If he will make a statement on the contribution of Channel 4 to public service television. [153861]

Channel 4 provides distinctive and innovative programming, and both provides competition for and complements the other public service broadcasters. We will maintain its current status and ensure that it remains a key element of public service broadcasting in the multichannel future.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that last year alone, Channel 4 invested £30 million in British film and that that investment levered in an additional £73 million from overseas and other sources? How important is it to that level of investment in that important industry that Channel 4 remains a public service broadcaster? What would be the consequences if the ill-advised privatisation policy espoused by the Opposition became Government policy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Privatisation would damage the British film industry, for which Channel 4 has been a front-line source of finance for two decades. It would jeopardise the channel's remit to serve minority interests and it would lose its creative edge. Dividends to shareholders would take money directly out of programme budgets. We made it clear in the White Paper that

"We will also maintain Channel 4 as a public service broadcaster … we entirely reject proposals to privatise Channel 4 and will maintain Channel 4's present structure of a non-profit making statutory corporation".

Does the hon. Lady realise that Carlton UK Television and Sky television might be upset by that response, given that they are private organisations and also fund the film industry? Does she not realise that it is possible for Channel 4— which is, after all, funded by advertising—to be privatised provided that there are safeguards to ensure continued investment in the film industry and public service broadcasting? Indeed, Carlton, Granada Television and other private media organisations can rightly be proud of their public service broadcasting.

The hon. Gentleman seems to argue for more regulation, which I thought that the Conservatives were against. Do they not recognise that public service broadcasting will be more important than ever in the digital age as a benchmark of quality and diversity? I remind him that a Conservative Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, set up Channel 4 and a Conservative Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey(Mrs. Bottomley), rejected a proposal to privatise it. The latest Opposition policy is a significant U-turn which would do nothing to preserve the quality of public service broadcasting.

The Minister should be more cautious. She knows that we propose to privatise Channel 4 and reinvest the proceeds in the cultural sector. She should also know that our proposals have been well received. No one doubts that Channel 4 at its best makes a significant contribution to public service broadcasting, but can she provide a shred of evidence from outside Channel 4 that the introduction of shareholders would automatically cause it to commit commercial suicide by abandoning its audiences and deserting such a successful formula, which raised £650 million last year? Before she treats the House to another dewy-eyed lecture about the purity of Channel 4 and dumbing down, can she explain the public service contribution of "Ibiza Uncovered", "Get Your Kit Off" and "Eurotrash"?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that dividends to shareholders would take precedence and take money directly out of programme budgets, after all that is not rocket science, but common sense. I remind him that in 1999, Channel 4 broadcast the work of more than 400 independent production companies, at least eight times as much as any other broadcaster. What opportunities would those producers have under the Conservatives policies? What is more, the hon. Gentleman's figures do not add up. If the Conservatives ever got a chance to implement their policies, they would need a fund of £9.2 billion to generate the £275 million Treasury grant for arts bodies that we have announced. I suggest that he goes back to the drawing board.

This talk about public ownership just before a general election is wonderful news. Keep taking the tablets.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I thank him very much for his visit to my constituency on Saturday night, when he reminded people of what the Government have done since their election—in stark contrast to what that lot on the Opposition Benches did in 18 years.

What estimate he has made of the impact on attendance of the lifting of museum charges on attendance at national museums and galleries. [153862]

Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. Two years ago, we introduced free admission to national museums and galleries for all children. In the first year, attendances rose by 20 per cent. Last year, we introduced free admission for all those over 60, and those attendances have since risen by over 40 per cent. As a result of the VAT change announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget we will be able to provide free admission for everyone to all the national museums and galleries from 1 December.

May I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will celebrate that news. More than 436,000 people visited the Bristol city museum and art gallery last year, which was a 50 per cent. increase since charges were lifted. Will my right hon. Friend also celebrate with me the fact that Bristol City council scrapped admission charges in 1998? Will he also endorse the city museum's good practice of having fun days for children and staging family events alongside major exhibitions?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Bristol City council on its progress. I understand that there has been an increase in attendances of about 50 per cent. at the Bristol city museum and art gallery since charges were lifted. Of course, Bristol City council was two years ahead of the national museums and galleries because local authorities have always been able to reclaim their VAT. Bristol city museum and art gallery is a designated museum of national importance and it is wonderful that so many more people can now enjoy it.

Before congratulating himself in such sickly fashion, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what assessment he has made of the impact of the current inability of free museums to reclaim VAT on the provision of services?

That point was central to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. As a result of the decision on VAT that we have now announced, free national museums will be able to reclaim VAT, with substantial benefit for their budgets.

What assessment he has made of the effect on the tourist industry of the foot and mouth outbreak. [153863]

The loss of tourism business in England is in the order of £100 million a week and could reach £250 million a week if the consequential implications of the foot and mouth outbreak continue well into the main summer season.

Farmers apart, what is being done to help the total rural economic community? Many small hotel keepers are simply reeling.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the severe impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on the entire rural economy. Tourism has been particularly badly affected, but many other rural businesses have been affected too. When I visited Cumbria last weekend to see for myself the impact on local tourism and businesses, I was told a grim story. Hoteliers, guest house keepers and people dependent on the tourism industry were extremely anxious that two things should happen.

Does the Secretary of State endorse the British Tourist Authority's recovery programme for tourism, and are the Government prepared to make money available now to enable the BTA to combat the sharp decline in visitor numbers and inquiries, not just to the areas most severely affected by the disease, but even to our resorts around the coasts? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the increased money made available for our tourist operations abroad will not rule out money being made available to tourist boards in the affected areas such as Cumbria and Devon, where work is needed now ?

There are two crucial tasks. The first is to ensure that overseas visitors do not get an erroneous message about Britain being closed for tourism business. Over the past few weeks the British Tourist Authority has been working actively to combat that impression. We strongly support those efforts and we are in discussion with the BTA about a package of proposals, with new resources, to provide the right sort of information and advertising abroad.

Although I know that my right hon. Friend recognises that in Cumbria the tourism industry contributes almost £1 billion per annum to the county's economy, does he recognise that in the remoter parts of west and south Cumbria, and particularly in my constituency, Copeland, the tourism industry is made up of very many small businesses, which depend overwhelmingly on walkers and climbers for their income? Given that the necessary restrictions are being extended, regrettably and sadly, into my constituency because of an outbreak there, may I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government to look closely at how those very small businesses in the remote valleys and dales can be sustained for the future? They are the most vulnerable of all, because they are such tiny businesses. In particular, will my right hon. Friend consider how the Government might offer some direct assistance to those people? I applaud what is being done through the tourist authorities and the Cumbria tourist board, but those businesses will not survive unless they get direct assistance in this dire emergency.

I understand the issue that my right hon. Friend raises. For small businesses that are heavily dependent on walkers and climbers for their income, the position is nowhere near as revocable as it is for more broadly based businesses that can attract car-borne visitors. Those small businesses will immediately qualify for the package of measures announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and we will consider further what more might be done to assist them.

I endorse entirely the remarks of the right hon. Member for Copeland(Dr. Cunningham). The House will be dismayed at the news that an outbreak has been discovered in the heart of the Lake district. The impact on farming communities and on tourism is becoming catastrophic. Although the effect is more acute in rural areas, there is clear evidence that towns and cities across the United Kingdom are suffering from cancelled bookings, and the cost is running into billions of pounds.

Coming from the party which, when in office, cut the old English tourist board by 70 per cent., the hon. Gentleman's last remark is perhaps a bit unwise. We must obviously try to approach this issue in as bipartisan a manner as possible, because there is a real and serious difficulty facing the tourism industry across the country, including the cities, owing to the fall in overseas visitor bookings. It is particularly acute in the countryside and especially in Cumbria, Devon and mid-Wales, which have been especially affected by the foot and mouth outbreak.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in appealing to members of the national media, particularly the broadcast media, to stop the practice of frightening tourists away from the Lake district by what they say? If they carry on, they will create hundreds of bankruptcies in west Cumbria and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and in mine. We cannot go on like this. They are making things worse. Furthermore, they are exaggerating the impact on the Lake district, in which until last weekend there were almost no cases of foot and mouth.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the impact of some of those impressions on tourism and holiday making, particularly in the Lake district. It is of course very sad news that one new case was identified yesterday in the Duddon valley on the edge of the Lake district national park. We must hope sincerely that the outbreak will not spread further into the park, which is still very much open for business. There are 100 visitor attractions in the Lake district that people can go to see. I very much hope that they will still want to do so.

What his estimate is of the final sum raised by the sale of the contents of the Millennium Dome. [153864]

On 3 March, the New Millennium Experience Company announced that the total value of the hammer price for items auctioned was approximately £3.5 million. That figure is subject to final reconciliation after completion of payments and collection of items by the purchasers.

Why was the second lot of items withdrawn from the sale? Were they of such intrinsically wonderful value, were they of such cultural interest, or

"the first paragraph of this manifesto for re-election"?

Those assets identified by Legacy plc as essential to its bid—along with other assets of potentially significant value to a future leisure attraction—were held back from the auction and remain in the ownership of the New Millennium Experience Company. A decision on how the value of those items will be realised will be taken in conjunction with any decision on the dome's future use.

The Government seem to think that if they say nothing about the dome, the problem will go away and people will forget about it. However, people will not forget. They will not forget the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds of lottery money; the refusal of Lord Falconer, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, to resign; or the role played by the Secretary of State—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. I cannot hear one at present.

I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker.

May I just remind the hon. Gentleman of one or two things? The decision to build the dome was taken under the previous Government, as was the decision to build it at Greenwich. They also appointed the original chairman and chief executive of the dome company, determined the corporate structure, decided on the use of lottery money to support the project and created the role of the shareholder. I rest my case.

What representations he has received regarding the cancellation of sporting fixtures to take account of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153865]

I have received representations from the British Equestrian Federation, and there have been a small number of inquiries from individuals regarding ice hockey, water sports and netball.

There has been great debate in the press about whether sporting events should be cancelled. It has also been suggested that Buckingham palace has become involved, although that is mere speculation. Does the Minister agree, in the light of her background, that the overriding priority in this terrible crisis must be eradication of the disease, and that caution should therefore be applied when any danger is associated with a sporting event? Will the Government produce guidelines to assist the organisers of sporting events, whatever form they take, to ensure that they do not threaten to spread the disease?

I agree that the first priority must be to eradicate the disease but I think that it is important to get the balance right on sporting fixtures. Guidelines are widely available. The governing bodies of sport are ultimately responsible for their own sport, and have dealt responsibly with the outbreak and taken their own decisions. The British Equestrian Federation, which deals with a range of horse sports—its responsibilities include pony trekking and other aspects of equestrian sport—has been especially affected by the outbreak and has taken very responsible decisions. We must leave those involved to make the best judgments for themselves. I do not believe that any event that has so far gone ahead should have been cancelled

Although some Labour Members—especially me—might wish that the recent game between England and Scotland at Twickenham had been cancelled, the fact is that the cancellation of major rugby internationals is a damaging blow not only to the sporting industry, but to the tourism industry, as such events are major money-spinners. Will my hon. Friend have urgent talks with the various rugby unions to ensure that the games now proceed as planned?

As my hon. Friend knows, only games involving the Irish team have been postponed and new dates have been suggested for them. The England-Scotland game took place as it would usually have done. It was a good result and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was present to see England win. I commiserate with my hon. Friend on that result, but I believe that all governing bodies are dealing with the problem in a very responsible manner.

If the countryside is open for business as the Secretary of State insists, why were the Badmington horse trials cancelled, why is the Windsor horse show about to he cancelled, and why was the countryside march, which the Minister supports, cancelled?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman well knows that the organisers believed that it was appropriate to cancel those events. That does not mean that events cannot take place in other parts of the countryside, where there are no cases of foot and mouth and which are far from infected areas. We must strike a balance. Does the hon. Gentleman want the Government to cancel all sporting events? That is clearly nonsense, and he knows it.

What assessment he has made of the effect on prospects for amateur sports clubs of the Chancellor's Budget. [153867]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on reform of tax on non-profit sports clubs. [153871]

In the course of this year and last year, I have held several meetings with ministerial colleagues and representatives across the sports sector to discuss the taxation burden on community amateur sports clubs. The announcement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget of plans to consult on a new tax relief for those clubs will be of great benefit to them.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency where there are many community sports clubs. My constituency is a disadvantaged area, and my hon. Friend's reply is therefore especially important.

My hon. Friend is right that the many small community amateur clubs, which are the bedrock of sport, will benefit from the tax exemption. It will give them a great morale boost. They should be treated in the same way as small community amateur dramatic societies. I hope that the discussions will lead to the small community sports clubs receiving the same treatment for rate relief as amateur arts clubs.

There are 110,000 amateur sports clubs, which have more than 5 million members, who will greatly welcome the Minister's words. However, as the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) said, consultation on mandatory rate relief has already been announced, yet we have not moved further. Does the Minister agree that we do not need more Green Papers, White Papers, consultation exercises, taskforces or focus groups, but some action to support our small amateur sports clubs and the many volunteers throughout the country who help to make them work? Will she impress on her colleagues the urgency of supporting those clubs?

The hon. Gentleman should have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester(Mr. Russell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on sport, because we are considering an all-party effort and one throughout sport, to gain the recognition that I described. I do not want more Green Papers and consultation, but the definition of a small community amateur sports club must be clarified specifically if the necessary provisions are to be included in the pre-Budget report in October. We do not want professional clubs, which earn huge amounts of money, to benefit. The provision is for the small club; that is why it is important to get it right. We have waited a long time for it.

I welcome my hon. Friend's words. Some clubs are considering development plans at the moment, so will she consider publishing advice and guidance for clubs on the tactics and the strategy that they should now adopt for those plans, which they will later present and for which they will want to raise money?

As I said earlier, the Central Council of Physical Recreation has led a terrific campaign for many years. It has clear guidelines, and it will be willing to give advice to any individual club. However, that advice will not apply to professional clubs and relief will be limited to clubs that have truly open membership, not those where access is restricted to a small section of the community. We want to open up our clubs and support the voluntary effort at grass roots. We will also adopt guidelines, and any club is welcome to get in touch with us.

I am sure that the Minister intended to reassure voluntary sports clubs, and I agree with her sentiment that everyone has considered this matter. Is it not the case, however, that nothing has been decided, and that there is nothing new in what the Chancellor said? He only agreed to consider how to give help to sports clubs.

The hon. Gentleman and his party had 18 years in which to do that and they never got very far, despite having a Prime Minister who was committed to the idea at one stage. The Chancellor has now committed the Government to seeing this provision as a necessary one. We are looking at the details and their implications. If we were to go down the charitable status route, which is not a route that sport itself wants, we should still be discussing this issue in another 20 years' time.

How the space for sports and the arts programme will benefit schools in the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency. [153868]

Under the space for sport and the arts programme, Tower Hamlets local education authority has been allocated £1.25 million, which will fund four projects enabling seven primary schools to benefit, including six in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely welcome reply. In 1997, not only was there no level playing field in British children's access to sports provision, but in my constituency, there was not a single playing field. I therefore found the outburst by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) quite strange.

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. This money will make a great difference to many primary schools across the country, and Members of Parliament in whose constituencies the primary schools will be affected will receive a letter later today. I assure my hon. Friend that, in relation to the new opportunities fund money for school sports, all local education authorities will have something. Clearly, areas such as hers, with its great deprivation, will be looked at again, and I hope that she will equally pleased by the next announcement.

Should there not be more space for sports and the arts inside the national curriculum?

Of course, there is space for sport and the arts within the national curriculum. There is now an entitlement for every young person at school to have two hours of good quality physical education in school sport, either within or outside the curriculum.

What plans he has to bring forward amendments to the Culture and Recreation Bill on the recording of archaeological sites and historic monuments by local authorities. [153870]

Amendments on that matter have already been tabled. The Government have no present intention of tabling others.

The Minister will be aware that many local authorities already keep records of archaeological monuments and historical sites, but there is great disparity between the detail and the extent of those records, which causes problems for researchers of archaeology and history and for those hoping to develop brownfield and greenfield sites. Will he give me an undertaking that he will support the amendment long since tabled by my noble Friend Lord Renfrew, which would deal with the matter and which has enormous support among everybody involved and interested in archaeology and heritage? Will the Minister stop prevaricating and give that widely supported measure his backing in the Lords so that we can get on with it?

The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about sites and monuments records, but rather than legislate on such records, we are attracted to going further, along the lines proposed in the heritage review, to provide for more wide-ranging historical environment record centres. May I suggest that he ask his hon. Friends on the Front Bench why they have sought to block all progress on the Culture and Recreation Bill? He should ask them also to explain how the costs of additional archaeological recording would be met in view of their intention to cut £16 billion of public expenditure.

If he will make a statement on the future of Wembley stadium. [153872]

The Government fully support the efforts of Sir Rodney Walker and his team to develop a world-class stadium for football and rugby league. I understand that the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. are currently holding discussions with their financial advisers on the process of loan syndication. The timing of that is entirely a matter for the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd.

Will the Secretary of State admit that there seems to be a little bit of a difference between his policy and that of the Minister for Sport with regard to Wembley? Those of us in the outside world consider that things are slightly chaotic. Is it intended that Pickett's Lock stadium should have the capability to host football and the Olympics or will it be used only for athletics? How do the Government plan to fund it? Those are important matters, but there is a perception that two policies are emanating from the Government.

The hon. Gentleman's question seems rather confused to me. There is no difference of opinion or of fact whatever between me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. The issue is perfectly clear: Wembley will be a stadium primarily for football and rugby league. It is a Football Association project and we wish it all the very best in putting the funding together.

Is it not time to admit that Wembley is a complete shambles? Is it not time we threw the existing committee out? It is the fault of those who are on the committee that we have ended up with this absolute disaster. Is it not time the Government got hold of the project themselves and ensured that we have an opening date for the people's stadium?

I have to say to my hon. Friend that this is not a Government project; it is a Football Association project and it is up to the FA to take it forward. I was very pleased last December when the FA decided to take much closer control over the project and to put Sir Rodney Walker in as chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. I have confidence that Sir Rodney and his team will deliver the goods.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that the chairman of Sport England, Trevor Brooking, has had to write to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, to make it clear that the Secretary of State's evidence, given only a week or so ago, was inaccurate? He told the Select Committee that £60 million had been pledged—when it cannot have been, as Mr. Brooking has made clear, because no application has yet been made. Is not that yet another example of our being unable to believe the Secretary of State on any issue whatever?

No. The evidence that I gave the Select Committee was crystal clear: it was that £60 million has been earmarked in Sport England's budget. That decision was taken by the Sport England lottery panel, and was confirmed in the minutes of the organisation's council meeting. That is what I told the Select Committee, and it remains the case.

If he will make a statement on his Department's support for sport in schools. [1153873]

My Department is working closely with the Department for Education and Employment on school sport initiatives, which will improve the quality of physical education and school sport. For example, £581 million of new opportunities fund money will be put into school sports facilities with an element of community use, and by 2004 we will invest £120 million in a network of 1,000 school sports co-ordinators.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the funding from the Government and the national lottery for the sports co-ordinator programme, which is useful in linking local schools and sports clubs. Other associations are also helping to fund the programme. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the programme will be extended as quickly as possible to benefit local areas such as Havering? I am sure that the scheme will prove popular.

We want to roll out this programme as quickly as possible. We want to get it right and working properly. The first 140 co-ordinators were appointed last September, and the second round was announced in February. Furthermore, £3.9 million has been allocated for 55 co-ordinators, 12 partnership managers and 249 primary link teachers. By 2004, 250 partnerships will be established with 1,000 secondary schools and up to 6,000 primary schools. The initiative will not involve just one sports co-ordinator for one school, but will establish partnerships, especially with sports clubs in the area, with local authority sports development officers and with the governing bodies of sport.

The Minister may remember that a few months ago I handed a petition to the Secretary of State on behalf of Fakenham high school and the community of Fakenham in support of a new sports complex. Will she give that project her full support?

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give my full support now, as I do not have the details to hand. I promise him that I shall look into the matter and write to him about that project.

When he expects the planned creative partnerships to commence. [153874]

Last month, we were delighted to announce the 16 areas in which we hope creative partnerships pilots will be developed. The Arts Council of England, which is delivering the initiative, will be consulting schools and creative organisations in each location over the next few months to establish which bodies will be involved. Details on how schools and cultural organisations can take part in creative partnerships will be available from the Arts Council from early May. Funding for the initiative will come on stream in April 2002.

I am delighted that one of those partnerships will be in the Wirral. Does the Minister agree with me that creative partnerships have a role in trying to restore instrumental music teaching in our schools, which was pretty well decimated when the Conservative party was in power?

My hon. Friend is right. Instrumental music teaching was rapidly disappearing, as local education authorities found it more and more difficult to support peripatetic music services. School budgets also came under increasing pressure. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Culture, Media and Sport mounted an emergency rescue operation. They introduced the music standards fund, which is worth £180 million, and the National Foundation for Youth Music, worth £30 million; and now, with creative partnerships and a budget of £40 million —which will be available to support instrumental music teaching if that is what creative partnerships want —the prospects are transformed.

Does the Minister accept that if the creative arts are to be encouraged, it is essential that they be encouraged in schools, which his partnership initiative will do? That brings to mind —as did an earlier question relating to sports —the role of the arts in the national curriculum. Many people feel that, because the curriculum is so rigorous, the arts are not being given the prominence that they deserve: they tend to be excluded. Will the Minister look into the matter carefully, along with the schools themselves?

I agree. Over the years, the curriculum and teaching methods may not have given enough emphasis to encouraging children's imaginative and creative abilities. Notwithstanding the proper emphasis that my right hon. Friends have insisted should be placed on the teaching of numeracy and literacy, it is important for those additional elements of a balanced curriculum to be introduced.

What estimate he has made of the annual savings to the Church of England of a reduction of VAT on repairs to churches to 5 per cent. [153853]

It is too early to give precise figures for the Church of England's savings on VAT which will arise following the significant announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement earlier this month.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of a written answer in which the Paymaster General said:

"the VAT paid by all churches, including listed churches, for repairs and maintenance is £38 million per year." —[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 706W.]

I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question, as he is well informed on these matters. He surely noted that, in his Budget statement, the Chancellor indicated that a grant amounting to the equivalent of a reduction from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. would be provided. That would cover all repairs for listed churches from 1 April this year. We therefore need not wait for the European Commission: from 1 April this year, the VAT will effectively be reduced from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. As for the Commission, we will continue to work towards achieving what the hon. Gentleman desires.

When my hon. Friend proffers the estimate for which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has asked, will he also tell us how much 18 years of Conservative government cost the churches, when the Conservatives could have enacted a policy about which they have been bleating for the past four years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that VAT was doubled in 1979 to 7.5 per cent., which imposed an onerous burden on the churches. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only Chancellor in 20 years who, as well as taking steps to reduce VAT on church repairs, has introduced a grant scheme, which will operate from 1 April.

What advice is given by the commissioners regarding the administrative work for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. [153854]

The Church Commissioners finance the working costs of both archbishops, including staff and office requirements, as they do for other bishops. They aim to provide resources in a consistent and cost-effective way, and will offer advice as needed.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both archbishops are currently sinking under a weight of administrative work? Does he agree with many people in the Church of England who are calling for the establishment of a third archbishopric? Does he not agree that, if that were to be established, the obvious place for a third archbishop would be in the diocese that is one of the oldest in the country and which has the precedent of a third archbishop—there was an archbishop of Lichfield in 787? Lichfield is also midway between Canterbury and York. Will he use all his tremendous talents and efforts to press for a third archbishop: an archbishop of Lichfield?

The hon. Gentleman's eloquence is well known to the House. He is also, as Napoleon once said, a lucky man. Generals should be lucky and he is lucky—he won his seat at the last election with a majority of 230. With such good fortune and such eloquence, I am sure that Lord Hurd, who is conducting a review of the see of Canterbury, will listen carefully to what he says and take his remarks fully into account.

If he will make a statement on the purposes for which Church land can be used. [153855]

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, in relation to Church land use, I would like to make a short statement on the foot and mouth crisis.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose answer was characteristically informative and prudent.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We hope that foot and mouth disease and the crisis will be over as soon as possible. That will liberate all Church land. When that happy day comes, I am sure that the Church will wish to take into account his helpful suggestion.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. I wonder whether he could go back to the Church Commissioners to ensure that farms that may not be directly affected through infection but which are in the 3 or 16 km exclusion areas will also get a rent-free period to help them through their current strife.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Church Commissioners have had a longstanding policy of assisting farms in difficulty, wherever they happen to be—that predates the present crisis. We treat all cases sympathetically, whether farms are afflicted with foot and mouth, or are in the exclusion zones, or are simply nearby.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I urge upon him the notion that the Church Commissioners should adopt the most generous possible attitude to farmers who work the estates in their ownership. As the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) has said, they should take that attitude not just to those in directly affected areas. There is a possibility of conducting a full-scale review of agricultural rents throughout the country and making it retrospective to Lady day. Will he please consider that?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Church Commissioners are the largest landowners in the United Kingdom and have about 300 tenants. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked that the commissioners look sympathetically at farmers facing problems. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made will be taken fully into account.

If he will make a statement on the use of redundant churches. [153856]

The procedure for settling the future of redundant Church of England churches gives priority to any diocese seeking and achieving suitable alternative uses. Use by another Christian body or for wider community purposes is generally regarded as the most suitable use for former churches.

What powers does a bishop have to overrule a parochial church council that has closed a church and done nothing with it even though the congregation wants to reopen it?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the relationship between a parish council and a bishop as regards church closures. If he has a particular church in mind and will write to me, I will be very glad to answer his questions.