What steps the Government are taking to promote tourism and support the tourist industry in Kent Thames-side. [34227]

With the agreement of the Chief Secretary, I am delighted to inform the House that we will make available up to £20 million of additional public funds to promote Britain abroad as a tourist destination. This campaign will benefit Kent Thames-side. It will be targeted at our seven key markets, including the United States as well as France, Germany and the Netherlands.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that news, which my constituents will welcome.

My hon. Friend is himself a powerful advocate of those charms. Moreover, as he will know, the successful investment of lottery funds has brought about the regeneration of Chatham dockyard, and the Channel tunnel international railway station at Ebbsfleet, which will attract more visitors to the area, will be completed in 2003. An industry that already brings £195 million into Kent is set to grow.

I hope that my question will not be misconstrued as unparliamentary language.

Let me deal with that question as constructively as I can. The slogan "UKOK" and the marketing that accompanied it were subjected to the usual rigorous testing. There are decisions that professionals make about marketing slogans and marketing content; I am prepared to accept the judgment of those professionals, and then to reach conclusions about effectiveness judging by results. All the feedback that we have received from the United States suggests that the "UKOK" campaign has been marketed very well there, but proof will be provided by the number of additional visitors that it brings to Britain.

Given the British Tourist Authority's commitment to promoting the whole of Britain overseas, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the opinions attributed to Mr. Philip Riddell of VisitScotland, who says that this year the American market should be regarded as a lost cause for Scotland? Will she join me and the people of Scotland in disagreeing profoundly with that view and encouraging the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting—who I understand is going to America this week—to promote Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom this year? We want to make a new start in presenting a new Britain to the Americans.

I unreservedly oppose the view taken by VisitScotland. It is a dismal, pessimistic view that is simply not borne out by the evidence of an increasing number of American visitors who want to visit Europe. We particularly want to persuade them to visit Britain in this jubilee year to celebrate the Commonwealth games. There is always a good reason to visit Britain; this year, being American is a particularly good reason.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective form of marketing is the press and public relations, which are more cost-effective than advertising? This year, do we not have the greatest news peg in the Queen's golden jubilee? Will the right hon. Lady try to persuade the marketing experts and gurus—who have not been very impressive up to now—to use it to bring tourists into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—indeed the whole of the British Isles? Will she also make representations to the palace to the effect that all members of the royal family should act as ambassadors this year, especially in the United States and the Commonwealth, and encourage tourism into the United Kingdom?

Marketing and press coverage go together. The funding that I have announced today will do just that. The jubilee year is a great opportunity to increase the number of tourists from America, which is particularly important because on average for every £1 a domestic tourist spends, an American visitor spends £6. It is important for the economy. We want tourists to visit the whole of the United Kingdom. Prince Charles has already signalled his support by writing a foreword to the heritage map in support of the marketing campaign to bring people to Britain.

I know that most hon. Members feel that they are national treasures, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to north Kent again? My constituency has the largest wetland in Britain, yet we do not market it at all. We are struggling to understand how best to work with the tourist authorities to obtain the full value of tourism. The White Paper did not explain whether we needed more museums, art galleries or whatever else we have in our constituencies. Will she comment on that?

My hon. Friend is right. In his constituency and throughout the UK there are unexplored and hidden treasures. I hope that a more aggressive approach to marketing, more streamlined communications and putting more information on line will help to deal with that, but the regional development agencies have a tremendously important part to play. Their performance in this area is somewhat variable, but he should urge his RDA to conduct an audit of unrecorded visitor attractions in his constituency and beyond to ensure that they are part of the marketing information that is developed.

We warmly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of matched funding for the BTA, which we advocated more than two years ago, although it has taken two major crises to persuade the Government to take an interest in tourism. Does she recognise that 80 per cent. of visitors to English regions, such as Kent Thames-side with its unique facilities, are domestic tourists, and that there is nothing in the announcement to encourage people in England to take holidays and short breaks at home? When will the Government put tourism in England on the same footing as tourism in Scotland and Wales by restoring the marketing role to the English Tourism Council, which the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has acknowledged should never have been taken away by the Government?

I am delighted that today's announcement has attracted such strong cross-party support. It is a pity that the Opposition did not invest in tourism when they were in government. However, the hon. Gentleman has been generous in support of the announcement. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting agree that we need a more vigorous and focused marketing organisation for England. We are discussing with the various organisations how that will be achieved.

When she plans to meet the Council for Museums and Libraries to discuss the funding of regional museums in Nottingham. [34228]

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts regularly meets Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, the chairman of resource, the Council for Museums and Libraries, to discuss the funding of museums in all the English regions, including the east midlands.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the rich diversity of museums in Nottingham: there is not just the traditional Robin Hood, Nottingham castle, Newstead abbey and Wollaton hall, but contemporary shows such as the Warhol exhibition and very good outreach work by the city council in the education sector. Will he take the opportunity to visit Nottingham in the near future, above all to discuss the co-ordination between the four counties of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire on the renaissance in the regions fund? There is £267 million in that fund, and I assure my hon. Friend that if he comes to Nottingham we will make a good case as to why we should have at least our fair share of that.

I look forward to that visit, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make a good case; he always does.

If she will provide grants to local authorities specifically for sports arenas and multi-use arenas in rural areas. [34229]

May I crave your indulgence at the start of my response, Mr. Speaker, and ask the House to join me in congratulating the athletes and coaches and rest of the staff of Team GB, including the people in the British Olympic Association, on such a successful and professional performance at the winter Olympics. I know that the whole nation and everybody in the House feel proud of their achievements—the best since 1934. Even "Question Time" was moved so that people could see the curling final.

Is the Minister aware that Sedgemoor district council, which is not one of the largest in the country, is trying to build a multi-sports arena? The problem is that Sport England has to cover an enormous area of the west country, and has not enough resources. Sedgemoor is not in a position to fund it either, and is therefore looking for external money. As it is a very rural area, has the Minister any other ideas about where it could raise the money?

I do not know about that specific scheme, but I do know that in rural areas, about a quarter of the lottery money—about £1.2 billion since 1994—has gone into sports facilities, of which £40 million has gone to rural areas. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will consider what he says and speak to the Sport England officials about it.

I join the Minister in warmly congratulating the winter Olympics team on its performance in Salt Lake City, which is a cause of celebration for the whole country. However, is he aware that on 13 February 2002 a written answer from him showed that lottery-funded spending on sport had fallen by one third since 1997—a drop of more than £100 million a year? When more than £3 billion in unspent lottery funds is sitting unused, the rejection of proposals, such as that by the university of Hertfordshire to build an olympic swimming pool, is profoundly discouraging for budding sportsmen and sports fans. It also undermines the chances of future British Olympic success.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are dealing with the question of the uncommitted funds—as the hon. Gentleman knows, those funds are allocated—through the lottery distributers. We are having separate meetings with the chief executives and chairs of the distributing bodies to see how we can use the funds more effectively. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the next two years, the overall Exchequer contribution to sport will more than double. He will know that because of the reduction in participation in the lottery, all lottery funding streams have been reduced. I was speaking to Camelot only last week, and it now hopes that the relaunch will bring the lottery receipts back to what it was envisaged they would be when the licence was applied for.

If she will report progress on the redevelopment proposals for the Wembley stadium site. [34230]

I made clear to the House on 19 December 2001 the Government's commitment to support the Football Association's national stadium project, subject to the FA meeting a number of conditions that I set out at the time. The Government fully recognise that—as Patrick Carter made clear in his interim report published on 19 December—the project will not be delivered without Government support. The project is now in a process of due diligence with the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. undertaking the necessary work to fulfil the Government's conditions and working with the lead bank on financing the project. Sport England is progressing the study on athletics in consultation with UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association and the International Association of Athletics Federations. I expect the FA's work to be completed in April.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that comprehensive reply. On reflection, does she agree that the decision to exclude athletics from a rebuilt Wembley stadium has turned out to be a disastrous misjudgment? Will she confirm beyond any doubt that when the stadium is rebuilt it will have athletics facilities? Does she agree that the delay in coming to a conclusion about the form that the stadium should take means that football will not have been played at Wembley stadium for five years?

The design of the stadium is athletics capable. The FA is now acting on that and Sport England is in the lead. I made it clear in December that there is a difference between being athletics capable and actually being able to host athletics events. The important fact is that money was awarded as part of the lottery grant, which, if the stadium cannot host athletics events, would have to be returned; so in order to complete the negotiations and settle the future of the national stadium project once and for all, discussions are under way. I have made it clear that a condition of finalising the Government's support for the national stadium project is that the position in relation to athletics be clarified. If athletics events are not to be hosted at the stadium, the money—as the FA has always made clear—would be returned. If, however, the stadium is capable of hosting athletics events—because of the improved technology of a more easily dismantled platform—obviously the money would be retained. That is part of ensuring that the project makes progress and that by the end of April we know once and for all whether the national stadium will be built at Wembley.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that she will not repeat the blunders of her predecessor by getting ensnarled in this such that the Government will not be able to evade responsibility for the culpability of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and the Football Association? Will she give the House an absolute assurance that not a penny of Government money will go directly or indirectly into subsidising the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and that the Government will not support any effort by the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to raise money in the markets? The organisation should do that on its own credit and in no other way. Will she make it clear that, if the stadium does not go ahead by April at the latest, legal action will be taken to recover the £120 million to which the FA is clinging like a leech and which it will have no possible legal right to retain?

A number of my predecessors have concerned themselves with the national stadium project. At various times, each of them took decisions on the basis of the best advice and consideration available to them.

I am afraid that the Secretary of State's answers will have raised more doubts in the minds of most listeners in the past few minutes than she perhaps wished. Anxieties already exist about the progress of this project and the achievement of the timetable in April to which she referred. Will she say categorically whether the Government are still committed to rebuilding Wembley stadium and to incorporating an athletics facility? Will she also say whether she is completely happy with the proposed roles of Multiplex, IMG and the FA in this project? Will she confirm that the infrastructure spending that she mentioned involves the rebuilding, not just the upgrading, of Wembley Park tube station? If she is in doubt about whether that is needed, I invite her to do as I did last Tuesday and pay a visit by tube to Wembley.

The hon. Gentleman's contribution makes it clear why the second world war was won in about the same time that it has taken to achieve no progress at all on Wembley. This project was initiated in 1996 by the last Conservative Government, who began with a catalogue of errors.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Wembley was very prematurely closed by the FA? Does she also agree that the FA is still prevaricating about a national stadium for one of our most popular games, association football? While prevarication about Wembley continues, there are two excellent sites in the west midlands, at Coventry and at Birmingham, which are less expensive than the Wembley alternative.

In fairness to the FA, there is no prevarication. It is now engaged with the lending banks in the process of due diligence and is proceeding to meet the four conditions that I set out to the House before Christmas. That process will conclude with the signing or not of binding contracts by the end of April. Work is in progress, and my job—and the Government's job—is to provide every possible support, to ensure that the national stadium is realised.

What progress has been made in the Government's plans to celebrate the golden jubilee in London. [34231]

London will be the focus of the national events during the golden jubilee weekend. Full details of the programme have not yet been published, but events will include concerts in the grounds of Buckingham palace; the lighting of the jubilee beacon and a fireworks display; the state procession to St Paul's cathedral for the national service of thanksgiving; a lunch at Guildhall; and a carnival pageant in the Mall.

All Conservative Members hope and believe that Her Majesty's golden jubilee will be a great success. I welcome the extensive programme of activities that has been arranged for the jubilee bank holiday weekend, but will she assure us that the main celebrations will be a Cool Britannia-free zone, and that the military bayonets-drawn and breastplate-shining pageantry for which this country is world-renowned, and in which our service men and women excel, will be in pride of place? Can she further assure us that there will be no fewer armed service participants in the parade than there were in the silver jubilee celebrations in 1977? If not, will she lobby her colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to invite Commonwealth troops to come to London and fill the gap?

The Conservatives say one thing and do another. It is not for the Government to tell people how to enjoy themselves during the jubilee; people will decide that for themselves. It is the Government's role, however, to support the palace and the public so that the many ideas and ambitions that communities throughout the country have to celebrate the jubilee can flourish. All the signs are that people are engaging with the prospect of organising jubilee events. For instance, the number of hits on the golden jubilee office website tripled in the past two months, more than 500 beacons are planned and street parties are being organised. Events are being organised despite the best efforts of the Opposition to talk down the jubilee.

What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of grants made by the Film Council in increasing UK-based film production. [34233]

The Film Council has been awarding lottery funds for only a relatively short time but it has already produced a notable success in "Gosford Park", which received a British Academy of Film and Television Arts award last night after being released to critical acclaim. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the main criterion is not the number of films that are backed, but that those that are supported are of a much higher quality and reach an appreciative audience.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I enjoyed seeing "Gosford Park" and wish it well in the, I think, five Oscar nominations that it received. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is no evidence of an increase in the number of UK-based productions as a result of the Film Council's support? Does he also agree that the training fund and the development of scripts in the UK is one of the best long-term investments and possibly the most cost-effective way to secure not only UK productions, but United States investment in UK productions, which of course makes up the largest part of our film production?

Yes, I agree entirely. The basis of all good films is a good script. Support for scriptwriters to develop films in that way has been sadly lacking. That is why we have made money available to develop scripts.

Does the Minister agree that as well as supporting the commercial infrastructure, it is important that the Film Council supports the more risk-taking innovative cultural films that are part of its mandate? Will he do everything that he can to encourage it to put money not merely into developing those films for production, but into ensuring that they are distributed as well?

It is not easy to get such films distributed, and that is one of the main tasks that the Film Council faces. We do not have production companies like we used to have; nor do we have the integrated organisations that Hollywood has, not only to make films but to ensure that films are properly distributed, which has always been a great weakness.

I am glad that the Minister shares my concern about lack of British investment in what are essentially British films. He will be aware that "Gosford Park", which I saw last night, was essentially an American production and that "The Lord of the Rings", which starred British people, sadly had to be shot in New Zealand and was also funded by the United States of America. What steps can the Government and the Department take to ensure tax breaks to enable people to invest in the United Kingdom in British films, to promote not only the British film industry but the generation of money to be ploughed back into the industry, creating an ever-increasing growth of British films in both the UK and worldwide?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for investing in British films. We have great actors and scriptwriters and very good directors. A large amount of Film Council money was put into "Gosford Park", and he should not underrate that. Very often, such seedcorn money can be used to develop a good idea and attract capital. After all, film draws its investment funding from all over the world, whether the films are made in this country, New Zealand or anywhere else. This is a great country in which to make films. We have some of the best post-production facilities anywhere in the world and, as I say, some of the best actors, scriptwriters and directors. I urge everybody on both sides of the House to talk up the British film industry, not to talk it down or to try to smear its good name.

Does the Minister believe that the process by which projects are selected for cash help by the Film Council is entirely objective? Does he think it right that a very high proportion of the lottery money distributed by the Film Council goes to projects in which the directors of the Film Council have an interest? Will he confirm that several of the Film Council directors whose projects have been helped in that way have also been appointed to advise Ministers about film policy?

I was expecting that question from the hon. Gentleman because I had heard that he had visited the Film Council, where I understand that he was as nice as pie to everyone. He did not tell them that he would be dragging the good name of British film through his manufactured mud. All the mechanisms are in place to ensure objectivity when it comes to deciding which projects should get the money that the Film Council is there to distribute.

What action she is taking to support the development of theatre with specific reference to London theatres outside the west end. [34234]

This is a matter for London Arts. Following the 2000–01 theatre review, London Arts' annual support for the independent theatre sector in London will rise to more than £15 million by 2003–04, which represents an increase of 88 per cent. over last year's figure.

My right hon. Friend obviously recognises the work of London theatres outside the west end, such as the Theatre Royal, Stratford East, which is based in Newham and serves a lot of east London, but does she agree that such theatres, which aim to do innovative work and to develop new productions, must take greater risks, and greater financial risks, than those that rely purely on touring productions and revivals, and that that is not always sufficiently recognised by the current funding systems? Will she consider what specifically can be done to help producer theatres?

The answer to my hon. Friend is yes, we recognise that producer theatres take greater risks and yes, we want to support them in doing that. That is precisely why an additional £25 million per year will be available from 2003–04. That is a fund of money from which Stratford East will rightly benefit, and it will benefit theatre throughout the country in pursuing the important objectives that he outlines: innovation, promoting excellence and risk taking.

What measures she will take to assist amateur sports clubs through tax allowances. [34235]

Proposals for easing the financial burdens on clubs were included in the consultation paper "Promoting Sport in the Community", published in November 2001. As well as setting out a possible tax exemption regime, the paper included revised Charity Commission guidance which should allow many clubs to take advantage of the tax and other benefits of charitable status. That consultation ended on 1 February and the Treasury is reflecting on the responses.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware that the Treasury may need some assistance. I hope he will use his good offices to work with the Treasury to ensure that that relief is given to the amateur sporting clubs which are home to the country's future stars.

I will use my good offices. A tax working party has been set up, with representatives from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, my Department and the Treasury. If charitable status was granted to more amateur clubs, they would benefit from exemption from inheritance tax, reclaiming basic rate tax on monetary gifts from gift aid—a very important institution—and payroll giving, in addition to mandatory rate relief. There are many other advantages in achieving charitable status. To that end, on 12 February I met the Chief Commissioner of the Charity Commission, John Stoker, to see whether we could work out a formula that would allow more amateur clubs to have charitable status.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the one and a half million volunteers who are the backbone of amateur sports clubs up and down the country are spending a disproportionate amount of time raising the funds for those clubs to pay their tax bills? Can it be right that they should have to do that when they should be organising sports? Is he aware that giving the mandatory 80 per cent. rate relief would cost only £28 million? He talks about the Charity Commission and about making these clubs charities. Are sports club really charities, or will it become a bureaucratic nightmare? Can he grant the clubs what they want, which is parity with charity, but not the bureaucracy that goes with it?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I am talking with the CCPR and Sport England about a regional structure that will allow sports an easy passage and a less bureaucratic way of achieving charitable status. If charitable status had been offered two or three years ago, it would have been accepted. It is my intention to ensure that where charitable status is offered to small clubs, they are given as much assistance as possible. John Stoker and I agree that this needs to be looked at, and I hope that we bring amateur clubs nearer to that position than they are at present.

I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend has said. At a time when diabetes is recognised as a problem among young children, does he agree that it is ever more important to ensure that increasing numbers of young people take part in sport? However, that will be impossible, especially in poor areas such as my constituency, where many people find it difficult to make ends meet, let alone find additional funding for rugby boots or sports equipment, which is why it is so important to make sure that organisations such as the Rhondda Rebels or the Ferndale rugby football club attract support.

I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last point, as I do not know about that particular local authority. On the wider issues of sport and health, however, he is absolutely right. The National Audit Office report that came out only a few weeks ago showed that obesity in this country costs the economy something like £2 billion and that the financial burden on the health service is about half a billion pounds. A cost-benefit analysis would clearly show that investment into sport would address health and education issues. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it a point in the last Budget statement about looking at bringing financial relief and support to amateur clubs and volunteers up and down the country. They do a sterling job and without them, the sports infrastructure would not exist.

Does the Minister agree that amateur sports clubs are important to the very fabric of our society? Will he come to Castle Point and join me in a visit to Benfleet cricket club? It is one of many amateur sports clubs around the country that are suffering at the hands of councils that, under best value, are doubling, trebling or quadrupling ground rents and other charges. Those charges are putting such clubs at risk, and it would be a great shame if we threw the baby out with the bath water in that regard.

If the previous Administration had done a little more for amateur clubs, we would probably not be in this position, but I should make it clear that we will do something about the cricket club to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If we can secure charitable status and the type of tax regime to which I have referred, that club will probably be much better off than it was under his party's administration.

What steps the Government are taking to support regional theatres and arts organisations within north-east Essex. [34236]

That is a matter for East England Arts, as the regional body for north-east Essex. By 2003–04 East England Arts' budget, including the regional arts lottery programme, will rise to £12.4 million. That is an increase of 18 per cent. on its current level.

I welcome the Minister's comments and I note the level of Government investment in the Mercury theatre in Colchester, to which many of my constituents enjoy going. However, what support have the Government given to theatres in seaside resorts? Clacton-on-sea has two such theatres: the West Cliff theatre, which is run by the West Cliff theatre trust—a volunteer group that does an excellent job—and the Prince's theatre, the budget for which the local, Tory-led authority has just cut. What support and encouragement will the Minister give to such theatres, which play a major part in the tourism and leisure industry in seaside resorts?

I think that an 18 per cent. rise in East England Arts' budget should guarantee the future of perfectly good theatres such as those. If it does not, that will smack of the usual incompetence and heartlessness of Tory-led local authorities.

I advise the Minister that the cultural capital of Essex appreciates all the support for live theatre in Britain's oldest recorded town. Will he join me in welcoming the imminent opening in Colchester of the Headgate theatre, an amateur theatre that will occupy the premises previously occupied by a failed Labour club?

I bet there were some great actors there, as well.

What plans she has to assist the development of sport at community level in the north-west. [34239]

The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for participation in sport in every part of the country. The strategy for sport—"A Sporting Future for All"—and the Government's plan for sport set out an action plan on how we intend to achieve those objectives. We also plan to restructure Sport England to improve the delivery of sport at the regional level.

My right hon. Friend will know that, despite the latent talent that exists in the north-west, we face an acute shortage of decent facilities for many of our young people. Will he look carefully at projects such as that proposed for Stanney high school—a partnership involving education, the single regeneration budget, West Cheshire amateur athletics club and the private sector—which will provide a new, purpose-built athletics track? Such partnerships, making best use of the money available, are surely the way forward in helping our young people.

I could not agree more. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, the project at Stanney high school has been given stage 1 approval by the Sport England lottery panel, and work is moving ahead. Sport England believes that that project is important; it is working with the partners to which my hon. Friend referred to try to make sure that the plan is realised, as it will be a major asset to that part of the north-west.

The Minister will be aware of concern across Greater Manchester and Cheshire about the proposed closure of the ice rink in Altrincham. Will he take a personal interest in what might be done to ensure that funds are made available for a replacement regional facility somewhere in Greater Manchester or Cheshire, which is important for ice skating, ice hockey and other sports?

Including curling.

I think that the hon. Gentleman could have mentioned curling; I gather that 6 million people up and down the country now want curling lanes, which is to be welcomed.

What the impact on their investment returns of their investment in (a) property and (b) equities has been, in the last five years. [34263]

Over the five years from 1996 to 2000, the commissioners' UK equities portfolio achieved a return of 17.2 per cent. per annum. Their overseas equities achieved 15 per cent. per annum, and the commissioners' commercial, residential and agricultural property holdings contributed to the outperformance, achieving returns of 15.1 per cent., 28.4 per cent. and 10.9 per cent. per annum respectively over the five years.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. In assessing the return on equities to the Church Commissioners, can he tell the House what is the loss resulting from the Government's change to advance corporation tax in the first Budget after the 1997 general election? How does it compare with the cash value of any reductions in the obligations which the Church Commissioners are taking on in the years ahead and transferring to the dioceses?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I should add that the total return from our stock exchange and property investments over the five-year period was 15.9 per cent. As for the advance corporation tax, matters relating to it were discussed with the actuary. I am happy to make a study for the hon. Gentleman and let him have a copy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious upset in the dioceses, especially the large rural ones, that any reduction, however small, in the support that the Church Commissioners can give the dioceses is passed straight on to the parishes, which not only have the burden of maintaining the fabric of ancient parish churches, but are now faced with the distinct possibility of not being able to afford a priest?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should know that our legal duties are numerous; our commitments are to clergy and bishops, both in cathedrals and areas of need. We have a policy on areas of need and opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I should be glad to look at it and give him a response.

If the Electoral Commission will review compulsory voting in parliamentary elections. [34264]

I understand from the chairman of the Electoral Commission that it believes that there is merit in opening up the question of compulsory voting for wider debate and that it should be examined in more detail as one of a series of options that may help to contribute to higher rates of participation in elections.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Does he recognise that compulsory voting works perfectly well in Australia, Belgium and many other countries? Is it not time to recognise that compulsory voting, albeit with the opportunity to register an abstention, would not put an onerous burden on our citizens, as some would have us believe?

The hon. Gentleman must not infer from my reply any enthusiasm on my part for compulsory voting. The commission has decided, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended, to open the matter up for debate, in which the hon. Gentleman has already participated extensively. One of the first steps is to look at the operation of compulsory voting in other countries.

Is it not fundamental in a free society that people should not be forced to the polling booths if they do not want to vote?

That is a view which a number of us hold, and I am sure that it will be one of the views that the Commission considers. In the end, of course, it would be a matter for legislation if compulsory voting were introduced.

If the Church commissioners will take measures to assist retired clergy with housing provision. [34265]

The Church Commissioners already do so. Housing in retirement is the responsibility of individual clergy, and the level of pension allows for that, but it is the Church Commissioners who provide most of the capital for the Church's scheme of housing assistance for retired clergy, which aims to widen the choice available to them.

That is an interesting answer. Is my hon. Friend aware of the plight of someone who comes late into the clergy, does not build up a pension fund and does not get assistance? Local authorities have to help with accommodation for retired clergy. I do not think that that is the right way forward. There ought to be a rethink by the Church Commissioners, and more assistance ought to be given.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He ought to know that clergy stipends and housing for retired clergy are very much on the mind of the Church. Wide-ranging recommendations were made in a report on clergy remuneration, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Those were considered by the General Synod in November 2001 and are now with the dioceses for further discussion. The comments made by my hon. Friend today will be sent to the appropriate quarter and will become part of the consultation process.

I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). Will the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) ask his friends the Church Commissioners to consider how they could use their funds to assist clergy who need help with housing after retirement, and also lay people who are paid by the Church and who often find themselves in similar difficulties when they come to the end of their careers? If the Church Commissioners assessed the position nationally, they could make a positive decision about whether they could help, and that would be very welcome.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He widens the question somewhat to include those who are lay persons within the Church. As I mentioned earlier, there is a study going on which will be read by the General Synod. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should be widened to cover the persons to whom he referred will also be considered.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the retired clergy play an ever-increasing role in enabling the Church to provide services on Sunday and cover for absences for various reasons? Is it not therefore important that we ensure that wherever possible, instead of having to move to different areas, they can continue to live in the area that they know well and which they may have served well for a number of years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the work that many retired clergy do after their retirement. The recommendations to which I referred include the one that there ought to be the possibility of providing capital to help clergy with the cost of a deposit payment on the purchase of a house, which they could let before retirement and later occupy themselves. If such a recommendation were accepted, they could live in the community, probably better. I should say, however, that by that response I have not in any way committed the Church Commissioners.

If he will make a statement on the programme of church maintenance and improvement. [34266]

Programmes of maintenance and improvement to Church of England churches are matters for individual parochial church councils.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree that we owe it to future generations to maintain our historic and beautiful churches and, if possible, to improve the facilities, such as toilets, in those churches? Could not the Church Commissioners devise a scheme for the future to provide help with maintenance and improvements?

The hon. Gentleman is of course aware of the listed places of worship grant scheme recently launched by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which allows listed churches to apply for a grant equivalent to a reduction in VAT to 5 per cent. That was a measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. It has been acted upon and I am hopeful that it will address the kind of situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many churches in my constituency have needed a great deal of work and maintenance in the past and will do so in the future, especially St. Nicholas church in Elm Park, which had the roof burned off? The rate of VAT that he mentioned has obviously had implications. Is there any chance of further action on that, or a wider scheme to institute church repairs on a national basis, which would help the churches in my area?

My hon. Friend should be aware that in addition to the listed places of worship grant scheme, English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund have each contributed grant aid of about £10 million per annum. Clearly that and the relief of VAT on church affairs are not sufficient, but the Church of England, along with other faiths, is continuing to work on this problem. I hope that we will even make some progress within the European Union.

What proposals he has to request an increase in the budget of the National Audit Office to take account of the recommendations of the Sharman report. [34267]

The extent of any increase in the budget of the National Audit Office to take account of the Sharman report will depend on the Government's response to the recommendations. It is now 12 months since Lord Sharman reported. I understand that the Government have been in extensive discussions with the NAO about the practical arrangements that the Government believe are needed to accompany Lord Sharman's recommendations. Any cost implications will be reflected in the annual corporate plan that will be submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the summer. The Commission will consider that report before the summer recess.

Does the Chairman agree with me that 12 months is an intolerably long time to wait for these recommendations to be put into place? They should have been put into place before now. What assurances does the right hon. Gentleman have that they will be put into place in the near future?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 12 months seems to be an abnormally long time. We must hope that it is justified by a favourable reception. If it is, we would want that accompanied by a guarantee of early implementation.

Does the Chairman agree that it is vital that the Government accept all the recommendations of the Sharman report? In particular, it is important that we make progress to ensure that the BBC comes under full audit by the House. After all, the BBC effectively imposes a poll tax on virtually every member of the population. The House should have the right to hold the BBC to account.

I agree with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. There are many extremely important elements in the Sharman report, which would extend considerably Parliament's power of scrutiny. We want full implementation and early implementation. I hope that we may get a response from the Government in March.