If she will make a statement on her policies to promote tourism to England. [43142]

I am sure that the House will join me in recognising that the achievement of the British film industry at last night's oscar award ceremony is a great shot in the arm for tourism. Our congratulations therefore go to Julian Fellowes, for best original screenplay for "Gosford Park"; to Jim Broadbent for his supporting role in "Iris"; and to Peter Owen for the best make-up award for "The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring".

Notwithstanding Jim Broadbent's splendid performance in "Iris", I suspect that the oscars will be a rather bigger shot in the arm for the New Zealand tourism industry, bearing in mind the location of "The Lord of the Rings".

There are two points to make. First, although England spends less than Wales or Scotland on marketing, the fact is that we do better in terms of the amount of money that visitors spend than they do, so what we spend represents good value for money. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we need to do more beyond the short-term focus on marketing, and my Department is currently in discussion with the English Tourism Council to establish how that will be achieved.

Will my right hon. Friend take on the plight of inland tourism for those constituencies, such as mine, that have had to deal with the problems of foot and mouth disease? The local authority is dependent on the millions of people who visit Chorley, so I wonder whether extra resources are available so that we can ensure that there is not a decrease in tourism this year, but a peak.

I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, the million visitor campaign that I announced to the House last month, which is worth £40 million, will provide an enormous boost to help the United Kingdom tourism industry to get back the high numbers of visitors from abroad—particularly, from America—that have fallen sharply in the wake of the events of 11 September. However, the industry is optimistic, and we are working with it to deliver on that optimism.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady would want to join me in expressing the hope that our tourism industry has a very successful Easter season over the weekend and the few days ahead, but is she aware of the widespread concern, in rural and urban areas alike, about the impact of any recurrence of foot and mouth disease? Can she tell us what strategy the Government have to deal with any new outbreak? Is she aware that it is strongly rumoured that the Government plan to merge the regional tourist boards into the regional development agencies? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that that is not the case and say when, at long last, she will announce a market function for the English Tourism Council?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that we are liaising very closely on the issue with our colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The answer to the third question is no.

What action she is taking to ensure equality of access to digital television. [43143]

The digital action plan, which was drawn up with the involvement and agreement of major players, sets out the Government's proposals to encourage the take-up of digital television by making it more accessible and the equipment and technology more available and, of course, affordable. The plan was published last December, and so far more than 8 million households in the United Kingdom are connected to digital services on a fee-paying basis.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that it is vital that we have three solid platforms for digital television in the United Kingdom, if only to supply a service and provide value for money for the consumer? In the light of ITV Digital's problems, will he ensure that the communications Bill, when introduced, promotes healthy competition, thus ensuring consumer choice and value for money?

Yes, I can confirm that the communications Bill will be designed to promote healthy competition. Hopefully, it will maintain a number of platforms for digital broadcasting because we believe that that is important.

Will not the difficulties of ITV Digital and the impracticality of putting cable into rural areas leave BSkyB in a strong market position, which the competition authorities have already suggested it is abusing? Will the Minister use the forthcoming communications Bill to ensure that the platform provider and the service provider are regulated separately? Will he also ensure that everyone gets access to all forms of digital television for a one-off payment without subscribing to services that they often do not want?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say that the Bill is to be published in just a few weeks. If he can wait that long, he will, I hope, he pleased with its comprehensive nature. The Bill will be put out to full consultation, so he will have plenty of time to raise any specific points.

My hon. Friend will know that although it would be a delight to have universal access to all forms of digital television immediately, it will be difficult to achieve that without exalting every valley and laying low every mountain. Bearing in mind many people's worries about the future of ITV Digital, what plans do the Government have to ensure that some form of digital terrestrial television survives so that everyone has not only universal access to digital television, but universal choice?

The Government have correctly maintained a platform-neutral position on digital broadcasting and services, and we aim to stick to that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that during the Ofcom debate the House became well acquainted with the problem posed by a large number of people living in hilly topography, and we are looking closely at that.

If the Minister is not aware of the fact that the survival of ITV Digital can be only a matter of days, he should be. Talk about what the communications Bill, which will not become law until next year, may do is pie in the sky. The success of digital terrestrial television depends on a proper element of competition between at least three providers. Does the Minister have any immediate plans to achieve that in the next few weeks?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to speculate on this subject. He knows how sensitive the issue can be for the value of shares in the relevant companies, for example. I have no more intention of speculating on the likely outcome of discussions involving ITV Digital than I have on the likely date of the next revival in Welsh rugby.

That certainly is a long way off, and the problem of ITV Digital is more serious and urgent. It is not a matter of speculating about what will happen to ITV Digital. Everyone is aware of the acute problems that it faces, and the Minister has just told the House that the Government have no strategy to address them. Does he understand that the survival of ITV Digital has been made much more difficult by the Government's failure to set a clear timetable for digital switchover, to turn up the digital signal and to modernise the media ownership rules, as my ten-minute Bill would have done a couple of weeks ago? Does he agree that dithering by Ministers on all the issues is leading rapidly to a disaster for ITV Digital subscribers and for football, and is a huge setback for Britain, which had the chance to lead the world in digital television until Ministers set about squandering it?

That rant serves only to undermine further the position of some important companies in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take such stupid speculation outside the Chamber.

It is serious if the digital platform goes. Sky was originally going to be an investor in digital terrestrial television. Is that a possibility if the box itself is controlled by the new Ofcom status?

We will present our plans for regulation when we publish our communications Bill, which, as I said, will be soon.

What the intended use is of the former King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers, Osborne. [43144]

We are currently considering a range of options with English Heritage. These include using the lower floors to enhance visitors' appreciation of the house and the estate, using the upper floors for holiday lets and conferences, and opening parts of the gardens previously restricted to convalescent home use.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Since the Government took the decision, which is much regretted on the island, to close the convalescent home more than two years ago, nothing appears to have happened. How are the Government complying with the requirement of the Osborne Estates Acts 1902 and 1914, which state:

"As a memorial to Her late Majesty"

"shall devote the rest of Osborne House and the grounds under their management to be used for the benefit of officers of His Majesty's naval and military forces or their wives, widows or family"?

I do not believe that that is the law on the matter. English Heritage is undertaking external repairs to the property. That work has been delayed, and we estimate that it will be completed by December 2003.

When the Government plan to bring forward legislation on gambling. [43145]

May I begin by expressing the shock and sadness felt, I believe, throughout the House on the tragic death of Ben Hollioake, the Surrey and England all-rounder? I would like, if I may, to send our sincere condolences to the family. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to the family. Many would say that this accident has robbed us of one of our brightest young talents.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I look forward to seeing him in the Chamber tomorrow when he makes an oral statement on the content of his proposals. The House will expect him to make that statement because of the enormous importance of the proposals to the gambling industry. Will he take this opportunity today to confirm to the House that his plans will safeguard the future of the jackpot machines on which so many members' clubs depend for their survival?

There will be a debate on the document and the Bill in Government time. It is right that the document is printed tomorrow and that Members have time to reflect on the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman said, the document is a comprehensive response to the Budd report, so it would be wrong to have that discussion tomorrow. We believe that there should be a full debate in Government time, and that will be arranged.

Will the Minister consider carefully the effects of the proposals on the mostly family-run seaside fairgrounds and arcades? These are places of wholesome entertainment, not gambling addiction.

That highlights the need to publish the document and let Members reflect on it. We shall have a thorough debate on it in Government time, and I hope that what my hon. Friend hears tomorrow will be helpful to him.

Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the proposals for resort casinos contained in the report, and recognise that while they offer enormous opportunities for a town like Blackpool, some sections of the community are genuinely concerned? Will he ensure that there is full consultation on those important proposals with local communities, especially in towns such as Blackpool?

My hon. Friend knows that the issue was raised in the Budd report; the Government will state their position in their response. The gambling industry is extremely important: it employs 125,000 people, has a turnover of £7 billion, and contributes in excess of £1 billion to this country's tax revenues. It is therefore important that we get our policy right. When hon. Members have read the document published tomorrow, they will take a view and we will debate the matter in the House.

It is good news that a full response to the Budd report is to be published tomorrow. Will the Minister confirm that as the Government's proposals develop from a response to the report and into a Bill, he will hold further consultation with the leaders of the reputable parts of that important industry, in particular the British Amusement Catering Trades Association?

Yes. We have consulted the industry, including BACTA and many others who have a vested interest, to make sure that we deal with the gambling industry in a way that enables its potential to be realised, while ensuring that we keep the controls and restraints that have given the UK gambling industry its international credibility. We shall maintain a close working relationship and consultation with those who have a vested interest.

If she will make a statement on the progress being made to ensure a fairer distribution of lottery funds following the introduction of the fair shares policy. [43146]

Fair shares is a major initiative designed to target funding at the deprived areas that have benefited least from the lottery. The Government will continue to encourage lottery distributors to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from lottery funding.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. How many and what percentage of applications have been successful, and who decides?

Fair shares is a new programme that is to start at the beginning of April. I announced it to the House two or three weeks ago. It is designed to meet a specific problem—namely, deprived areas that have received less than the average share of lottery funding. I announced a further consultation on the future of lottery distribution last week. I believe that we will go further and take steps through the distributors to ensure that every part of the country receives the entitlement to lottery funding that those throughout the country who play the lottery have the right to expect.

The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the cardinal principles stated in the 1997 White Paper on the lottery was hat it should be operated through an arm's-length procedure, free from Government interference. The lottery has now operated for several years with a surplus of several billion pounds, but that money has been tied up with red tape, with the result that worthy applicants cannot access the funds. That gives the lottery a thoroughly bad name. Will the right hon. Lady investigate and ensure that the bureaucracy and red tape binding the lottery are rapidly diminished so that applicants can get the money that they deserve?

The hon. Gentleman confuses several points in his question. I assume that he is referring to lottery balances—the money held in the national lottery distribution fund on behalf of the distributors. Almost all this money is overcommitted: it awaits distribution to specific approved projects.

Is it not the case that the west midlands and east midlands have been poorly treated in relation to lottery distribution? If and when the Wembley project fails next month, as it deserves to, would not a way of bridging the gap be to reallocate the project immediately, preferably to Coventry or perhaps to Birmingham? Did my right hon. Friend see the comments in the Evening Standard next week about Wembley? The Standard said:

"The transport links are dreadful, the surroundings grim, the whole area unequipped to handle major sporting events. It is nostalgia gone mad."

Let me take issue with my hon. Friend on both parts of his question. First, it is not the case that the east midlands and west midlands have done badly from the lottery. Parts of the west midlands have certainly received less than their fair share; they are among the 51 areas that will benefit from the fair shares programme. On my hon. Friend's second point, the development of the Wembley stadium is a Football Association project, funded by the lottery. It is not for Government to intervene and pull the plug or anything else on a national stadium project that we hope will succeed.

Although I wish the fair shares initiative success, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to say that it will not prejudice in any way the quality or worthiness of applications for lottery funding? Will she give an assurance, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was asking, that there is a strong case for making applications simpler? I was involved with one on behalf of a charitable trust; we experienced extraordinary difficulties in seeking to apply for funds for a particular project.

The hon. Gentleman is right; it is important to be vigilant about reducing bureaucracy. That was one of the points in the proposals that I set out last week, and includes lottery distributors being more collaborative and working together to enable local community groups and other organisations that wish to submit bids that do not fit clearly with one distributor to do so. The awards for all scheme is a good example of that kind of collaboration.

Given the dispute between English Members about the site of a new football stadium, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better if money were saved and teams were invited to play in Glasgow or Cardiff, where they would be assured of a warm welcome? The money thus saved could be spent in areas like my own, where many constituents have particular difficulty with the complexity of the forms. Ordinary working-class volunteers find it immensely difficult to fill in all the forms and jump through all the hoops, which deters many of them from making an application. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far better not to waste that money in England but to spend it in Glasgow instead?

I note my hon. Friend's observation. I only add that yes, of course much more can be done by the distributors to solicit applications from parts of the country that have not yet put in bids. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), who has led a group of Members on both sides of the House in driving forward the determination to ensure that every part of the country and every community has the opportunity to benefit from the lottery.

May I echo the sentiments of the Minister for Sport about the tragic loss of Ben Hollioake, a talented young cricketer whose potential will never be realised?

May I try to clear up some confusion that the hon. Lady clearly has, which she also had when she spoke on behalf of her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), in the debate two or three weeks ago? Money in the lottery balances is not underspent. It is money that has been committed to projects, but that has not yet been spent. It is not free and unallocated; it is waiting to be spent—on projects under the fair shares policy, in coalfield communities, and so forth.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Hamilton receives one of the lowest amounts of lottery funding. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents, I thank her for including south Lanarkshire in the group that will be targeted under the fair shares policy. What kind of publicity will there be to ensure that local charitable organisations are given the opportunity to apply? If there is such a campaign, when will it run?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is a matter for the lottery distributors, but he touches on an important gap. In deprived communities particularly, where there are not large numbers of voluntary organisations and active civic organisations, there is often simply not enough awareness of how the lottery works, how it can be accessed and what it can do. It is that information gap that we need to overcome. That will in turn ensure that our objective of every community benefiting from the lottery will be achieved.

What representations she has received from the existing regulators with regard to the shadow Ofcom. [43147]

All the existing regulators have welcomed the proposal to establish the Office of Communications and have been working closely with my Department and the Department for Trade and Industry on setting up the new body.

I am sure that the Minister would agree with me that part of the point of setting up Ofcom is to have a genuinely new body that is focused on the converged world and is a product of that converged world. Does he share any of my concerns about the fact that the communications Bill is being developed with a large input from the existing regulators' staff, who are uncertain of their status and even of whether they will still be employed under the new regime? Is he entirely confident that that level of input from the old regime is the best way to develop a regulatory regime for the future?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we are not being overly influenced by existing regulators or by any influence that they care to bring to bear on the debate. We have tried to consult as widely as possible, and once we have published the Bill there will be a period of about three months for further consultation. I very much hope that everyone—existing regulators as well as everyone else involved in the industry—will contribute to that consultation, and I am very confident that they will. We have very few opportunities in a generation to make a good job of regulation, as I am confident we will under the Bill.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that when the chief executive of the regulatory body for the Independent Television Commission appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on which I serve, she was extremely weak? Very disappointingly, she knew very little about children and advertising—a subject on which more than 120 Members have supported a ban for the under-fives. Furthermore, does he accept that there is a clash between what the Department of Health is promoting for children and health, and what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is allowing in terms of advertising aimed at children? As we have seriously obese children in this country, that is a very serious topic.

I have read my hon. Friend's early-day motion on the subject. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met her to discuss the matter.

What the total sum of unclaimed lottery prizes was at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what is the largest single unclaimed amount. [43148]

The total of unclaimed national lottery prizes was £455.6 million as at 19 March, and the largest single unclaimed amount was just over £3 million.

While we should all be grateful to the national lottery for raising about £3 million every day for worthy causes over the past eight years, do not the Government and Camelot think that an inquiry should be made into why so many people do not claim their lottery prizes? Is there a case for putting a public notice at the place where tickets are sold if there is an unclaimed prize of £1,000 or more? Does the Minister accept that his figures are startling and that we should do something about the matter?

The hon. Gentleman has a point, and I will raise it with Camelot. No one wants to see prizes unclaimed. When I saw the figures, I thought that they were staggering. There is nearly £500 million of unclaimed prize money. However, the rules are in place. If the ticket is lost or has been stolen, a claim can he made within 30 days. A claim can be made within 180 days if the claimant has the ticket. There is accommodation for late claiming. If a ticket has been lost or burnt in a fire, for example, that is catered for by the rules.

Has the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) lost his ticket?

No, I do not think so, but I will raise that with Camelot.

If there is unclaimed lottery money, amateur rugby league clubs—Leigh has some of the best in the country—would gladly take it off my right hon. Friend's hands and make use of it. To date, rugby league at the grass roots has received only £12 million from the £1 billion or more in the sports lottery fund—less than a third of the money given to rugby union. Does he agree that rugby league is owed more from the lottery? Does he further agree that giving money to amateur rugby league clubs would be one of the best ways of fulfilling the Government's objective—

Order. The question is about prizes, not distribution.

If she will make a statement on the requirement of broadcasting legislation that television drama based on recent historical events should be treated with due impartiality. [43149]

The BBC, under the BBC charter and agreement, and other broadcasters under the Broadcasting Act 1996, are required to preserve due impartiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or those relating to current public policy. Those general requirements would apply, if relevant, to drama based on recent historical events.

I thank the Minister for that excellent reply, which is absolutely right. Will he join me in giving a pat on the back to the BBC for its decision, at last, to broadcast "The Falklands Play" by the distinguished playwright, Ian Curteis, on the 20th anniversary of the Falklands crisis, both on BBC Radio 4 and on the new BBC 4 digital television channel?

I believe that the right authorities for deciding what should be shown on television are the television companies and the owners. The House would be a very poor place in which to make decisions on what should or should not be on television.

I am glad that the Minister said that it is not the role of Government to interfere in the creative process. They should be cautious about increasing any type of regulation, because it smacks of censorship. It must be up to the broadcasters to decide what is broadcast. It is important that we allow our playwrights to dramatise events that may have occurred in the recent past. We often get a greater understanding of motivations and events through dramatisation, which may be slightly fictionalised.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

If she will make a statement on her Department's support for the British music industry. [43151]

We can be rightly proud of the quality of music produced in this country, and I fully recognise the enormous cultural and economic value that the industry represents. We are working closely with the industry to ensure its continued success at home and abroad.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous diversity in music in this country, from folk music to jazz, from classical music to garage—[Laughter.] I had to mention garage for my daughter. Does he agree that it is important that we take account not only of the producers and publishers of music but of the interests of those that distribute music, including companies such as Britannia in my constituency, which plays a vital role in distributing every day the largest range of music as widely as possible, both in this country and abroad through exports?

Britannia does an excellent job in distributing music. The music industry faces a great problem with distribution. A great part of society has a strange attitude towards what amounts to the stealing of intellectual property rights from musicians, composers, orchestras and so on through the internet. Napster was a classic example. It is important that we try to change those attitudes and that culture. The distributors have an important part to play in that. They must not only go about the business of distributing and selling music—and indeed of commissioning and promoting it—but move beyond that to try to convince young people that if we cut off its creative roots, music will not be available to buy in future.

It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that EMI faces difficulties: it is to shed some 1,800 jobs. That seems symptomatic of the music business, whose situation can only be described as patchy. May I press the Minister further on what he and his Department intend to do about the vexed issue of music piracy? As he knows, the music industry has identified it as a very real and damaging issue.

Over the past few years, we have worked to try to pull together all the enforcement agencies, from trading standards officers to the special police forces that the owners of intellectual property rights, especially the big recording companies, have set up, to try to track down the thieves who are rather romantically called pirates. They are thieves. They are taking away the only source of revenue of one of our most important industries: it is worth perhaps £4.5 billion to this country and employs a lot of people. It is important that we do not lose impetus in taking these thieves on, tracking them down, punishing them and stopping their activities wherever they happen. That means that we must move across borders and continents.

What meetings she has held with officials at Buckingham palace regarding the celebrations for the Queen's golden jubilee. [43152]

I have had a number of meetings since taking over responsibility for the jubilee celebrations. My officials are in contact with the palace on a daily basis.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the international fun in athletics team event on 5 July in the millennium stadium in Cardiff, organised by UK Athletics under the leadership of my good friend. George Bunner? It will bring teams from the UK and South Africa together in a decathlon event that will have worldwide coverage and be a great way of celebrating the Queen's golden jubilee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be a great vehicle to export the idea of the jubilee across the Commonwealth?

That is but one opportunity, and it chimes well with the themes of the jubilee that the Queen has set and that are very much shaping the planning of events over the jubilee weekend and throughout the rest of the year.

What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Government on the reduction of the minimum age for voting. [43172]

The commission has been working closely with the Government's children and young people's unit on the "Y vote, Y not?" project, which is consulting young people about measures to encourage increased participation in elections. One suggestion is to reduce the minimum voting age. The commission has told the Government that it intends in due course to reconsider that as part of its programme of reviewing electoral law and practice.

I am delighted by that reply, which represents a sound way forward. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the public's disenchantment with politics in general and of young people's disengagement in particular. It is right that we should consult widely with young people in considering that important issue.

The commission will note with interest the hon. Gentleman's comments, which are somewhat in line with my own views.

If we are asking people to fight in Afghanistan at the age of 19, should not we think about allowing them to vote at 16?

I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but the commission has to take into account a variety of views. Several different views are represented even within the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take in one of those views now? Although it is absolutely correct to encourage young people to take an interest and participate in voting, many people feel that it would not be sensible to reduce the minimum voting age.

The hon. Gentleman's different point of view will have been noted by the commission.

What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had to bring the Church of England within the jurisdiction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. [43173]

Although there is no general exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act for the Church of England, the Act contains a limited exemption for cases where that is necessary to comply with a religious body's doctrines or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its members.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that in Wales the ordination of women happened even later than in England. Does he agree that if the Church is to be relevant to modern society, women and men should have access to all jobs regardless?

The national Church institutions have a comprehensive equal opportunities policy that applies to all their employees and a rolling programme of diversity awareness training for staff. As regards the ordination of women priests, the Church aims to follow best practice in so far as the provisions of employment law apply.

What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to encourage individual parochial church councils to undertake maintenance of church buildings. [43175]

Parishes can draw upon the advice of the Council for the Care of Churches but need no encouragement, if money can be found, to maintain or repair our nation's churches, the general condition of which are a credit to the work that they carry out.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he accept that the problem rests principally on rural churches, where there are particularly sparse congregations, and on some of our great inner-city churches, where the local congregations are not as wealthy as in other areas? Will he reflect, with me, on the joy and pleasure in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that our town church, which needed to raise £70,000 for roof repairs, has been successful in raising that money by various means, not least the generosity and good sense of my constituents?

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. Demographic changes mean that there are churches where there is no population. A diminution in traditional building skills means that simple works cost disproportionately more than in the past. We welcome his statement about his church in Sutton Coldfield. He is right: by virtue of huge voluntary fund-raising efforts by churchgoers, friends associations, local communities and others, and to a lesser extent the welcome support of the state, such costs are being met in the manner to which he referred.

How many accidents involving hunting with dogs on Church lands have been notified to them since 1995. [43176]

None.

Is there an obligation on the tenants of Church land to report accidents to the Church Commissioners and if not, why not? Is not it about time that the Church of England showed some moral leadership on the issue and banned hunting with dogs on its land? Finally—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has put two supplementary questions. He is only entitled to one.

I am grateful to you for your protection, Mr. Speaker. Two in a court of law is quite sufficient; three in the House of Commons is overwhelming.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what consultation has been held with tenants of Church land as to whether they are in favour of hunting with hounds?

The position of the Church Commissioners is that our long-standing policy on foxhunting is to allow our tenants to follow their consciences in deciding whether to allow hunts on the land that we entrust to their care.

A number of clergy support hunting. Does my hon. Friend think it strange that so-called men of God should take pleasure from seeing one of God's creatures ripped to pieces for their fun?

That was a short question. The Church recognises many differences on theological issues and many differences on foxhunting.

What consideration the Electoral Commission has given to the use of incentives to encourage voter participation in elections. [43177]

Consideration of the use of financial or other individual incentives to encourage voter participation is not currently part of the commission's planned review programme. However, I understand that the commission gave evidence to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions earlier this year on a proposal from Blackburn with Darwen council for a pilot scheme linked to the May 2002 local elections that would have involved entering all electors in a prize draw. The commission concluded that the proposed scheme did not fall within the legal framework for electoral pilot schemes set out in the Representation of the People Act 2000.

Rather than considering ideas such as compulsory voting, would not it be better to offer incentives for people to vote? Perhaps we could have a good citizens tax credit or a free lottery ticket—as in the suggestion described by the right hon. Gentleman—on the basis that, for citizenship, the carrot would be better than the stick.

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view but I believe that such proposals would face many legal and some ethical obstacles. Several other pieces of legislation might bear on them. As I said, the Electoral Commission has no current plans to conduct a review on the feasibility of introducing such proposals, but is considering a wide range of initiatives to encourage voter participation and to make the process of voting more accessible and user-friendly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for those for whom financial incentives are beyond the pale, a cheap—indeed, free—incentive would be to allow voters to vote at any polling station? In this age of modern technology, it must be possible for lists to be available at any polling station. Would the commission look into that?

The commission is looking into the possibility of voters being able to vote at more than one polling station.

Whether it has asked the Electoral Commission to report on the desirability of an upper limit on donations from private individuals to political parties. [43179]

The Committee is not responsible for determining the Electoral Commission's work programme. Accordingly, we have made no request to the commission to report on the desirability of an upper limit on donations from private individuals to political parties, nor do we have any plans to do so. However, in its 2001 report on the general election, the commission stated its intention to look at the case for introducing a cap on party donations as part of a wider examination of state funding

In welcoming that reply, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the problems created by large donations, even when the motives of donor and recipient are pure? Such donations often create the perception that parties will feel beholden to donors. Will he ask the Electoral Commission to examine the early-day motion on that subject, through which many hon. Members have expressed support for a limit of £100,000? Indeed, some have amended the figure to £20,000. Will he also ask the commission to consider the experience of Quebec, which has had a donations limit of 3,000 dollars for many years?

I shall certainly draw the commission's attention to that early-day motion and to that experience. Of course, measures have so far concentrated on transparency and disclosure and the regular reporting of donations by parties.

If he will make a statement on poverty among clergy members. [43182]

A survey of stipendiary clergy, which considered their financial circumstances, among other matters, was undertaken by the Archbishops Council in 1999. A copy of it and its results is available in the Commons Library.

My hon. Friend is doubtless well aware of the poverty that affects the clergy throughout this country. A modern society ought to ensure that we pay the clergy, who should not be so dependent on the Church. Can we look forward to their being paid proper salaries with regular increases?

About one third of clergy said that they had debts, excluding mortgages, car loans or interest-free credit arrangements. Very few clergy—about 5 per cent.—had applied for, or were intending to apply for, working families tax credit. Fewer than 4 per cent. received any other state benefits, excluding child allowance. However, we of course take on board my hon. Friend's point.

If he will make a statement on the contribution made by the Church Commissioners to clergy stipends and pensions. [43184]

I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman is again present for Church Commissioners' questions.

I am grateful to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for that information, but could he also give that answer in percentages of the total? In any case, will he confirm that those figures underline the Church Commissioners' important contribution to clergy stipends and pensions, and that the real lesson is that—within ethical restraints—we should encourage the commissioners to maximise their assets, because they are doing a worthwhile job in a noble way?

On percentages and the pensionable stipend, in line with actuarial advice, the contribution rate will rise from 21.9 per cent. to 29.1 per cent. with effect from 1 April, and to 29.5 per cent. from 1 January. The hon. Gentleman's other points are valuable and will certainly be heard in other quarters.

What reviews the Commission has undertaken into allowing electors to vote at any polling station. [43186]

The Commission is examining the matter. It has not undertaken a formal review of the principle of allowing electors to choose any polling station at which to vote, but it has declared its intention to press forward an agenda for making voting easier and more user-friendly. As part of that agenda, it will evaluate several pilot schemes during the May 2002 local elections, including a scheme to allow voters to choose from among a number of polling station locations the one at which they want to vote.

If I may link my right hon. Friend's answer to the issue of younger voters, will the commission consider locating polling stations in schools with sixth forms and sixth form centres, and in colleges and universities? If we are to get young people to vote, it is much more likely that they will vote if the voting place is somewhere that they have to go during that day.

I shall pass on my hon. Friend's interesting suggestions to the Commission.

Will the commission also consider electoral abuse at polling stations, and study my Adjournment debate on 4 July last year about intimidation in polling stations in my constituency at the general election? Will it also consider other abuses, including introducing stricter requirements for enforcing the law on leaflets distributed without imprints and those that tell people not to vote for sitting MPs and that are distributed months before the election?

The commission has studied the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate, as have I, and I believe that he has met or communicated with the chairman of the commission on those matters. Although the commission is not the prosecuting authority in such matters—it is a matter for the police if an offence has been committed—it reviews the effectiveness of the law and whether any changes are required. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's efforts are being carefully considered.