome.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed that so much public sector money has been used to shore up that project? Is that not in stark contrast to private sector projects such as Alton Towers, Flamingo Land and CenterParcs, which have managed to make a profit and entertain people for far less money? Is it not astonishing that, after all this time, there is still no proper funfair at the dome to entertain children? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if the dome is knocked down at the end of the year, the ball and chain will be on the front page of the next Labour party general election manifesto?

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that so far 5.2 million people have visited the Dome, of whom 4.15 million have been revenue-paying visitors. In the whole of last year 2.65 million people visited Alton Towers, the other most-visited "paying" attraction. The dome has already had nearly twice as many visitors as Alton Towers. Moreover, the latest surveys show that satisfaction rates among visitors to the dome are rising: enjoyment and satisfaction levels are now at 88 per cent.

As my right hon. Friend knows, attractions in other parts of the country are also funded by the Millennium Commission, and have proved extremely successful. The national botanic garden of Wales, for instance, has exceeded all expectations by attracting as many visitors in its first six months as it expected to attract in the first year. Will my right hon. Friend kindly offer his congratulations?

I am happy to congratulate all those involved with the national botanic garden of Wales, which, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I visited shortly before it opened. It is a splendid building—a very fine dome, created by Lord Foster—and it has indeed attracted far more visitors than the number originally envisaged in the business plan. The same applies to a number of other projects funded by the Millennium Commission, from the Eden project in Cornwall to Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh. Those projects are proving remarkably successful and, indeed, profitable for the organisations concerned.

Can the Secretary of State confirm what was said earlier by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting—that he has not been told by David James, chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company, that if the dome were demolished, the Government would receive an extra £300 million? If he can give such confirmation, will he take urgent advice, and if he finds that that is true, will he consider allowing the dome to be demolished—or must it remain as a testament to new Labour's failure?

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have received no such advice.

If he will make a statement on recent trends in the tourism figures for Great Britain. [135347]

The numbers of North American and other long-haul visitors to the United Kingdom have increased by 1 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively in the first eight months of this year compared to the corresponding period of 1999, although visits from Europe are—rather disappointingly—down by 5 per cent., and overall visits by 3 per cent.

Will the Minister confirm that last year the number of foreign visitors fell for the first time for nine years? Is she aware that the British Tourist Authority predicts a further decline this year? Does she agree that the British tourist industry needs all the help it can get, in the light of ever-increasing global competition? If so, what representations has she made to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the fact that the cost of petrol at the pumps in Britain is now the highest in the European Union, whereas three and a half years ago, under the last Conservative Government, it was the lowest?

That, dare I say it, is a bit rich, coming from a member of the party that cut funding for the English tourist board from about £25 million to under £10 million—its level when we came to office.

Is the Minister not being a little complacent in failing to recognise that in the last complete year there was a deficit in tourism of £8.3 billion and that the number of British visitors who went abroad was substantially higher than the number of foreign visitors coming to this country? Is it not time that the Minister recognised that among the factors contributing to that, apart from the high level of the pound, is the extremely high level of road fuel costs compared with that in other countries? Will the Minister draw to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anecdotal evidence, which is supported by statistical evidence, that prices at the pumps of over 90p per litre, which are common in the highlands of Scotland, are deterring visitors, whose number has been cut by at least a third this year?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. His point about Scotland does not fall within my remit, but he may like to refer to the figures that were published some months ago, when people in Scotland expressed concern. One of the reasons identified for that was the failure of the industry in Scotland to get to grips with the opportunities presented by information technology. I hope that it will now do that.

If the Commissioners will make recommendations to parochial church councils regarding the financing of mobile phone masts on Church property. [135365]

Welcome to your first Church Commissioners' Question Time, Mr. Speaker. It is a non-partisan Question Time, we are protected from on high, and you will enjoy it as much as we do.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sight of mobile phone masts in rural areas, let alone in towns, is pretty abhorrent to most people? Is he also aware that a mobile phone antenna can be inserted into the top of a steeple internally so that it is not seen from the outside and can generate over £5,000 for the church concerned? When will the hon. Gentleman make recommendations to churches that their steeples be used for mobile phone masts, to hide them from the general public and generate money for the Church, thus scoring a double whammy?

The Church will be grateful for that double whammy, which will allow it to render a public service to mobile phone operators, which need to cover 80 per cent. of the country, and perhaps also to gain revenue from that. The hon. Gentleman made the point even better than I can. The Church has taken a lead on the matter through the Archbishops Council and we are hopeful of positive results for parish churches throughout the land.

I call Dr. Tonge.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speaker!"] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I am always grateful to have questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions pushed on to me, and am happy to answer the hon. Lady. Eighty-seven per cent. of our country should be covered by mobile phone operators by October next year. The Church will play its part in assisting those schemes and I hope that it will do so in the interests of our people, our parishes and our churches.

What recent representations the commissioners have received on the reduction of VAT on church repairs. [135366]

The Church continues to make representations on that issue to the Government at the highest level. A survey will shortly be published giving up-to-date figures for the total VAT burden borne by the Church, particularly in relation to the on-going repair bills payable for the maintenance of churches

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figure that has been put on the cost is £40 million per annum, which is £40 million more than the churches receive in grants from the Government? Is he aware that, today, The Daily Telegraph gave what could be the contents of the Budget statement? Is there any truth in the story that churches will receive a reduced rate of VAT? Will the hon. Gentleman continue to support my campaign to have a lower VAT rate?

I had thought it was my campaign, but I am happy to have the hon. Lady as a joint campaigner on this issue. I have read today's newspapers and what might or might not be in the pre-Budget report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday. I will hold my breath on that—it is somewhat bated—as will the House. I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Lady and all right hon. and hon. Members who have supported the campaign over many years.

My hon. Friend is very persuasive and I am sure that he will have another go at the Chancellor, as we are getting to the point where small communities are expected to carry very large debts in relation to their churches. I hope that he will be able to get a response from the Government. They must be sympathetic, particularly to rural areas, which are faced with frightening debts.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. As I said, I have read the newspaper reports. The campaign has been a long one. The imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent. on church repairs absorbs a large amount of locally raised resources—and for no local benefit. A great injustice will be righted if the Chancellor makes the statement on Wednesday that we hope he will.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us have been campaigning for a reduction for nearly 30 years, and Minister after Minister has given us a dusty answer? Will he try to persuade the Chancellor that he would earn well-deserved brownie points if he made the announcement that has been forecast this morning? It is a monstrous scandal that churches are paying back in VAT more than they receive in grant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said.

The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on this issue since 1972. He and I have attended Ministers of the Crown as part of delegations. I am grateful for his support. I have said that Church Commissioners questions is a non-partisan occasion, I would add that, if the Chancellor listens to us, and I think he will, he will be the first Chancellor to have done so in 30 years.

Is it not important that the Treasury recognise that such a move would win widespread support; that churches throughout the country perform not only a religious role, but, increasingly, a community role; and that, in many parts of the country, they are an important part of the tourist industry? It is important that we get the concession—I hope, this week.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing support for the campaign. He makes several valid points. One is that the churches play an important role in communities in rural areas. Church repairs are to uphold and to maintain our traditions and heritage in local churches, which are a tourist attraction. I hope that those arguments alone will be sufficiently persuasive for the Chancellor on Wednesday.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of clergy pensions. [135367]

The formula for determining the full basic rate of clergy pension is two thirds of the previous year's national minimum stipend for incumbents. In addition, a lump sum of three times the pension is payable on retirement. As housing is provided while clergy are working, the formula recognises that clergy in retirement need to meet the cost of housing.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that considered reply. Given that since 1998 pensions on service have been funded by parishes themselves and that large numbers of parishes have been forced against their will to lose the services of sound and able-bodied clergymen for no other or better reason than that they have reached the age of 70, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would make financial sense and strike a blow against the evil of ageism if clergymen were able to continue beyond the age of 70—or, indeed, for as long as their parishioners wanted them?

I certainly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about ageism. All the points that the hon. Gentleman has made will be taken into account by the Archbishops Council—which has started a review of clergy stipends and is consulting widely within the Church as a part of that process. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are incorporated in that review.

In improving the clergy's conditions of service, will my hon. Friend consider allowing them to go to an industrial tribunal if they are unfairly dismissed?

Yes. For the past three years, since my hon. Friend was first elected to the House, that point has been raised on the Floor of the House, and many hon. Members have supported that position. The point is being taken into account by various bodies within the Church, and I am hopeful that, over a longer period, we shall have the result that my hon. Friend would like.