What further licensing measures she proposes to take to tackle drunken behaviour in town and city centres. [137023]

The prevention of crime and disorder is a key objective of the Licensing Act, which received Royal Assent this summer. Its provisions include expanded police powers to close premises that are disorderly or noisy; the ability to review licences when problems arise, backed by an extended range of sanctions; and new powers to allow local authorities to address problems when the number of licensed premises reaches saturation point—an issue raised by many hon. Members. It also includes new offences to deal with drunk and disorderly behaviour in licensed premises and the introduction of flexible opening hours to reduce binge drinking and avoid flash points at closing time.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her response and for the positive moves that the Government have taken, but does she accept that the problem in many town and city centres is not one of individually badly run premises, but the cumulative effect of so many people who have had too much to drink coming out on to the streets? Will she keep an open mind about the possibility of making it a licence condition that in designated entertainment areas those premises should be required to co-operate with the local police through radiocommunications systems or to make a modest contribution towards the cost of policing town and city centres?

I thank my right hon. Friend for asking that question. Yes, there is indeed provision in the Licensing Act 2003 for local authorities, on the basis of representations from the police, to add conditions to the premises licence—for example, the need to have radio pagers, toughened glass and CCTV—on evidence of drunk and disorderly behaviour. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, those conditions were directly negotiated and supported by the Home Secretary. The provisions do not, however, include a levy of the kind that my right hon. Friend requests.

Drunken misbehaviour is a major problem in Oswestry and Market Drayton. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to giving local citizens greater opportunities to appeal against local authorities that issue licences in the teeth of police advice?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Licensing Act 2003 provides, for the first time ever, the opportunity for individual residents to make representations about licensing decisions. There will be an appeal mechanism, but the key change that has been achieved through the modernised licensing law is the power that it gives to citizens and local communities, and the new powers it gives to the police.

I know that the Secretary of State was in Liverpool on Friday, but I do not know whether she had time to come under the tunnel into Birkenhead. If she had, she would have seen that there, as in many other city centres, there are several pubs and clubs whose main aim, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, is to get as many people as possible drunk as quickly as possible. The cost of policing the inner parts of Birkenhead is £140,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend speak with her colleagues in the Home Office to see whether that charge would not better be borne by those who run the trade than by ratepayers who wish to see more police on the beat, but do not want them to be used to herd together drunk and disorderly citizens?

I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. Sadly, on this occasion, I did not have the opportunity to visit Birkenhead. I visited Toxteth and Wavertree and also went to the town hall for a briefing on capital of culture events. I hope to visit Birkenhead on another occasion.

We are grateful to the Secretary of State for confirming our understanding of the position—that the new licensing regime will provide great opportunities for complaints to be made when licensed premises are responsible for drunken or loutish behaviour. That being so, why will the Government apparently allow the costly brewster sessions to go ahead next year? That archaic triennial event is likely to cost applicants in excess of £11 million. Why cannot that money be put to better use in tackling the problems of drunkenness, rather than in paying legal support costs?

I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on that point—

Copy it to us.

I will copy it to all those hon. Members who have an interest in the matter on behalf of their constituents. The purpose of the new licensing regime is to protect children and reduce the levels of antisocial behaviour associated with drunkenness. The measures are adequate to that task.

We all know that in much of Europe towns are taken over by families in the evenings, but in this country families are driven out of towns in the evenings. We must get a grip of that problem. Might not that involve making town centres alcohol-free zones?

Steady on!

The short answer is no. We would not receive popular support for making city centres alcohol-free zones, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) makes an important point that the new licensing regime reflects. Local authorities will have much greater discretion to set conditions to promote family-friendly pubs. Many more pubs now serve food, and people want to take their children to them. It is a question of balance between liberalisation and protecting children from drunkenness and antisocial behaviour. Some local authorities will be clear that children should never be allowed in some pubs, but in country areas and smaller towns, a family-friendly atmosphere is to be encouraged. That is why we have a flexible licensing regime.

If she will make a statement on the funding of (a)libraries,(b)museums and (c) archives. [137025]

Libraries, museums and archives receive funding from a number of sources, with the principal funder being local government. My Department's aim is to ensure that its support for those three sectors is complementary and strategic, and focused on the areas of greatest need and greatest potential to deliver Government priorities.

I thank the Minister for her response. Are there any plans to slash funding for London's greatest art collections, as reported by someone who was apparently speaking on her behalf, to pay for regional galleries? If those reports are correct, does the Minister agree that we need some blue-sky thinking and should give the regional development agencies a role in filling the funding gap of £180 million that was identified by the regional museums task force in 2001?

I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I usually speak for myself and not through someone speaking on my behalf. The Evening Standard, The Sunday Times and other papers were plain wrong about it. The hon. Gentleman may have read the letter I wrote to the Evening Standard, which made that absolutely clear. The Government have an excellent record as the first Government to fund regional museums through the renaissance in the regions programme. I want that to flourish and grow, and I hope that it will be supported. At the same time, we have also increased funding for national museums and galleries. That is our record and that will continue to be our practice.

My hon. Friend is no doubt well aware of the important role that local and independent museums such as the Dean Heritage Museum in the Forest of Dean play in the culture of our country. What plans does she have for strategic funding for local, independent museums?

Those museums play an important role, and I hope that they can become partners in strategic funding and can work with hub museums. There are 4,000-plus museums throughout the United Kingdom, and the sector is one that the Government neither do nor should control. People have the right to set up museums, and they do so every year. It would be inappropriate ever to have a grand strategic plan to cover every museum, but I want to do all that we can to make sure that local people have a coherent and cohesive service. More importantly, I want museums to be encouraged to work together, which has not, historically, been the practice of the sector.

Is the Minister satisfied with the acquisition budgets of our great national museums and galleries, and when will she be able to make an announcement on the Raphael that the National Gallery is so anxious to acquire?

The hon. Gentleman asks two questions in one. On the Raphael, the tax matters are very complex. I am eager to make an announcement as quickly as I can, and I have pushed our advisers to come up with that advice. I could not act without necessary and specialist advice from tax officials, but I have just received it and hope to make an announcement in due course.

If she will make a statement on rate relief for amateur sports clubs. [137026]

The Government introduced an amendment to the Local Government Bill in September to provide for mandatory rate relief at 80 per cent. for registered community amateur sports clubs. In excess of 500 clubs had successfully applied for registration by 31 October, and a similar number of applications is in the pipeline. I strongly advise all clubs to apply for mandatory relief.

That reply is very welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cycling will benefit greatly from rate relief, as it is the many small amateur clubs that nurture the cycling stars of tomorrow?

I very much agree. Last week, I attended a conference in Brighton organised by a good team of people—I pay tribute to Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the Inland Revenue, Deloitte Touche and Richard Baldwin, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Sport England, and the National Playing Fields Association—who got together to make sure that the message is going out to amateur clubs. Cycling, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has a very good governing body, which is linking in on this matter and into new development in schools.

The Minister will be aware that I recently led a delegation from the CCPR, representing a number of amateur sports clubs, to see Baroness Scotland about some of the extra costs that have been loaded on to amateur sport. While the Minister's recent announcement is welcome, does he recognise that the extra costs of such things as the Criminal Records Bureau have put a lot of pressure on sports, particularly those, such as swimming, that find it difficult to attract funding? Will he consider the costs imposed on sport as well as the potential benefits of his changes?

That is true, and those representations were made. Through Sport England, we are in dialogue with all the governing bodies. The hon. Gentleman will accept that we must put in place regulations of the type he referred to in order to protect young people particularly children—in various sports clubs. We have to make sure that parents believe in the integrity of coaching and the development of sports clubs. If we do not, there will be a distraction from, not an attraction to, sport.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the news of rate relief will be particularly welcome to the 1,000 members of Selby bowls club, who were recently bowled over when Selby district council increased its rate bill from zero last year to £12,000 this year? Will he emphasise that rural district councils such as Selby can offer 100 per cent. rate relief where they think it appropriate? That may be particularly relevant to small village cricket clubs, which are such an important part of village life.

That news is welcome. Investment is being made through community amateur sports clubs, 500 of which had applied for relief by 31 October. Of those claims, 105 involved gift aid, and the amount saved for those clubs is £147,000. The best of them got £32,000 back, and half a dozen or so have had about £8,000, which means a lot of money is going back to sports clubs. The cash is working, and we have added mandatory rate relief and hope to get local authorities to offer the further 20 per cent. All that is a major injection into amateur sport in this country.

What steps she is taking to support amateur sport. [137027]

As well as mandatory rate relief for amateur sports clubs, the Government are providing about £60 million over the period 2003–04 to 2004–05 for club facilities in 16 sports. The amateur sector has benefited substantially from wider Sport England lottery funding, and will continue to do so. Links between schools and local clubs are also to be strengthened under the PE, school sport and club links programme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, but will he bear in mind the fact that when I used to coach my local rugby union side in the mid-1980s we ran five senior sides, whereas now we struggle to get two sides out—and even when we do so it is often difficult to find anyone to play against. There are real difficulties in respect of participation. We all recognise the importance of sport in dealing with crime and with health issues such as obesity and drugs, and in education and so on, so what more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure co-ordination between Departments to improve participation in sport?

As we are talking about rugby union, I am sure the House will send both our congratulations and our hopes for next Saturday in the match against France, as well our hopes that we pick up that silverware in the final the Saturday after.

After a struggle.

The best is yet to come.

Will the Minister explain the incentives for amateur sports? I play for a cricket club in my constituency which runs five senior sides and makes a significant contribution to promoting junior and youth cricket, yet I do not think it will qualify for rate relief because the top team is in the first league of the Surrey Championship and the club employs a professional. Should not all sports that are being run on a voluntary basis receive rate relief and consistent support? Whether such clubs are big or little, they all contribute to the community.

As I have just explained, a number of tax breaks, including gift aid, are available as soon as a club registers as a community amateur sports club; on top of that we have now introduced the mandatory rate relief of 80 per cent. We are also investing in the club structure. The England and Wales Cricket Board is developing the game at the grass-roots level and any club that is registered with the board can apply. The relationship between clubs and the governing body has been strengthened and I hope that will ensure that more young people come into the sport. The big four sports are working together much more effectively to try to create a critical mass of young people who do not play only one individual sport but who cross over to other sports.

A welcome if unexpected source of support for amateur football in recent years has been the premier league, which, as a consequence of the current television deal, has invested about £60 million in football's grass roots. However, there is currently some doubt about that as the competition directorate in Brussels is looking into the structure of the premier league television deal. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that the competition authorities in Brussels are fully aware of the public interest benefits that the current television arrangements bring to English football?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are making representations to the Department of Trade and Industry, which has responsibility for competition policy. However, I want to put it on record that we have one of the best redistributions, with moneys coming into football being passed both to the amateur game and to the professional sport. Our record is probably better than that in any European league; £60 million is being invested through the Football Foundation and the youth development trusts and they are doing a good job. That is not to say that they could not do better but, relatively speaking, they are doing better than their counterparts in Europe.

Although the £60 million and the rate relief for amateur sports clubs are clearly welcome, given that the Minister has acknowledged that obesity is increasing and that participation in amateur sports clubs is predicted to fall, what is he doing to take urgent action to try to get the regional sports boards, which have been delayed by up to a year, fully operational, so that they too can play a part by distributing the frozen lottery grants?

It is untrue to say that the boards have been delayed by a year. On the contrary, I had dinner last Sunday night with all the chairmen of the new sports boards and the Sport England board in Manchester, and the following day—a week ago today—they were discussing how they would devolve to the regions the moneys that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State secured on the back of our bid for the Olympics. So £100 million of new money will go into the multi-sports clubs throughout the country. On top of that, we are investing £500 million through local education authorities and £130 million in sport and arts in the community. All that investment is going in, and the sports boards now have a major influence on how that money is spent in a much more strategic way than was probably previously the case.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although what he has said is very good news and the Government and the lottery are doing a lot to help amateur sport, we still have too many poor and waterlogged pitches for amateur sports, that those pitches need better drainage and that all our amateur clubs need acceptable training and changing facilities?

That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that we start to bring all public assets—including schools, universities and further education colleges—into play for all communities. If we start to do that, we will find that there is access to many more facilities than has been the case, but I caution my hon. Friend that there is a changing mood out there: many young people want to play not on soggy pitches but on new synthetic pitches, where, if they want to, they can play 24 hours a day, seven days a week under floodlit conditions, and many of our young people rightly want to play indoors. If we compare our indoor tennis facilities with those in France, we find that the French beat us something like 10:1, and we need to rethink that. That is why I believe that some of those who have campaigned only for playing fields have probably misread the debate about such things in the recent past.

How can the imposition of additional costs and regulation in any way be described as support for amateur sport? Why is the Minister reneging on commitments given by his predecessor that the new licence fees under the Licensing Act 2003 would not adversely affect amateur sport and sports clubs, when it is clear from the representations that he has received from amateur sports bodies that that is the case?

We have not decided what the fees will be, so I do not know how people can make such assessments. We are bringing six regulatory regimes into one, and we will have to see how that plays out. A number of sports clubs could gain from the new regime that is coming in, and we will wait and see. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a commitment that we will revisit the issue three years after the implementation, and we will do so. It is our intention to invest in sports clubs in the way that I have just indicated, not to make things more difficult for them. I believe that, when the new licensing provisions come into operation, we could find a very different picture from that portrayed by the hon. Gentleman.

Another relief that non-profit-making amateur sports clubs have been able to claim is exemption from VAT on building work when they want to build new changing rooms and improve their facilities. It has always been normal practice for them to get that relief, but it now appears that Customs and Excise may take a different view. Will my right hon. Friend discuss that matter with Customs and Excise? Will he look into the case of Kirkley and Pakefield community sports club in my constituency if I give him the details?

It would be wrong and very treacherous for me to step into the domain of the Chancellor or anyone else, even if my hon. Friend would like me to do so.

Go on.

No, I cannot, although I would love to.

If she will increase the Government's funding commitment for sports facilities in the west country. [137028]

Following Sport England's rationalisation and the establishment of regional sports boards, the majority of funding decisions will be taken at a regional level. Funding allocations have yet to be set by Sport England. The south-west received some 29 community capital awards from Sport England's lottery programme, totalling just over £8.5 million in the last financial year.

Is the Minister aware that selling off school sports fields has accelerated the couch-potato mentality of young people? In fact, nearly 10 per cent. of young people under the age of six are now obese, and more than 50 per cent. of the adult population are considered overweight. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Food Standards Agency's prophecy that by 2010 health problems and other health-related issues will be costing the taxpayer £3.8 billion? Would it not be better to invest the money now in sports facilities and other physical activity in schools, rather than allowing the taxpayer to spend so much money on rectifying obesity?

We have had to pick up the bits that the previous Administration left us in 1997. I should make it clear that this is the first time a Government have committed such investment in sport and physical activity. We are doing so not for philanthropic reasons but because obesity is costing the economy some £2 billion. Cases of type 2 diabetes are increasing among our young people, and the projection is that if something is not done about obesity, the economy will have to bear £3.5 billion in related costs by 2010. That is why we are investing in two hours of quality physical activity and sport for every child, every week, from the ages of five to 16; why we are investing £750 million in new sports facilities; and why we are investing the further £100 million that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State secured in respect of the Olympic bid. My announcements on mandatory rate relief, community amateur sports clubs and the £60 million investment in sports clubs are the best song that has been sung on this issue, and the biggest investment in sport for many years.

Perhaps we could return to the question of why the west country region gets the worst deal from the Government in terms of support for sports. We do not have major stadiums or the same investment in facilities largely because those who would benefit from such projects in terms of dealing with deprivation are spread evenly across the peninsula rather than being congregated in cities. Will the Minister address that underlying and fundamental problem with funding for the west country?

I would, but the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. I shall read out the figures for the south-west and compare them with those for the north-east for 2003—04, which some of my hon. Friends will be interested to hear. The total cost of schemes for the north-east was just over £11.4 million, and the total project costs were £37 million. The 29 projects in the south-west cost £8.5 million, and the total project costs were £14.5 million. So the investment—

That is half.

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I accept that there are problems in the south-west—indeed, I have made that point before in respect of football. The south-west has no premier league club, and such clubs are very important to the sporting infrastructure.

Let us have an Adjournment debate about it, then.

Order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What plans she has to amend legislation to permit museums to repatriate human remains; and if she will make a statement. [137029]

I hope to be able to use the Department of Health's proposed Bill on human tissue to relax current statutory prohibitions on the repatriation of human remains.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Several thousand human remains are held by various British museums, and a number of claims have been made over the years—mainly by native Americans, the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government—for their repatriation. The Government introduced a review two years ago, and 159 pages later, that review—the report of the working group on human remains—was published. But the Natural History Museum, which holds most of those remains, says that it achieves nothing, because under the criteria virtually none of the remains would be repatriated. So where are we now?

The hon. Gentleman is still sitting on the Bench behind the Front Bench. That is where he is at the moment.

Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that, in seeking to change the law on this important matter, she will pay due regard to the fact that the human remains kept in British museums have as much right to be considered the property of mankind—they possess both our future and our past in their genetic structures—as they have to be repatriated to some ethnic groups who wish to have them taken back?

The hon. Lady puts very well both sides of the argument, and we have to find a way through that. However, it is true that some countries have to seek information from abroad if they wish to examine the remains of indigenous people, because no such remains rest in those countries. That cannot be right. I envisage a situation in which the Natural History museum and the British Museum are willing to repatriate some of the remains if they are legally able to do so. They will be able to do that once the Bill is passed.

What recent discussions she has had with the BBC concerning television reception in rural areas. [137030]

Under the digital television action plan, we are to determine and agree a target level of UK coverage for digital terrestrial public services post-switchover. We will be discussing this with the BBC and other digital broadcasters.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she not agree that there is now utter confusion in the provision of television signals in this country? We have analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial, freeview, cable, satellite, in-the-clear and free-to-air. Solus cards that used to be free and gave one all five channels now only provide the BBC channels until one pays £20 to be able to watch the ITV channels, and people now choose satellite and digital because they have to, because they cannot receive a decent signal elsewhere. Would not a way through this confusion be the adoption of the simple principle that, if people pay for a television licence, they should be able to receive a television signal? If they cannot get a TV signal, they should not have to pay for a TV licence.

I am not sure that it is a complicated system. If my hon. Friend wants to return to the days when there was hardly any choice of television channels, the list of ways in which to receive the signals would be shorter than the one that he has just described. I do not think that anybody wants to return there.

Access to freeview television is currently something of a postcode lottery. What would the Minister say to my constituents, such as Mrs. Agland of Seaton in East Devon, who wish to access digital programmes but cannot afford to pay for Sky television?

Over the next few years, there will be a development of both digital satellite and digital terrestrial television. I am absolutely certain that in the years to come, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, like all our constituents, will find that they can receive the channels they want. As he knows, digital television coverage is progressing well and the Government are well on course to meet their target of making a decision, if they wish, by 2010. They have made it absolutely clear that the cost for individuals will be subject to the digital plans on which they are currently working, announcements of which will be made in due course.

The Minister referred to choice in broadcasting, which many hon. Members would agree is great. However, the truth of the matter is that my constituents have absolutely no choice if they are to receive most of the BBC channels and go digital—they have to get a Sky box. Will she speak to the BBC and point out that most people think that if they pay the licence fee, they should be entitled to get the BBC for free? Will she try to disabuse it of the horrible complacency into which it has fallen over the roll-out of digital terrestrial television?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. When making any recommendations that we can to the BBC, we shall point out the simple fact to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) have referred. I completely accept that one of the characteristics of public sector broadcasting is that it is a unifying force throughout the country. I accept that it is a problem if some people—no matter how few—cannot access the core provision of television channels. I undertake to do what I can, but there is no easy solution waiting to be announced tomorrow. The matter requires research, investment and, sadly, time.

Does the Minister accept that people in rural areas who are able to receive television only via satellite will resent having to pay an extra £20 one-off charge on top of the £116 annual fee that they already pay to get the BBC? Rather than charging the viewer, would it not be fairer to meet the cost of the viewing cards out of the licence fee, as at present?

I do not think that that would be the appropriate way forward. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing about a solution to the problem caused by the BBC's decision to change satellites earlier this year. I think that his constituents, and most hon. Members' constituents, will feel that paying £20 to receive the choice and channels that they want will represent money well spent.

I do not think that people will think that paying £20 is especially fair, given that they currently do not have to pay anything. Will not the number of people living in rural areas who cannot receive terrestrial or cable television be even greater if the Government go ahead with analogue switch-off? Will the Government ensure that when and if analogue transmission ceases, those who have to buy a satellite receiver will not have to pay far more than those who simply need a freeview box?

We are nowhere near the end of the line on the adaptations that need to be made so that more people may receive digital television. We made it absolutely clear in the switchover plan that the number of people who will be able to receive a digital signal should be the same as the number who can currently receive a terrestrial signal. The hon. Gentleman will see that the percentages will have increased by 2010. There are key decisions to be taken about investment in digital television and the switch from terrestrial. As I said to other hon. Members, we are in a period of change in which there is significant investment. We are making progress year on year in the number of people who have access to digital, and thus the choice that many of us take for granted.

What steps the Department is taking to involve more (a) women and (b) girls in sport. [137031]

My Department and Sport England ensure that public funding will be made available only to those governing bodies with equity agreements in place. Specifically, Sport England is putting £200,000 a year into the Women's Sports Foundation, the organisation that seeks to promote the participation of women in sport, and £180,000 a year into Sporting Equals.

I am grateful for that answer. Redcar has quite good women's participation in sport. Indeed, we recently received funding to develop girls' rugby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much easier to involve more women in sport if there were better media coverage of women's sporting events? In particular, will she take up the issue with the BBC, which has a charter commitment to provide balanced viewing? The Women's Sports Foundation is starting a campaign next week to promote better coverage. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that it has some success?

My hon. and learned Friend raises two important points. The lack of coverage, or under-representation, of women and their success in sport by the media is a fact, as recent analysis of the coverage of women's success, as opposed to men's success, in the Commonwealth games clearly showed. On the BBC, that is a good example of why the review of its charter will be accompanied by an unprecedented level of public involvement and public consultation so that those issues are raised.

If he will make a statement about measures to improve the level of clergy pensions. [137043]

What steps are being taken to increase the pensions of the clergy. [137047]

Following wide consultation on remuneration levels for serving and retired clergy, the Church believes the level of the clergy pension, which includes a lump sum on retirement, is reasonable in relation to the clergy stipend. At a time when many employers are switching to money purchase pension schemes—in effect switching risk on to the employee—the Church stands by its commitment to a defined benefit scheme.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that although the pension for those clergy who achieve maximum service is reasonable, there are concerns about those who do not achieve it either because they have come into the vocation later in life or they are female ordained clergy? Will he consider the circumstances of such people, in particular whether they can transfer their previous pension entitlement into the Church Commissioners' fund?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. He will know that pensions increased on 1 April 2003 and a further 3 per cent. increase is planned for April next year. The full service pension will rise to £11,343 per annum and the full-service lump sum to £34,030. In relation to those who joined the clergy at a later date, I confirm that they can transfer their pensions. On the wider point as to whether we should consider the circumstances as they affect their interests, I am happy to give him that assurance.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that three years ago responsibility for financing the clergy pensions transferred to parishes. I have been reading the ecclesiastical press and it seems that some well intentioned people believe that wealthy parishes are salting away their surpluses. I want to know where those wealthy parishes are, because it is not a Church-like thing to do. The money should be redistributed as between the wealthy parishes and those that are less well off.

That was a question for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for me, but I am happy to answer it.

Would the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that the Church Commissioners' ability to help clergy with their stipends and pensions is entirely dependent on returns from their assets, whether in property, equities or whatever? Is it not true that a commendable proportion of the Church Commissioners' assets or income goes to clergy stipends and pensions?

I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is entirely right that a substantial part of our income goes towards meeting those pensions. Over the past few years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken £20 million from our income, which will change to about £12 million in 2004. That impacts on finances that go towards pensions for clergy and, of course, their wives and dependants.

Given that the hon. Gentleman's defence of clergy pensions was subject to the rather critical caveat that those pensions reflected the stipend, can I seek to tempt him to say whether he agrees that clergymen are grossly undervalued in the course of their working lives, so the size of the pensions accorded to them ought to be significantly uprated? In that context, can he advance any moral argument as to why he, I and other right hon. and hon. Members should receive a larger pension than the dedicated moral clergymen of our country?

I am only too happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. The two points, if I may put my lawyer's hat on, are mutually exclusive, and one does not relate to the other. However, the hon. Gentleman is certainly right in his belief that the clergy are undervalued in our parishes. They provide an enormous contact between Church and state, which is valued by everyone. As for the basis for determining the benefits provided by the Church, which consist of a lump sum on retirement plus a pension, we try to take into account all the factors in the interests of the clergy.

What discussions the commission has had with the Scottish Executive in connection with the single transferable vote and local government elections. [137044]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is abroad on parliamentary business, and I have been asked to reply. The commission has responded to a Scottish Executive consultation exercise on the matter, stating that local government elections in Scotland do not fall within the remit that it has been given by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and that as a matter of policy it does not offer views on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems. Accordingly, the commission offered no substantive views on the use of STV—the single transferable vote—in Scottish local elections.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the introduction of the single transferable vote in the Scottish local government elections, we will have four different kinds of electoral system within Scottish boundaries? As Scottish parliamentary elections and local government elections are taking place on the same day, would the Committee consider looking at the possibility of both using the same system, namely STV?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but in response to the suggestion that the voting system for the Scottish Parliament should be changed, the commission has said that as a matter of policy it does not express a view on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems. However, he has made a fair point about the electorate's ability to understand what is going on, and the confusion that may arise if many different systems are operating. The commission's research reports, which were published last year, considered public attitudes to voting systems in the 1999 elections, and showed that understanding of the system was a factor that affected the decision about whether or not to vote in a small percentage of cases. The commission's statutory reports on the 2003 elections in Scotland and Wales will certainly draw on the results of research on public opinion to measure the electorate's comprehension of different voting systems.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there were STV for local authority elections in Scotland there would be an end to those undemocratic, monolithic Labour councils, such as the one in Glasgow, which received a minority of the vote but is controlled with a massive majority?

I can do no more than repeat that the commission has said that it does not express a view on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point in his usual forceful way.

What discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission in respect of all-postal ballots. [137045]

The statutory remit of the Speaker's Committee does not normally require it to discuss such matters with the Electoral Commission. The commission has recommended that, if all-postal voting is backed by changes in the law to minimise the risk of electoral abuses, it should become the standard approach in local elections in England and Wales. It has been directed by the Government to recommend which regions are most suitable to conduct all-postal ballots in the European parliamentary elections in 2004.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree, on behalf of the Committee, that what will be needed in whichever regions are chosen is a certain surefootedness and dynamism, and a willingness to innovate—all characteristics that we saw in abundance on the rugby field in the Welsh team at the weekend? In his discussions with the Electoral Commission, will he therefore convey the very strong support among Welsh Labour MPs for all-postal ballots in Wales next year?

I shall certainly convey those sentiments, and I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that I thought that the Wales team performed absolutely brilliantly in the rugby. If I am allowed to say so, being a quarter Welsh, I played for London Welsh schoolboys a long time ago. I shall pass on his points, which are well made.

Are the hon. Gentleman and his Committee content that, in the studies that the Electoral Commission is conducting on the pilots, it has been specifically excluded by the Government from considering whether there should be pilots at all, why there should be three, the detailed form of postal or electronic voting, and whether it should consult all returning officers after the event rather than only a selected few? Is he content that that will give a true picture of what is going on?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the paucity of pilot schemes in Wales. Election pilot schemes have been permitted at local elections in Wales for the past three years, and the law provides that the local authority concerned has to apply to the Government for permission to conduct a pilot scheme. On the balance of his question, I shall be happy to ensure that the chairman of the Electoral Commission writes to him with a very full response to a point well made.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, especially in residential homes, abuse is possible with regard to all-postal vote ballots? Does he agree that, without imposing too onerous a task on the Electoral Commission, there should be some sort of monitoring of the mental capacity of those who are offered votes, especially when they have not asked for them?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the need to ensure security, the absence of fraud, and so on, in relation to postal votes. As to the risks concerning places of multiple occupation, to minimise the risk of fraud in general in relation to postal votes, the commission is currently developing a series of tools for use by electoral staff, including best practice guidance on multiple occupation households. He makes a fair point.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House view with genuine concern a move towards all-postal ballots, because whatever is done, there is bound to be greater scope for abuse? Will he further accept that the commission might do better to turn its attention to the question of making voting compulsory if it wishes to increase turnout, rather than introducing all-postal ballots?

In relation to my hon. Friend's observation on making voting compulsory, that is not a matter that has crossed my path so far. I do not believe that we have any particular views about it, but I hear what he has to say. He said that postal voting is a significant issue. There are very different views about this matter. Many hon. Members take the view that the old-fashioned system of voting is absolutely right. It is inevitable that we will move towards postal votes for all sorts of elections, as the years pass. I think that he will agree that it is critical that we maintain security, safety and the absence of fraud whenever we can.

What consultations the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on all-postal vote pilots for the European elections in Wales. [137046]

The statutory remit of the Speaker's Committee does not normally require it to discuss such matters with the Electoral Commission. However, the commission is currently undertaking at the behest of the Government a consultative exercise on which European Parliament regions might conduct electoral pilots in 2004. I believe that recommendations will be presented to the Government by 8 December 2003.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), there is an old saying, "Three tries for a Welshman", but on some occasions even that is not enough.

If there were 10 points for a try, a different team would have been in the semi-finals.