What her policy is on preventing pornographic publications from being sold to children. [145827]

In answering, I welcome my hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but she may, one never knows, become an hon. Friend—to her new duties on the Opposition Front Bench.

I am heartened by the Secretary of State's reply. Bedfordshire's trading standards authority has clearly shown from its under-age surveillance work that children are being sold sexually explicit material, as is no doubt the case elsewhere. Will the Government make a commitment to pursue Bedfordshire's proposal that trading standards authorities be empowered to prosecute traders for selling sexually explicit material to children, just as they prosecute traders who sell them alcohol or cigarettes?

Having set out the position in my opening answer, I do not want at this stage to commit myself to the outcome of the discussions that we intend to hold. On the basis that we will examine whether the experience in Bedfordshire is a problem that faces local authorities more widely, we will engage in those discussions and produce proposals that are proportionate and practical, and we will, wherever possible, work with the industry.

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. Friend has a long-standing concern about and interest in this area. He will be aware of the Government's position, which was clearly set out during debates in both Houses on the Communications Act 2003. There are undoubtedly inconsistencies as regards the licensing of videos, the non-licensing of magazines and the unregulated status of the internet. I am committed to achieving the maximum protection for children while taking account of those inconsistencies and the increasing ease with which children are able to secure pornographic material.

Does the Minister recognise that one of the most serious problems is not the top shelf but the bottom shelves on which magazines such as More!, published by Emap, are readily on display and on sale to young children? If the Minister would take the trouble to read such magazines, she would find that they concentrate on the mechanics of sex and that they contain little moral content. It is little wonder that our children have no moral leadership in this country when that sort of material is freely available.

There is an important distinction to be drawn as regards the market for teenage magazines, which I believe provide a very important service, by and large, for many young people. Yes, those magazines provide entertainment, gossip and tittle-tattle, but for many young people—this is to be regretted—they are the principal source of information about sex, development and relationships. By and large, that is a responsibility that the magazines discharge responsibly, through the Periodical Publishers Association and other industry associations. There is all the difference in the world between those magazines and the kind of magazines to which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire referred, which are pornographic and, in some cases, questionably obscene.

What assessment she has made of the level at which women's sport is funded compared with men's sport. [145828]

Until recently, Sport England has based all its funding decisions on objective assessments of sporting need, without specific regard to gender issues. The Government's cross-departmental activity co-ordination team, the chairmanship of which is shared between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for public health. my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), will investigate whether that has produced disparities in provision as part of its work on building the evidence base for our developing sports policy. The 20 sports that will receive one-stop planning support from Sport England and UK Sport must have full equity agreements in place. Those agreements include a requirement to meet gender-funding targets that are based on the circumstances of the individual sports.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining what work is being done. She will recognise that compared with the USA, our position on women's sport is very poor. We have no professional football league for women and snooker's governing body recently withdrew funding for women's snooker. Does she recognise that without better media coverage of women's sport—the skill displayed, not just the outfits and appearance of the participants—we will continue to have difficulty in encouraging girls at school to continue with sport in the way that boys do, in emulation of their role models? Do the Government have any role in providing funding to redress the gender imbalance in the media coverage of sport?

No, I do not see a role for the Government in providing funding for media coverage. However, I see a case for funding national sports governing bodies and Sport England—as we are doing—to increase participation in sport by young women and girls. All the evidence shows that when measures are introduced to encourage more girls to take part in sports—such as the Nike initiative, which operates through school sports partnerships—they do so. The problem is greater at the grass roots level of sporting activity than at the elite end. We are well aware of the weaknesses in performance in meeting the needs of women in sport, and we intend to do everything that we can to rectify them.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the BBC should have a public service remit to cover women's sport? In the licence fee changes that may be made after 2006, will she ensure that the right of women's sport to equal coverage is printed and published in the BBC's public service remit?

That is an interesting proposition, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is active in such areas, will ensure that the current consultation on the review of the BBC's charter notes that precise point.

I welcome the Chancellor's recent acceptance—at long last—of mandatory rate relief for community and amateur sports clubs. As the Secretary of State will know, I long argued for that provision from the Dispatch Box. In view of her reply to the hon. Member for Oxford. West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), does she agree that community clubs are more likely to persuade girls and young women to take part in sport when schools and colleges are not so successful in doing so?

Such organisations have an important part to play and measures such as those announced by the Chancellor to improve the financial security of community sports clubs will help. The steps that we are taking to improve links between sport in school and in clubs, through investment in school-club links, will also increase the opportunities for participation for young women.

What assessment she has made of the recent study by Spectrum Strategy Consultants and Indepen of the value of the work of the British Library. [145829]

As my hon. Friend knows, that study estimates the value of the British Library's services to the UK economy by asking a sample of users and general public about the value they place on them. It provides positive support for the Government's continuing investment in the British Library.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she know that the results of the study show a 4:1 benefit-cost ratio? As she mentioned, the study clearly demonstrates the considerable value of the British Library's work to the country. not only in the cultural sphere but in underpinning research and innovation, which are fundamental to the competitiveness and growth of the British economy.

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the research confirms what many of us already knew—that the British Library is one of the institutions of which we have every right to be very proud. It contributes to the whole range of British activity. There is an interesting argument about the type of research that brought about those results, but I none the less applaud and recognise the work of the British Library in bringing proof that the money that is invested—taxpayers' money—is actually giving a return. I am happy to congratulate the British Library, to welcome the report and to continue to work with the library in the future.

In assessing the study, will the Minister look again at ways in which assistance could be extended for Braille lending, especially through the work of the National Library for the Blind, and ways in which that might also be offered through the British Library?

I am happy to do that. With regard to the original question, the report was made by the British Library, not by the Government; the library took the decision to fund the research and we are happy to read the report and observe it. We may act on it in the future.

If she will make a statement on the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. [145830]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that some of the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 have already commenced. The timetable for full implementation is largely dependent on the date when Parliament approves a draft of the guidance to be made under section 182 of the Act. We hope to table that draft this month, and if it is cleared either in January or early February we shall be on course for full implementation of the Act by the spring of 2005.

The Minister said in a letter to me last August that he sees the system as a "light touch" one. As he has just acknowledged, the draft guidance has not yet properly been released for the public, yet one can see it on the Department's website where it runs to about 165 pages. It states:

"This draft, prepared by officials, is being provided to enable stakeholders and officials in Government Departments to consider and comment on the proposed contents."

I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to know that that is part of a consultation process, not implementation. I can see that he has the information from the website with him. Anybody can see it; as he rightly said we put it out in August and September for wide consultation. Comments on the consultation have been received and the final draft will, I hope, be before the House before the end of this month. Both Houses of Parliament will then be able to comment on the draft, and if it is cleared by early February the full Act will be implemented by spring 2005. The material is part of the consultation that we said would take place and we have held to our word.

Will my right hon. Friend monitor carefully the impact of the new licensing law on dangerous levels of alcohol consumption? If in the course of time it appears that dangerous levels of alcohol consumption are increasing, will he look again at further reforms?

Yes, but it is not just down to the Licensing Act 2003; there is a cross-departmental approach and, I hope, a cross-party approach to the matter. The Prime Minister has set up a unit, led by the Department of Health, to look into the problems of drink. At a political level, my officials are co-operating with the Department of Health and we hope to reduce the level of binge drinking in this country.

The right hon. Gentleman has heard concerns about the Licensing Act from both sides of the House, but the principal concern for local authorities is the actual cost of its implementation. The Government have reassured councils about the costs, which include running and inspection costs, but it is primarily the set-up costs that most concern people in local authorities. Some have estimated that set-up costs could be as much as £200,000. In the past, the Government have said that there will be full recovery costs, but that has not assuaged councils such as Maidstone borough council, whose deputy chief executive Trevor Gasson wrote to the Department on 9 December:

"My concern is the extent to which the Government has totally underestimated the costs involved for local authorities in doing this job properly. Moreover, having brought it to the attention of the Secretary of State, the cavalier manner in which my comments have been treated is most disappointing."

I am disappointed to hear those comments because we met the Local Government Association just before Christmas. The meeting was led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, who is based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A range of issues, including licensing, was discussed by people from all parties, as the hon. Lady would accept, and a further meeting with the Department has been requested. The answer to the question is yes—there will be proper cost-reflected pricing. We discussed the set-up costs as well, and we believe that solutions can be found. We will sit down with the LGA—and if the local authority to which the hon. Lady refers approaches a certain party representative on the LGA, I am sure that it will be much better informed than if it approaches the Opposition spokesperson. I say that very genuinely because this is a complex issue. Local authorities and their leaders, including Conservative ones, are in dialogue, and they thanked us for the meeting that took place just before Christmas. That is a lot more than is coming across from the Opposition.

It is precisely because local authorities believe that the Government are not listening that they are approaching hon. Members such as myself, to ensure that we are fully aware of their concerns. The Minister must surely be aware that sensitivity about the council tax has now reached crisis point across the country. My own authority in Worcestershire has increased council tax by some 80 per cent. since Labour was elected in 1997. We need to determine whether this is yet another example of Labour Government stealth tax, so would he like to return to the Dispatch Box and promise hon. Members and their constituents that not a penny piece will be added to the council tax as a result of the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003?

It would be impossible to meet the 410 licensing authorities—[Interruption.]The proposition that has just been put to me is that we meet the 410 licensing authorities to discuss the issue with them individually. There are proper ways to carry out discussions with local authorities, and we are discussing this issue with the body that is responsible for local government and to which all parties subscribe: the Local Government Association. As I have said, I will meet Sir Jeremy Beecham and his officers in the very near future.

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply, may I impress on him the need for certainty in respect of the timetable for implementing the regulations? I have received representations from my local authority, which is in the process of setting its council budgets and wishes to be certain about any impact that may result from this legislation. It therefore needs to be sure about the timing of those implications on the budget.

That timetable is laid down very clearly in the Act. As I have said, as soon as both Houses approve the regulations, that kicks off the timetable, which will be six months. The first appointed day will be in July this year and the implementation period will end six months after that in the spring of 2005. The timetable is very clear. Local authorities have some concerns, but if they refer to the Act they will see that the timetable for implementation kicks in as soon as both Houses have agreed to the regulations. That is very clear.

I suspect that the House will be surprised by the Minister's complacency about the timetable for implementing the Act. He has just told the House that he expects the first named day to be in June or July, so how does he expect the industry and local authorities to prepare in time for that date when, as we have heard, the guidance has not yet been published or approved, when the secondary legislation has not yet been agreed, when no agreement on the fee structure has been reached with local authorities, when we have not seen the draft forms that will be provided to local authorities for the operational plans, when we have not agreed on the set-up fees and, above all, when the Department has agreed that it will drive forward the plans for a central database but has not yet started to do so?

I go back to the original question, which concerned the consultation on the regulations that has been under way since August or September, involving dialogue not just with the local authorities but with all those who will be affected by the Act, and we shall come back to the House with their comments. The timetable is clear in the Act and it has been debated ad nauseam in Committee. Rather than the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman, the reality, according to the Local Government Association, is that many local authorities are already preparing to implement the Act. They are obviously far ahead of many hon. Members who represent them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the new Act is fully implemented licensees will have great responsibility in the running of their premises to ensure that no problems are caused for local residents? Does he further agree that one problem at the moment in many town centres is caused by pubs allowing people to walk out with glasses and beer bottles, who then deposit them here, there and everywhere? If licensees allow that to happen, they may well be frowned upon when it comes to the operation of the new hours.

When the new Act comes into operation, the powers of local residents will be much increased. They will be able to be a statutory objector, and the licensing authority—the local authority—will have to take that on board. A number of sanctions can be taken against somebody who is not fulfilling the requirements of the Act, even to the removal of the licence. The residents and local people have more powers now than they had before.

What the total of unclaimed lottery prizes is; and what the largest single unclaimed prize is. [145831]

Total unclaimed prizes up to the week ending 13 December 2003 were £597.2 million. The largest unclaimed prize to date is £3,011,065.

As the amount is substantial, has the Minister made any inquiries as to why so many people take the trouble to buy lottery tickets but not to claim the prizes, which, as she says, now amount to over £590 million? What happens to the money? Does it go to the lottery company or to worthwhile charities?

I am not sure that I can say why so many people do not claim their prizes, especially the one that was over £3 million. I am surprised. The hon. Gentleman asked the same question last year, and he will note that the amount of money unclaimed has increased. It goes up by 13 or 14 per cent. each year; it is a cumulative figure. Three of the four largest unclaimed prizes have been in the last two years, so the figure is now quite staggering. When the hon. Gentleman raised the question last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism undertook to speak to Camelot, the organisation operating the lottery, about it and he did. Adverts are now put out shortly before the end of the period in which claims have to be made to try to get people to claim awards if they have not already done so, but the increase remains about the same. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the money goes to the Secretary of State and through her to the fund that is paid out for good causes, so Camelot stands to gain not a penny from anyone who does not claim their prize, but good causes stand to gain a lot.

Obviously, a huge amount of money is unclaimed, but rather than becoming embroiled in bureaucracy in deciding who to give it to, would not it be better if all unclaimed prizes went to the hospice movement, and then all communities would benefit?

I am sure that the hospice movement can apply for lottery funds in the same way as others can, but to set up a complicated procedure whereby there is another fund of money to which all will have access—one cannot simply give it to the hospice movement, because many other organisations would consider that they, too, had an equal claim to it—would result in the very bureaucracy against which my hon. Friend has just warned. We have an existing structure in the form of the fund for good causes, and it is right and proper that the unclaimed money should go there, but I do wish that the amount were lower. The notion of people not claiming the prize money does not sit well with encouraging more people to buy lottery tickets, which is what we are meant to be doing to get more money into the good causes kitty.

What discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the future of horse racing in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [145833]

We have not had any discussions with the Scottish Executive on horse racing arrangements.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. It would have been appropriate to have some discussions, because there is concern—[Interruption.] It has been suggested that I declare an interest because of the amount of money that I give to the impoverished bookmakers of Hamilton, South over the year. However, on a serious note, would the Minister take time from his busy schedule to visit the town of Hamilton and meet the representatives of the five race courses in Scotland, who are concerned about the proposals emanating from the Office of Fair Trading? If he could give assurances about such a visit, race course executives would be delighted.

I would love to visit Scotland at some point in the future. As for the OFT, my hon. Friend is right that there are concerns about the uncertainty caused by its involvement, which are reflected in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the chairman of the OFT, saying clearly that we want to make sure that there are comprehensive arrangements for racing across the country. We accept, however, that there must be compliance with competition law. I hope that all the parties get together because racing has a fantastic future and is on a growth path. More people now go to the races than before, and there is greater interest in horse racing. If the two parties can come together and submit their case to the OFT—I think that that is possible—my hon. Friend's fears will be allayed and horse racing will grow. It is a great sport, and is followed by all classes of people up and down the land.

The Minister put his finger on the problem facing racing, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—the OFT's investigation into the control of horse racing. He and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who has ministerial responsibility for competition, have expressed a great deal of concern about what is likely to be proposed. The Minister said that racing has been doing rather well recently, so will he redouble his efforts to convince the OFT that the last thing that it needs at the moment is for the baby to be thrown out with the bath water? The racing industry is improving and making plans for the future. The last thing that it needs is a heavy-handed report from the OFT.

Many will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's words. However, I repeat that if people in racing can come together—and I believe that they can—to reach a solution to the process introduced by the OFT's rule 14, the fears that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) expressed can be allayed. It is very much in the hands of racing, not the OFT. However, I believe that the OFT will try to find a solution that complies with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked it to do, and ensure that a full and diverse national programme of racing is the end result.

I heard what my right hon. Friend said, but does he accept that thousands of jobs are at risk and small race courses throughout the country could close if the OFT's suggestions are implemented? Will he use his offices to ensure that those small race courses are looked after, and the OFT's proposals do not result in the loss of thousands of jobs?

I can only repeat what I have already said. The statistics for the past few years on horse racing show that there is no reason for race courses to close. If anything, there is growth in the marketplace—there is no doubt that the statistics show that. If people in racing come together and make a submission to the OFT, a solution can be found. Some may disagree, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Rule 14 has been introduced, and there must be a response. We believe that there is a way out—if people in the industry and the sport come together, they can find a solution to the problem.

When the Minister eventually gets around to having discussions with Scottish Ministers, will he discuss the impact of the OFT report on national hunt racing? Perth race course is situated in my constituency. It is a great example of a small but successful national racecourse. Will he give a reassurance that national hunt racing will survive what is suggested in the report?

And support hunting.

The latter comment is not the answer. If the Scottish Executive asks for discussions with my Department, we will be more than willing to have those discussions. In the light of what has been said, that is a high possibility because of some of the concerns that exist. None the less, I reiterate that, to a large extent, a solution lies in the industry and the sport themselves.

What discussions she has had on the future of Crystal Palace sports centre. [145834]

Owing to the constituency interest of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in respect of Crystal Palace, I am dealing with this question.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I understand the Secretary of State's difficulties with this issue, which I am sure he will realise is directly a constituency interest of mine. He will be aware that, on 18 December, his colleague Lord McIntosh stated:

"It is likely that the closure of the centre for redevelopment under the discussions that are currently taking place will form a part of any agreed solution."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2003; Vol. 655, c.181W.]

The hon. Lady raises a number of questions. First, there is an agreement that Sport England will withdraw from the deal on 31 March 2004. Bromley has known about that agreement for a considerable period, and that is what we are working towards. We would want to keep the facilities in operation, and we believe that the proposition made by the Mayor of London to take over their running, which is part of the discussions and negotiations that are currently going on—I hope that they will be successful—will see their continuation. Although there may be redevelopment in terms of the track, we hope that that can be decoupled from the sports facilities so that we can continue to run the athletics grand prix this year.

Does the Minister recognise that the work that he is seeking to do to try to broker a deal, if I can put it that way, to keep Crystal Palace open is crucial in terms of the prospects for our Olympic bid? Not only do many potential future Olympians use Crystal Palace as their training base, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, but most unfortunate signals would be sent if Crystal Palace were seen to close. I know that he cares about the prospect of the Olympic bid as much as me, and, I am sure, hon. Members in all parts of the House, but will he recognise that, as part of the Government's job of leadership, it is vital that we do not see chains and padlocks on Crystal Palace at the end of March?

We are working very hard to ensure that those padlocks do not appear. As part of the wider Olympic bid, we are considering proposals for an aquatic centre that I hope will provide the type of 50 m pool facilities to which he is referring. Indeed, that is being discussed not only at a community level in the sport, but with the governing body, the swimming association. That process will continue to ensure coverage throughout the country in terms of such facilities. On Crystal Palace, we will continue to try to ensure that a deal is done, and we will try to ensure that the athletics grand prix also takes place. That three-way deal will have to be done. I understand from Sport England that we have continued to support the facilities in Bromley way beyond any other facilities for community use. A decision should be made by the end of March.

What recent discussions her Department has had with the Department for Education and Skills on ways to increase the use of British sign language on television. [145835]

My Department is an active member of the British sign language working group, which was established by the Department for Work and Pensions. The Communications Act 2003 extends, for the first time, the signing target on digital terrestrial television to digital cable and satellite broadcasters. That target is that 5 per cent. of all non-excluded programmes should be translated into sign language.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I ask her, first, whether she has a time scale for expanding those sign language programmes; and secondly. whether she is prepared to provide incentives to encourage more of them?

There is indeed a time scale—that the target should be reached by the 10th anniversary of the start of the service. That differs depending on the broadcaster concerned. For the BBC it is 2008; for some of the others it is 2010. I am not about to announce any incentives to ensure that it is reached, but it will be closely monitored through Ofcom. My hon. Friend may want to know that towards the end of last month, Ofcom published its code for people with sensory impairment, in which it set out its plans for ensuring that the target was reached and how it intends to monitor and enforce it. I very much hope that we can make progress on this important issue.

Of course, we welcome the recent official recognition of British sign language, as we do any practical action that is taken by Government or broadcasters to improve their services to people with disabilities; but given that although the broadcasting code has been extended. the figures in it have not been increased, can the Minister tell us when there will be any material sign of improvement in coverage of signing for hearing-impaired people? For that matter, when does she hope to resolve the related issue of the current technical and/or commercial impasse in extending audio description for blind service users?

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points. When I looked at the targets I was amazed that the target for sign language was much lower than those for other measures to help people with sensory impairment. One of the problems is that there is not a closed system, so that when programmes are signed everybody accesses the sign language as well as watching the full screen. It is hoped that in the near future, people who want signing will be able to turn it on, while those who do not want it will not need to have it. I suspect that when that technology is available there will be much faster progress towards the target. I do not set much store by the fact that the target was met, given that it was only 2 or 3 per cent.—it has now been increased by 5 per cent. More important is the ongoing technological work to create a closed system.

What plans she has to support the business tourism and conference trade in Yorkshire. [145836]

VisitBritain promotes business tourism to Britain as a whole, working closely with the Business Tourism Partnership and a range of other partners, including the Yorkshire tourist board and city destinations such as York, Sheffield—my own town—and Leeds: for example, in relation to international conferences. It is interesting that those three cities have formed the White Rose university research group, partly to exploit the area of business tourism.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year York had its best ever year for business tourism, with a 20 per cent. increase in bookings? That reflects the investment in new conference facilities that has been made by York racecourse, the university, hotels and the National Railway Museum, which won Business Britain's award for unique conferencing venue of the year for 2003–04. When will Yorkshire Forward complete its review of business tourism, and what will it do to promote further investment in business tourism in my constituency and elsewhere in the region?

As I understand it, Yorkshire Forward has completed that consultation and will report back in the next few months. There will be further discussions on implementation. I welcome the fact that the regional development agencies are putting their new remit, tourism, right at the heart of the regional economic agenda. That is another example of added economic value, bringing together universities, local authorities and the development agency. That is to be welcomed.

How much was paid to insure ecclesiastical buildings from (a) fire and (b) other damage in the latest year for which figures are available. [145847]

I have been asked to reply, in the absence of the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

A year ago, almost to the day, a crazed axeman with an axe in each hand caused £;200,000 worth of damage in Waltham abbey, knocking the heads off statues and damaging a 14th century stained glass window. That was the worst example of damage last year, but no fewer than one in seven Church of England churches was vandalised last year, and it falls to the parishes, as my hon. Friend will know, to bear the cost of insuring the church. Would it not be fairer for the Church of England to—

Order. A brief question is the best way to conduct hon. Members' affairs. I think the Minister could answer that.

The matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) refers is a matter for the Archbishops Council, not the Church Commissioners. The council, through the Council for the Care of Churches, published a leaflet on church security and insurance, entitled "Safe and Sound". I am happy to pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, through the Archbishops Council.

Can the Minister tell the House whether the Church insures its buildings against acts of God? [Laughter.] If it does, does that not show a certain lack of faith, and if it does not, does that not show a lack of acumen?

That is not a matter that would properly concern the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

What representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to employed status for members of the clergy under the Employment Relations Act 1999. [145848]

The Church Commissioners have not made representations to the DTI. In 2002 the Archbishops Council responded to the DTI's discussion document on employment status in relation to statutory employment rights, and set up a group to review clergy terms of service. Its first report wass considered by the council on 9 December 2002 and will be debated by the General Synod in February.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Amicus conducted a survey of the clergy and found that 36 per cent. felt that their employment rights were being eroded? Rather than those rights being eroded, they ought to be seen to be improved. What can my hon. Friend do in that regard?

I am aware of that, as I am a member of Amicus. He will know that a number of clergy are members of the trade union. They will no doubt want to make their voice heard in the General Synod discussion later this year.

It is a matter of great regret that the Second Church Estates Commissioner is unable to be with us this afternoon, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to him my congratulations on his well-deserved knighthood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] I speak for other right hon. and hon. Members as well, it seems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that members of the clergy should have employment rights equivalent to those of all other employees?

The hon. Gentleman's question cuts to the heart of the issue. The distinction involved is whether a member of the clergy is an office holder—the view that the Church has maintained for some time—or has the traditional role of an employee. That is the subject of the DTI document, and it cuts to the heart of the debate that the General Synod will quite properly have later this year. I am sure that many views will be expressed in the House on where that particular buck should fall.

This subject has been debated in the House for at least six years, to my knowledge. The McClean committee was set up more than a year ago, and I am delighted that its report has now gone to the Archbishops Council, but the matter now faces the necessary discussion in Synod and a consultation with the clergy, which will take some time. May I urge more haste and more speed?

I know that no one has campaigned on this issue in the House more than my hon. Friend. There has been some progress, and the Archbishops Council made the decision about three weeks ago to debate the matter. This is a very complex issue which goes to the heart of what it means to be a parish priest.

What representations the commission has received regarding reduction of the age for voting. [145849]

May I join in the congratulations to my friend and pair, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), on the honour of a knighthood that has been conferred on him for his long and loyal service to the House and to the nation?

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that opinion is mixed on this issue, even among youngsters themselves. Will he please urge the commission to be brave and innovative in its response to this consultation, and to give a message to young people that we are prepared to trust them and to listen to them, even at 16? There are many good young people, and even though turnout might be low in that age group, I believe that they should be offered the opportunity to share in our democracy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Electoral Commission is well aware of the activities of the Votes at Sixteen campaign and others who have been campaigning for the vote to be extended to this younger age group. I am sure that the commission's forthcoming report will include an assessment of the level of support expressed in relation to the recommendations that it makes. Any change in the minimum voting age would, of course, require primary legislation.

If young people were consulted on the highly controversial decision by the Electoral Commission on the ward boundary review of metropolitan authorities—

Order. The question is about the age for voting. It has nothing to do with boundary reviews. I call Dr. Starkey.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Electoral Commission is aware of the Nestlé family monitor study of young people's attitudes towards politics, which clearly showed that 53 per cent. of young people aged between 11 and 18 supported the reduction of the voting age to 16 or even lower. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the commission takes note of this extensive survey?

Yes. A completely separate point is that the Electoral Commission has been keen to identify initiatives that would assist in reconnecting young people with politics, in line with its statutory duty to promote public awareness of democratic institutions. This is a separate point from that of the reduction of the voting age.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Liberal Democrats strongly support the reduction of the voting age to 16. Will he tell the House whether the Electoral Commission received any representations from the Labour party during the consultation period and, if so, whether they were received before or after the Prime Minister changed his position from opposition to agnosticism on this issue?

Yes, I think I recall that the Liberal Democrats were indeed active in encouraging people to fill in forms relating to the Votes at Sixteen campaign. I also think I am right in saying that they were successful in encouraging 23 people to write to the Electoral Commission.

What assessment he has made of the financial situation of English cathedrals. [145850]

The Church Commissioners have made no such assessment. Their role in cathedral funding is limited to the payment of some clergy stipends and the provision of grants for staff and administrative costs.

I declare an interest as chairman of Worcester cathedral council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That is a non-remunerated post, I hasten to add. Does the Minister not agree that the triple responsibility of maintaining a living heritage of music and liturgy in cathedrals, maintaining the built heritage, which is rightly subject to strong statutory protection, and, of course, offering witness to the Christian faith is proving an intolerable burden for many cathedrals?

I too should declare an interest as a former cathedral chorister at Peterborough, but I should also say that although the Church Commissioners provide some assistance to cathedrals—last year they gave £6 million—they must obviously pay attention to the core of their business and their obligations through legal trusts to parishes. I understand from the Archbishops Council that Worcester cathedral has been offered £99,000 in an English Heritage grant for 2004–05 for the repair of its chapterhouse roof, but I am of course happy to draw what the hon. Gentleman said to the attention of the Archbishops Council and the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know the history of the appointment of the next Bishop of Reading. Will he comment, however, on a Sunday newspaper report, which is expanded on in today's Reading Evening Post, to the effect that the next Bishop of Reading is to be your chaplain, Mr. Speaker, who is held in very high respect in the House?

Order. The hon. Lady is out of order.

I wonder whether the Church Commissioners should not take this opportunity to look carefully at what is happening in other countries, which will show that most other European countries are very much more generous towards their great ecclesiastical edifices—even states that are professedly agnostic, such as France. Would it not be good for the Church Commissioners to get a bit tougher with this Government, and indeed all Governments, to ensure that the state helps to keep up these great buildings with a great deal more generosity?

There has been considerable progress since 1990, when the Church conducted a substantial review of work needed on its cathedrals. Many of those cathedrals have been substantially repaired since then. As is proper and right, the Church Commissioners make a contribution, but it is right also that the lion's share of that contribution goes to parishes. This is an important issue for the Church, and indeed for the heritage of this country, which is why English Heritage also makes a substantial contribution to the life of our cathedrals and their general fabric.

If he will make a statement on recent progress towards reducing VAT on church repairs. [145852]

The Church of England VAT group and other faith groups were delighted to see in the recent pre-Budget report that the listed places of worship grant scheme has been approved to run for a further period up to the end of March 2006. The current EU Commission proposals in respect of the wider VAT review have been rejected by the European Council of Finance Ministers, bringing about a temporary halt, but it is hoped that the Commission will revise its proposals.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he convey my warmest congratulations to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), on his well deserved knighthood?

I know that the hon. Lady's is one of the strongest voices in Parliament on this issue. The campaign continues, a number of MEPs convey their wish to continue to lobby in Europe, there is a letter-writing campaign by the Church, and the Second Church Estates Commissioner and I will use our best endeavours to keep up the pressure on this important issue.