What recent meetings she has had with English Heritage about giving children free access to its sites. [26164]

The Government's statement on the historic environment, "A Force for Our Future", which I launched on 13 December last year, made clear our wish to encourage the widest possible access to the country's heritage. We proposed in the statement to consider at the earliest opportunity—and in consultation with the relevant key organisations, which include English Heritage—how the principle of free access for children, which has been such an enormous success in our national museums and galleries, might be extended to the historic environment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. After the enormous success of free access to museums, does she agree that completely free admission for children to sites such as Stonehenge will not only have a similar effect on numbers, but, most importantly, encourage more visits with the Family?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue links our twin objectives of opening access and promoting excellence. There are Families throughout the country who have seen for the first time the treasures that we share as a nation, and it is our aim to extend that opportunity to our historic environment.

What steps the Government are taking to support regional theatre in Leicester. [26165]

This is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. The Arts Council last year announced an additional £25 million funding for theatre by 2003–04—an increase of 56 per cent. on current levels, taking the total budget for theatre to £70 million. Over the next two financial years, funding for the Haymarket theatre in Leicester will increase from £992,000 today to £1.36 million in 2003–04—an increase of 37 per cent.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will realise that, with the events that have unfolded in Leicester in the past days, there are other questions that I should like to address to the Government, but I do not think that he is the relevant Minister to answer them. I thank him for his reply, but is he aware that the replacement theatre for the Haymarket, which is due to be built in the St. George's area of the city over the next five years, is to be the centrepiece of a cultural centre in Leicester? Will he give an indication as to the Arts Council's contribution towards the cost of that new theatre? Will he give an undertaking to impress upon the Arts Council the need to ensure funding beyond 2005, so that the cultural centre can be fully developed? Is he also aware of the county council's decision to reduce its annual grant to the theatre by £100,000 per annum—

Order. That question is Far too long.

I do not know what the Arts Council's projected contribution to the new theatre is likely to be, but I shall impress on it the many points that my hon. Friend made.

Will the Minister bear in mind that Leicester is not the only place in Leicestershire that has a theatre? The Concordia theatre in Hinckley has been hugely successful, and is supported by private subscriptions. Will he look Favourably on its applications and have a word with the funding organisations? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has had to call in or write to all the distribution agencies because they have Failed to distribute billions of pounds of lottery money? He should deal with that urgently because we believe that we are losing out in the midlands.

I congratulate the theatre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on surviving and flourishing through private subscription, of which I am in Favour because it is an important way to fund the arts. I hope that the theatre continues to flourish. However, I am reliably informed that the premise of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not true. There has been no crisis meeting, but we need to monitor matters closely.

While we are plugging our theatres, will the Minister acknowledge the valuable work of Loughborough town hall in promoting the excellent pantomime that I saw only a few weeks ago? People in Loughborough travel to the Haymarket in Leicester; there is a pantomime there at the moment. Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who was unfortunately unable to finish his question, that Leicestershire county council should also make a contribution to theatres in the county? Will he join me in condemning it for cutting £100,000 of funding for the future?

It is important that the sort of gesture that the Government have made in providing £25 million of investment is echoed throughout the country. Investment in theatre must be good for many reasons. It not only continues one of the great creative traditions of this country but deals with many issues in troubled environments. Theatre does that in a way that nothing else can. We should support it at all levels.

Is not theatre in Leicester exactly the sort of good cause that should receive help from lottery funds? Will the Minister confirm that £3.5 billion of lottery funds is designed for good causes but not yet spent? Will he confirm that the figure is increasing by £30 million every week and that it exceeds the total of the Department's spending for the next three years? When will the Secretary of State sack some of those responsible for that bureaucratic bungling?

I do not believe that bureaucratic bungling has occurred. Any unspent money is an effect of the success of the lottery and the hugely imaginative way in which the money has been distributed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will succeed where others have perhaps not succeeded so well in ensuring that the money is spent and that the underspend is halved by this time next year.

If she will make a statement on the assistance the Government are giving to the preparations for Manchester's hosting of the Commonwealth games. [26166]

The Government announced on 2 July 2001 £30 million in support for the games, in addition to the £10.5 million they had already given towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies. Together with Sport England and Manchester city council's funding, that has removed the obstacles to Manchester's delivering a successful games. The strategy is now paying dividends. Planning and preparations are proceeding apace and a real and growing appetite for the games is developing across the country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he agrees that the success of the games is vital not only to Manchester but to the north-west region. Will he take steps to ensure that the whole region benefits from the presence of the Commonwealth games by encouraging people who come to Manchester to visit other parts of the north-west? What support will he give the tourism board and local authorities to publicise the attractions of the north-west and draw them to the attention of those visiting the Commonwealth games?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A marketing group has already been set up and consists of the major agencies in the north-west—the development agency, the North-West tourist board and the games committee. I am sure that it will examine the issues that my hon. Friend raised. The Queen's jubilee baton relay will pass through Warrington and the whole north-west as it goes round the country. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall refer to the group that has been established to consider such issues.

I hope that private investors will invest in the Commonwealth games; they did when Manchester last bid for the games. However, why should I be encouraged by the examples of the dome, Wembley or Picketts Lock? Why should I believe that the Government would make less of a foul-up of the Commonwealth games than of those three projects?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the number of sponsors who are backing the Commonwealth games. If he speaks to some of them, he will find enthusiasm and confidence that the games will be successful and credible, and the biggest multi-sporting event this year.

There is a growing sense of enthusiasm for the games in Manchester, illustrated by the Fact that 10,000 people have now offered their services as volunteers to help to look after the athletes and make sure that the games run smoothly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in July and August in Manchester, we shall have not only a sparkling international event, but one that is rooted in the pride of local people?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The figure that he has just given to the House illustrates that the quality and the quantity of volunteers are there now. Even the British media are now getting behind the Commonwealth games; the latest reports have been very encouraging. The only thing that we have to do now is to get the official Opposition on the side of the games, and we shall have a full house. [Interruption.] I meant the whole of the official Opposition. Their Front-Bench Members are already behind the games, but some of their hon. Friends on the Back Benches have not been as supportive as they ought to be. I am sure that we shall see them all wearing the badge at the next question time, so that we can show our support for the Commonwealth games in Manchester, which will be a great success.

The Minister will be aware that, as well as the proposed bid for the Commonwealth games, Scotland is considering bidding for the European championships in 2008. If that bid goes ahead, will his Department support it? What assistance, if any, has he offered in relation to it so Far?

The UK Sports Council is discussing that issue. Like all such issues, it will come to the sports cabinet, where all the devolved Administrations and UK Sport get together. The next meeting is in four or five weeks' time.

If he will make a statement on Government support for athletics in the United Kingdom. [26168]

UK Athletics is working with Sport England, UK Sport and my Department to create a development plan for the sport, to ensure that resources are provided to get more people involved, to improve the identification and development of talented athletes and to provide better support for our top performers.

What is the Minister's estimate of the forgone economic benefits of the cancelled bid for the 2005 athletics championships? What was the cost of the Sheffield diversion, which the International Amateur Athletics Federation regarded as laughable?

If the hon. Member looks at the Carter report on Picketts Lock, and at the reports produced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, he will get a good estimate of the cost involved. If one takes into account the cost of the infrastructure and of the stadium, it was about £230 million. Even with that investment, we could not guarantee the type of Facilities that had been requested by the IAAF. It is unfortunate that the IAAF did not come and visit the Sheffield site which was offered instead. At the moment, UK Sport and Sport England are investing about £40 million there, as part of the English institute for sport, which will probably give athletics one of the best centres in Europe. Unfortunately, the IAAF turned down the proposal regarding the Sheffield site without even going to look at it.

While acknowledging the importance of putting money into grass-roots athletics, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important, in the long term, to think about having a venue in which to hold major international athletics events? Will he and the Secretary of State reconsider the option of having a multi-use stadium with retractable seating, along the lines of the Stade de France?

So Far as the national stadium is concerned, my hon. Friend will know that the Football Association is dealing with that matter, and will be reporting back to the Government and Sport England. In terms of having another national stadium for athletics, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for a performance and innovation unit report, which we believe will be started in the not-too-distant future, to look at the question of sports Facilities in the round. My hon. Friend knows that such projects are extremely expensive, and we ought to have all parties on board before we embark on any major venture, be it a national stadium, Picketts Lock, the Commonwealth games or anything else. That is the right way forward, and I hope that, when the PIU report comes out, it will be debated here and that we shall find a saner way of moving forward on these major investments.

When Picketts Lock was cancelled, the Secretary of State said that she would want the money not being spent on it to be diverted to grass-roots athletics. What help can be given to that vital body of volunteers who go to athletics matches around the country as marshals, stewards and judges, usually at their own expense, which runs to uniforms and even starting pistols? What influence can the Minister bring to bear on Sport England to divert some of that money to those vital volunteers?

We are discussing the legacy for athletics with UK Athletics and the hon. Gentleman is right: we hope that that plan will ensure that there is investment at the grass roots. Only yesterday, I had discussions with officials at the north of England Amateur Athletic Association indoor athletics. They are excited about the extra investment in athletics and no doubt they will discuss with UK Athletics a proper investment package that will benefit the grass roots and the officials to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as well as the elite athletes. There is a buzz in British athletics, because this Government are prepared to invest in the whole structure.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the new stadium at Manchester. Could there be a renegotiation so that it might be used for athletics?

Unfortunately, that could not be, as the agreement is between Manchester City football club and Manchester city council. If we could turn the clock back a number of years, we would probably approach those matters differently. That applies to all parties because mistakes have been made across the board, which is why the performance and innovation unit study is important. If we are to bid confidently for major international events, we must ensure that all parties are signed up before going ahead.

Will Ministers make clear to the new members whom they approve for appointment to the Wembley National Stadium board Sport England's recommendation that the revised Wembley plans are for a stadium capable of hosting athletics? Does he agree with that advice? Given the revelation that unspent lottery funds still exceed £3.5 billion and in the light of what he has said this afternoon, can he assure all our leading athletes of the continued funding of the world-class performance programme?

On the first point, we have no responsibility for the Wembley company. That is a matter for the Football Association, as has been made clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. We will not have blurring at the edges and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her statement that it is for the FA to decide who is put on the board. On the £3.4 billion of undistributed lottery funds, my right hon. Friend is meeting officials of all the major distributors and we intend to start bringing that down to a more manageable figure. Those moneys are held against commitments that have already been made. With the National Audit Office and the Treasury, we are trying to find a better solution and we hope that the money can be spent on the good causes, which is where it ought to be going.

What discussions she has had with the organisers of CowParade 2002. 26169]

My hon. Friend deserves a big pat on the back for asking that question. [Laughter.] I shall meet the organisers of CowParade at the earliest opportunity. CowParade will give artists of all ages and abilities the chance to submit designs for decorating life-sized fibreglass cows, the best of which, I am told, will be displayed around London streets.

As long as the Minister does not accuse me of cows for questions. He is aware that more than 800 artists have already submitted their designs for those full-sized fibreglass works of art, which will soon decorate the streets of London and Gravesend. Is he also aware that the project has won the enthusiastic support of the British Tourist Authority and organisations such as London Underground, the national gallery and Marks and Spencer and that they realise that similar events in Chicago and New York were a major boost to the tourism economy? is he further aware that, as the project could raise several hundred thousand pounds for the charity Childline, I shall continue to lobby for his support until the cows come home?

I welcome the good news that charities will benefit from this event. There is no question about that. I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's promise of lobbying until the cows come home. I assure him that I shall keep the matter udder review.

What plans the Government have to change the statutory framework for the BBC relating to the provision of digital services. [26170]

The provision of new BBC services is governed by the BBC charter and agreement. Any such services require the approval of the Secretary of State. That arrangement will continue under the proposed new regulatory regime, but the Secretary of State, in considering public service applications from the BBC, will seek formal advice on the market impact from the Office of Communications.

Given the potential impact of the BBC's new digital services on the rest of the broadcasting industry, would not it make more sense for approval for BBC applications to rest with Ofcom, as it is for others players in the industry? The Secretary of State will be aware that many commentators think that that would make more sense. Is she minded to introduce such a change when the main Bill is published?

No, I am not minded to introduce such a change when the main Bill is published. New BBC services are important in giving licence payers value for money, and they act as an incentive to drive the take-up of digital television. In making judgments about those new services, it is important to ensure that proposals are distinctive and do not gratuitously undermine the competition and the growth in the commercial market that we want.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that most people who get digital television receive it through a platform where they pay for other services. One of the strengths of the BBC's digital output is that it is free to view, and it is important that it remains so. Reception via satellite platforms or cable is good, but the main platform for people who want free-to-view digital television is the aerial, and reception via the aerial is still poor and the picture crackles quite a bit. What plans have the Government or the industry to ensure that when people want to access digital television, they do not have to sign up to a package and pay for a load of other channels, and that they can get the BBC free-to-view channels on their own?

The issues that my hon. Friend raises are taken very seriously by the industry, the Department and the broadcasters. It is important that the attractiveness of DTV is improved by securing greater consistency of signal and better quality of picture. As part of the digital action plan, which brings together the Government, broadcasters and the industry, we are testing the limit to which the signal can be increased to improve reception. My hon. Friend makes the important point that people will decide to switch to digital if they can improve their choice of viewing and if the picture quality and services that they can receive are improved. There is still a long way to go, but we have set out a clear framework of Government policy, in partnership with industry.

Has not the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) raised an important point of principle? The BBC is making a substantial investment in digital services—up to £84 million in the first year. That money comes from each and every licence payer in the country. Is it not incumbent on both the Government and the BBC to ensure that all licence payers—irrespective of where they live, and including those in rural areas—gain the benefit of the investment for which they are paying?

Yes, that is important. Government policy—I do not think there is any great controversy about this—is described as "platform-neutral", because we think that people should be able to choose the platforms from which they obtain their digital signals. The BBC's investment in new digital services is important in encouraging people to go digital, and giving them a reason to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning the importance of ensuring that digital services from the BBC, and from other broadcasters for that matter, are available to all; but how can we ensure in the regulation that free, open, non-discriminatory access to audiences is guaranteed for broadcasters? If that is not done, a powerful gateway will be created through which it will be difficult for broadcasters and audiences to make their way.

As I have said, it is important to promote take-up of digital services, and to maximise choice of free-to-air channels. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) could maintain his interest in the question that he asked.

Now that an affordable set-top box enabling analogue televisions to receive digital services should soon be available, will the Secretary of State stop dithering and announce that the switchover to digital will take place on a single date, 1 January 2006?

I welcomed the announcement at the end of last week of new technology that will deal with one of the obstacles to the switchover. We have made it absolutely clear, however, that the process needs to be possible in terms of technology, desirable in terms of programme choice, and what people actually want. So Far, one in three households has access to digital services. A job of persuasion and conversion must be done, but it is not something that Government can do; people must decide that they want this for their own and their Families' viewing entertainment. That is why our policy remains that, subject to three rather than five tests, the switchover should take place between 2006 and 2010. That is still our intention.

If she will make a statement on the recent work of the Independent Television Commission. [26171]

The Independent Television Commission, as an independent regulator, continues to fulfil its regulatory duties of licensing and monitoring commercial television services under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996.

Will the Minister join me in praising the ITC's work, and hoping that it will play an active role in the formation of Ofcom?

We have given every consideration to that. I have discussed the matter with the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. We should not tackle this matter piecemeal—it should be part of a properly structured communications Bill that we put before the House—but I understand what he is saying. The ITC does a very good job in all respects. Some special difficulties have hit the independent television companies, especially over the past 12 months. However, they made some very large profits in the 24 months or so that preceded that. They are pretty tough companies which have been in the business a long time and know that there are some downs as well as a lot of ups.

Why is it the policy of the Department so Far to insist that the ITV companies offer their programmes to the satellite sector, without insisting on a must-carry policy for the satellite sector, which clearly creates difficulties in bargaining power between the two sectors? Can the Minister explain the Department's policy and whether he has a mind to change it?

I know that the Conservative party has become very hands on and statist in the past week or so, but it is not my business to tell the ITV companies, still less Sky, what the nature of essentially commercial contracts between those two organisations should be.

If she will make a statement on the impact of the events of 11 September on tourism. [26174]

The terrorist attacks of 11 September have had a damaging impact on many tourism businesses, particularly businesses in London that rely on high-spending north American visitors, but some parts of the country have reported a very good autumn. There are signs that we are now in the very early stages of a recovery.

Given that those problems come hard on the heels of the crisis in the tourism sector following foot and mouth disease, is it not time for the English Tourism Council to be given the permanent marketing role that its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have?

Certainly, we want more marketing of Britain, and more professional marketing of Britain. We are working closely with the British Tourist Authority. On Wednesday, we will join it at the launch of its marketing campaign targeted at the seven top markets, north American and European. There is a joint initiative between my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to promote tourism in the countryside, and there is the initiative of the London tourism action group to promote London as a tourism destination.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in respect of damage to tourism, few counties were more adversely affected than Cumbria following the atrocities in the United States of America and the disaster of foot and mouth disease? Is she aware that 2002 is the international year of mountains: a celebration of mountains, their ecology and environment and the communities that have to work and earn their livings in mountainous areas? Is she aware that the Cumbrian mountain festival will be launched in spring this year—a serious attempt to bring a resurgence of support for tourism in all its aspects in the Lake District national park and surrounding areas in Cumbria? Will she ask her officials to engage with those planning the festival to ensure that her Department maximises its support for those important and exciting proposals for Cumbria, and that, in addition to what I am sure will be words of encouragement, we get some tangible financial support too?

We will certainly ensure that the Department provides all possible support to the international year of mountains. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, himself a distinguished mountaineer, will be present at the launch.

The Secretary of State will be aware that tourism is vital to my constituency, the location of Ashdown forest and the homes of A. A. Milne, Conan Doyle and, nearby, Rudyard Kipling. Is she also aware that the recovery of tourism is seriously hampered by the Fact that we have no Sunday rail service, so people trying to come down for the weekend cannot get home until Monday morning? Will she ask her officials to deal directly with Go Via, to encourage it to offer a Sunday service, making her worthy words about tourism become reality?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is meeting the relevant Ministers from other Departments to ensure that investment and policy work in concert towards the objective of promoting tourism, advertising what Britain has to offer and ensuring that one of the most successful sectors of our economy thrives after what has been a very difficult 18 months. The short answer is yes: those discussions will take place with other Departments to ensure that we work as one Government to promote tourism.

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the financial packages that the Chancellor made available in the aftermath of both foot and mouth and 11 September to hotels and businesses in the rural economy and those who rely on tourism? Has she compared the figures against the increased number of flights abroad from certain airports such as Stansted? How do we ensure that more people remain in this country and benefit from our tourist attractions rather than going abroad?

The investment that the Chancellor made in increasing the British Tourist Authority's marketing budget has been successful in bringing back some tourists, especially from western Europe. There is still, however, a major problem with north America. Our aim must be to encourage more people to come here from abroad and more people to stay here for their holidays, not out of patriotism alone but because there are so many good places to see, and to ensure that the tourism on offer is of consistently high quality. The Government have a part to play in that.

I remind the House of my previous declarations.

The hon. Lady's question is one for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—but of course, in the spirit of the commitment that I gave earlier, we are concerned about the impact of a range of Government policies on tourism. Where there is clearly a detrimental impact on tourism, we shall raise that with the relevant Secretary of State.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the excellent work done by the London tourism council and the whole of the tourism industry within London, much more still needs to be done to link up with other tourist authorities throughout the United Kingdom, not only so that visitors are attracted to London, but so that London is genuinely perceived as the gateway to the whole United Kingdom?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; that is a weakness that the industry itself now recognises. Under the leadership of the CBI, the Tourism Alliance, which brings together many of the key industry players, has now been established. Fragmentation, leading to low levels of skill, poor value for money and lack of adequate data, has been a fundamental weakness in the tourism industry. If anything beneficial is to come from the awful circumstances created for that industry by foot and mouth and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, it will be the focus on Modernisation and building the capacity to be a profitable tourism industry sustainable in the long term, with Modern technology and Modern working practices. That is what will bring the visitors back and keep them here.

If she will make a statement on the gaming review. [26175]

We published the report of the independent gambling review body—the Budd report—in July last year. We are now considering all the comments that we have received on it; there have been about 2,200, the vast majority of which have come from the voluntary clubs about jackpot and gaming machines. We are now considering those responses, and we will make an announcement in the near future.

Is the Minister aware that the gaming review's recommendation that local authorities should ensure that gambling is the primary purpose of premises licensed for gambling, would effectively wipe out amusement parks in small seaside towns such as Littlehampton and Bognor? Will he overrule that recommendation?

We have not given any decisions on any of the recommendations, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I have met a number of representatives from the seaside resorts and have listened to them carefully. We have also received their written submissions. We shall give those due consideration, and will announce our conclusions when we make the full announcement on the Budd report.

What plans she has to visit festivals taking place in Bristol this year. [26176]

I would be happy to consider invitations to visit Bristol in the near future. My hon. Friend knows that I recently attended the "Brief Encounters" film festival in that fine city—and that I was subsequently serenaded into another great cultural event by those invaluable chroniclers of contemporary west of England life, the Wurzels.

I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply; I am not sure whether the Wurzels see things exactly as he does, but it has all calmed down now. My hon. Friend knows that he will receive a warm welcome in Bristol when he comes. Having seen a list of the cultural events that will take place in Bristol this year, does he agree that it provides a good platform for our bid to become European city of culture in 2008?

The list of 18 festivals in Bristol is mighty, and I look forward to seeing the "Animated Encounters" short film festival, which promises to be good. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can of course make no statement that would jeopardise the bid of any city to be the European city of culture. As Cardiff is within sight of Bristol, we would be entering dangerous territory there. That said, Bristol has many high-quality festivals. It can certainly make a serious bid, and I am sure that it will.

If he will make a statement on the commission's plans for internet voting. [26154]

The Electoral Commission is an independent body and the remit of the Speaker's Committee is to approve its estimates and five-year plan, not to take decisions that Fall within the commission's statutory responsibilities. I understand from the chairman, however, that the commission is co-funding research to evaluate the feasibility of introducing electronic voting, including internet voting. The commission will also evaluate electronic voting pilot schemes for use at local elections in May. Any such schemes will be laid before Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that online voting is commensurate with Modern lifestyles and that its use might enfranchise those, especially the young, who have felt disengaged from the process? How does he intend the pilots to be evaluated and measured so that appropriate lessons may be learned?

As I have said, that Falls to the Electoral Commission, not the Speaker's Committee. In order properly to evaluate the schemes, the commission intends not to co-pilot them. It will be involved in evaluation, and it is clear that a lot of technical and other issues will be raised. The commission has not yet formed a view on whether electronic voting schemes of various schemes will work well; that is the purpose of the pilots.

At present, it is difficult to vote. One must go to a polling station or receive a vote through the postal system. Even for the latter, verification by an independent person is required to show that the right person has voted. What verification will there be in electronic systems?

That is precisely the type of issue that the commission is considering in order to establish whether electronic voting can make it easier to vote while still giving those who take part in the electoral process the assurance that the process is safe and sound. When the pilots are laid before Parliament, hon. Members will be able to judge them for themselves.

It is even more difficult to vote by internet or any other method if a person is not on the electoral register. If the commission is to consider voting through the internet, will it consider whether it might be possible to get more people on to the register through the internet?

That is certainly the type of issue that the commission is considering.

What review the Commission plans to carry out of the operation of postal voting in general elections. [26155]

The commission stated in its statutory report on the 2001 general election that it intended to assess the impact of extending the availability of postal voting, including any implications for electoral fraud. I understand from the chairman of the commission that that review is expected to report by the autumn. A statistical paper providing data, constituency by constituency, on postal voting at the general election was published last week. A copy has been placed in the Library.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that encouraging response. We were all happy that it was easier to obtain postal votes at the general election, but there was some concern, because the date was so late, that many people did not receive their ballots in time to return them. There was also concern about fraud in the system. When the right hon. Gentleman reviews the budget for the commission, will he give that area more consideration?

I am sure that the commission will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement, particularly as regards its budget. The Speaker's Committee will certainly take that into account. I know from experience that the issue of late ballots is a difficult one, although I was surprised, while preparing for today's Questions, to read evidence that some postal votes were posted to Australia and returned in time for the poll.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although the decision to extend postal voting last year was a very welcome simplification of the system, it was announced very late and many of the applications were submitted very late for the councils to deal with and the returning officers to send out the forms? Will the Fact that people can apply for postal votes now be made much clearer on the registration forms? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are watching very carefully to ensure that the abuses that have taken place in the past with very much increased postal voting are not repeated in the future?

I well remember the problem of last-minute arrangements and the commission is consulting acting returning officers on many of the things that happened at the last general election, including the extent and nature of any fraud that took place, so those issues are well under consideration.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new, additional responsibilities. Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), first, will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues consider telling people all the options available, with all the dates, on the paperwork that is put through their doors when an election is called, so that they can leave it as late as they wish to use their votes? Secondly, will he consider having a pilot scheme which involves going back to the people—possibly in urban and rural constituencies won by each party—who did not vote at the last general election to ask them why they did not vote and what would have made them more likely to do so?

Establishing why people, particularly young people, did not vote at previous elections and what their attitude to voting is certainly an issue that the commission takes seriously. Going back to those who were recorded as not having voted would raise some rather difficult questions, as my hon. Friend would understand. His suggestion about what information can be made available when the information is first sent out and the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) are useful, and I shall certainly pass them on to the commission.

To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received on the reduction of VAT on church repairs through a grants equivalent. [26156]

I have not received any particular representations following the successful launch of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that English Heritage is planning to reduce its grant by the amount that the recipient of those grants receives from the Treasury? Is he not alarmed, as I am, by that development? Will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that that unwelcome development does not continue and become an accepted practice? Will he continue to make representations stating that we should seek to reduce VAT for church repairs under the directive?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and may I say how pleased I was to see her on the Front Bench a few moments ago? As she knows, the scheme provides a grant that equates to part of the VAT paid, rather than being a reduction in the VAT rate. She mentions the on-going discussions in the European Union, and the European directive on a formal reduction in the rate. Those discussions are continuing. I will ensure that the Treasury is made aware that English Heritage is withdrawing or reducing some of its grant.

I welcome the scheme. Any way that we can reduce Church costs in that way is welcome. Will my hon. Friend estimate what sort of expenditure is likely to occur in the foreseeable future? Is there any evidence that repair work has been held back, awaiting that decision, so that there may well be a quick rush in the first year or two? If so, is the scheme likely to be cash-limited, in which case a number of applications may well be turned down because there is a closed list?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no real indication that schemes to repair churches have been held back or withdrawn, given the Fact that, of course, the VAT directive is some way off and is being modified, but the total cost of repair work in the Church of England amounts to £120 million and the VAT on the listed building work is about £10 million, so bringing the Government scheme into action as quickly as possible will avoid the problem to which my hon. Friend refers and help us to get a move on with church repairs.

Given the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentions—the VAT on repairs cost the Church £10 million—will he or the Church Commissioners strongly press the Treasury to obtain a derogation from the sixth directive on VAT on the basis that a reduced or zero rate of VAT should be applied to the repair of community buildings?

Many of those representations have already been made in the European Union, but, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), will know, they did not receive an echo back. That is why the directive is being considered with a view to its being overhauled and brought into line more with the hon. Gentleman's request.