If she will make a statement on progress on infrastructure in the Thames gateway in respect of London's bid for the 2012 Olympics. [174891]

A master plan prepared earlier this year by the London Development Agency set out plans for the lower Lea valley. They are designed to accommodate staging the Olympics in 2012. Outline planning permission is being sought for those proposals.

May I, on behalf of the House, add to the congratulations to the bid team on making the shortlist? May we also thank Barbara Cassani for her leadership and congratulate Lord Coe on taking on that mantle for the future?

Yes, of course, there is close co-operation across Government on all aspects of the bid, including those that relate to transport for the Olympics. It is worth making the point that, by 2012, £17 billion will have been invested in London's transport. We will have the channel tunnel rail link during the Olympics, the dedicated link from King's Cross down to Stratford, a 45 per cent. increase in capacity on the Jubilee line and no fewer than 10 railway lines serving Stratford station, so we have a lot to be proud of in the transport infrastructure that we will be in a position to offer visitors to London when they come to the Olympics in 2012.

:In echoing what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said in paying tribute to Barbara Cassani and her work with Lord Coe, does the Secretary of State recognise that while all Members on both sides of the House want the Olympic bid to succeed, we want to see progress with the City of London in terms of the business support that it can give to the infrastructure? Does she recognise that that has perhaps not been given sufficient priority? Does she also recognise that there is concern among people in east London that there is a shortage of facilities, particularly in terms of swimming—a sport in which I have a personal interest, as she is aware? Does she acknowledge that that too can helpfully be addressed?

Order. No one is going to win any Olympic prizes for the length of their questions.

:Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My right hon. Friend knows that many facilities for the Olympic games are located in my constituency of West Ham, where there is enormous support for the bid. The legacy use of those sports facilities, if they are built, is pretty crucial, particularly that of the 80,000-seater Olympic stadium. What discussions has she been able to have with the football clubs of London that could use it, such as West Ham, Tottenham and perhaps, given its ambitious plans, Chelsea?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that some preliminary discussions have been held with a number of football clubs that might take on the responsibility for and the tenancy of the main Olympic stadium, but I also want to underline the welcome that his constituents give to the prospect of the Olympics. For this purpose, the world divides into those who want to win and those who want to whinge. His constituents want to win, and if we work together, pull together and realise the possibilities that the Olympics can bring to London we will win, but too many people are whingeing on the sidelines. They will damage our bid.

We on the Conservative Benches would like to begin by offering a warm welcome to Lord Coe as chairman of the 2012 bid. We also want to pay tribute to Mrs. Cassani for putting together an excellent technical bid and an excellent team. But we wonder why, given Lord Coe's past as a British Olympian, the fact that he is well known in the international sporting arena, and that he is a politician, he was not the first choice. However, he now has a very important job to do. Notwithstanding the first response that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will she come to the Dispatch Box, bearing in mind the International Olympic Committee's criticisms of our transport arrangements, and guarantee that the east London line will be constructed in time for the Olympics, and that the upgrade of the Jubilee line will take place in time, too?

On the hon. Lady's question about the east London line, feasibility studies are currently under way, both by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London. The outcome of those studies will be considered as part of the spending round, so there will be no decision on funding for the east London line until the summer. We have always made it absolutely clear that the east London line would greatly enhance the hosting of the Olympics, but it is not essential to a first-class transport plan for the Olympics.

I am sure that the 2012 bid team will have noted what the Secretary of State says about transport links, but there were other criticisms in the IOC report that she might also wish to address. For example, on Government support, we came eighth out of nine among the bidding cities, and on public support, we came ninth out of nine. The Secretary of State might like to consider whether she should stop whingeing about the whingers, and the Minister for Sport and Tourism should stop telling Londoners that they need to be disciplined about their attitude to the British Olympic bid and start winning the hearts and minds of the British public for a London bid for 2012.

Of course, the 2012 bid team and all those who have a role to play, including Members on both sides of the House, will examine carefully what the International Olympic Committee said about the London bid. It is a constructive intervention, not one that should deter us. It is also worth recording that London came from nowhere and is at the moment standing third. There is little distance between the first three cities. In fact, we scored better than Paris on environmental conditions, we are equal with Paris on accommodation, finance and Government support, and we are better than Madrid on safety and security. There is an awful lot going for the London bid, and I hope that at every opportunity she will talk it up, not talk it down.

I invite my right hon. Friend to look at the Order Paper, on which she will see that the question relates to the Thames gateway and infrastructure, and I invite her to consider that the boundaries of Greater London are wholly artificial and ridiculous, and that they relate to 1963. The Thames gateway includes Thurrock, where there is room to breathe and people are enthusiastic about the Olympic bid. Not only do we want a slice of the action but it would be in her interest, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), if she were to look eastwards rather than just to the few miles round the centre.

I take seriously my hon. Friend's advocacy for Thurrock.[Interruption.] Exactly. I greatly look forward to visiting it next month.

What assessment she has made of the all-party archaeology group's report on the state of archaeology in the United Kingdom. [174892]

:The Government welcome the all-party archaeology group's report. Its recommendations will form a useful contribution to the ongoing review of heritage protection.

I welcome the Minister's comments, but her predecessor undertook to give a formal response to the report, and it has been out since January 2003. May I bring to her attention two points in it? First, the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2000, has been successful in its recommendations. The trouble is that only three of those 16 recommendations have so far been put into practice, and she is now recommending winding it up. Will she reconsider that? On the portable antiquities scheme, will she agree to accept an all-party delegation of those of us who are concerned that the Government should take the scheme fully under their wing after the funding ends in 2006? It has been so successful, as I saw in my area in Sussex last Friday, that it is in danger of being swamped as a result, and the Government need to take it under their wing and fund it properly after 2006

I take the point about the report having been published in January last year. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage met the all-party group last October—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—and I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.

Are the Government giving a friendly response to recommendation 7 on the framework and funding of the portable antiquities scheme?

I personally am giving it an exceptionally friendly response. The problem is persuading other Ministers to give a more friendly response to it than to other bids.

How much is unallocated in the national lottery distribution fund. [174893]

The NLDF holds about £2.65 billion, of which less than 4 per cent. is unallocated. Forward commitments made by lottery distributors total £3.6 billion, making the fund 32 per cent. over-committed.

That is a welcome move in the right direction, but it still fails to meet the figures planned by the Government as long ago as 2002. As a matter of principle, however, is it not iniquitous that so much money can still be held centrally when up and down the country there are good causes, some of them time-limited? In my constituency the Weavers' Tales celebrate 250 years of carpet-making in Axminster, while the Norman Lockyer observatory in Sidmouth is crying out for money to improve access. Everywhere in the country are good causes for which local people want funds that currently sit invested and centrally held. Can the Secretary of State not give the Heritage Lottery Fund and other distribution bodies clearer guidelines so that the money can be given bad to those from whom it originally came?

The Secretary of State has done exactly that. All lottery distributors receive guidance on not holding back too much in reserve. We should not give the impression that money that is waiting to be spent sits in the coffers owing to inefficiency. This is about managing cash flow as much as anything else. As I said in my answer, the fund is 32 per cent. overcommitted. In reducing the reserves, we want to ensure that we spend what we can reasonably spend this year, and not make worthwhile projects throughout the country wait until next year or the year after.

Can the Minister assure me that any surplus funds will be spent on the arts—on sport rather than the arts, and will not be wasted on schemes for the London lobbies?

I much preferred my hon. Friend's initial comment; indeed, perhaps I should ask you to introduce a new rule, Mr. Speaker, stating "no corrections allowed". At the moment, the distributors themselves keep the money, and the real issue is where the interest on funds that are held is spent. There is a formula for the giving of lottery money to distributors, and currently there is almost an incentive for them to hold on to the reserves, given that they also keep the interest. As my hon. Friend will know from the relevant document, we intend to ensure that that interest is shared equally among all the funds. If I had time, I would list the many benefits of giving such money to the arts—not just for luvvies, but for people throughout the country in all communities, rural and urban. Indeed, without arts funding this country would be a much poorer place.

The Minister will be aware that in the east midlands, and in Leicestershire in particular, there is concern that less than the average number of bids from the region are successful. Why are we discriminated against in this way?

It is impossible to discriminate in terms of bids because the Government do not control the number of bids coming in, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. On outcomes, the situation in the east midlands may well resemble that in my own constituency, in that it does not get what one might call its fair share of lottery fund money. The Government, together with the lottery distributors, have already embarked on the fair share initiative, through which we will work very carefully with those areas that are not receiving a fair amount of money.

Why is the bureaucracy associated with efforts to get money from

We do need to reduce bureaucracy; indeed, there is nothing more frustrating than people being put off making bids because they feel that the process will prove too bureaucratic. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism tells me that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now ahead of schedule. However, there have been bureaucratic problems, and I hope that they have been sorted out. In respect of the awards for all initiative, for example, the waiting time from application to making the grant has been significantly reduced. All lottery distributors are aware of the problems associated with too much form filling and lengthy waiting times for the making of decisions. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we need constantly to keep our eye on the situation, and to do all that we can to reduce form filling and bureaucracy.

What assessment she has made of the work of the playing fields monitoring group; and if she will make a statement on its monthly list of planning applications for building on playing fields. [174894]

Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and all Members of the House for agreeing to start the Westminster mile—hopefully, Roger Bannister will be involved—on 16 June from Abingdon Green? The BBC's Sport Relief is a very good charity, and I hope that many Members will participate in the event.

The Government set up the monitoring group only four years ago to report monthly on planning applications for the development of playing fields, so when it meets on Wednesday, will the Minister explain why it has not met for nearly a year? When the Secretary of State said in a speech in March to sports colleges that

"There is a great deal of misty-eyed sentimentalism about playing fields",

"critics clinging to a world of jumpers for goalposts and small boys in the park",

We have explained many times from the Dispatch Box that we will have a dialogue with the National Playing Fields Association. We will consider the need to look at indoor facilities, too. Change has been significant since we brought in new rules about playing fields and made Sport England a statutory consultee. Well over 90 per cent. of all the applications referred to it end up providing equal or better facilities. In 2001–02, there was £270 million of investment and 447 new facilities were provided, and the year after, nearly 500 new facilities were provided. Since 1995, Sport England has created more than 320 new sports pitches and improved over 520 facilities, and that is just Sport England—that does not include local authorities and many other organisations that are involved in playing fields.

Mr. Speaker, I was most disappointed to hear that you would not be running the mile. I will be happy to help if you do, hopefully next year.

I could not agree more. To that end, in July, we will be rolling out for the first time ever a facilities database. I have asked Sport England to come down before that starts in July and to present that to all Back Benchers. It will be available for about four or five hours on the day before we launch it, so that every hon. Member will be able to see what sports facilities are in their area.

The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that there had been significant change in respect of playing fields since the Government came to power in 1997. That is certainly true. They came to power saying that they would halt the sale of school playing fields to arrest the decline of sport in schools, since when the number of applications to sell playing fields has gone up every year. Last year—this is the most relevant statistic—of the 807 successful applications, 440 led to the total extinction of those facilities. Given the threat to sport in schools, particularly contact sports, from litigation and all kinds of other matters, against which Ministers say not a peep, will the Minister now tell the House what measures he has in mind—apart from encouraging people to run down concrete roads, and apart from an annual meeting of the playing fields monitoring group—to arrest the sale of playing fields?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. May I now inform him why no one should vote Tory again if they support playing fields? The planning applications that were made when his Government were in power were to shut playing fields. The planning applications for investment of £500 million are to build new facilities—we have to have planning applications to build new facilities. The simple answer to his question is: do not vote Tory—they will shut your playing fields down.

If she will make a statement on the take-up of rate relief support for amateur sports clubs. [174895]

As of the end of April this year more than 1,100 local amateur sports clubs had registered with the community amateur sports club scheme. That scheme provides such clubs with an 80 per cent. relief on their non-domestic rates as part of a whole package of benefits intended to promote community and grass-roots sport. My hon. Friend will be aware that two clubs—a rugby club and a bowling club—in his constituency have opted to take advantage of the scheme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and I am pleased to hear about the 1,100 clubs, including no less august bodies than the Gloucester Old Boys rugby football club and the Gloucestershire Spar bowls club, that have taken advantage of the scheme. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a simple one-page form for rates relief, which has made a huge difference and encouraged more clubs to apply. I urge her to use that as an example of good practice, cutting bureaucracy across government.

I thank my hon. Friend. We are beginning to make progress on take-up and I hope that Members throughout the House will urge their local sports clubs to register in this way because of the tangible benefits and money to be saved, which can then be reinvested and spent on grass-roots sport. That is the objective: to promote participation and to improve facilities for grass-roots sport. I am very glad that my hon. Friend has recognised the success of the scheme.

I welcome the scheme and pay tribute to the contribution that it is making, but does the right hon. Lady not agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and me that after the reduction and raiding of the sports part of the lottery funding, there is not the same amount of money coming into sport, particularly for rugby clubs, such as the York club at Clifton Moor. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage clubs to invest when they have lost that source of funding?

I do not accept the hon. Lady's assertion. Over three years, £1 billion is going into new sports facilities. That is a proud record, which outstrips anything that any Government have done in the past. Yes, every lottery distributor has faced a reduction in the level of lottery income, but the hon. Lady will have noticed, as I have, that the last quarter's figures reported by Camelot, showed an increase in lottery sales for the first time. That is good for good causes, good for sport and good for the sports clubs in the hon. Lady's constituency.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate relief scheme is excellent news for amateur clubs such as the Palmer park velo cycling club in my constituency? Does she also agree that, if the London Olympic bid is successful, we should look not only east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has suggested, but west to Reading where the Palmer park velodrome would be proud to host the world's finest cyclists?

I thank my hon. Friend for that generous offer. She makes an important point—that the benefits stemming from the Olympic bid will not be for London alone, but will help sport across the country. The community amateur sports club scheme is one practical way of extending the benefit.

If she will make a statement about the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. [174896]

The timetable for full implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 is dependent on parliamentary approval of the draft guidance to local authorities, which was laid before Parliament on 23 March. If Parliament is content, we expect to complete the implementation of the Act around late summer 2005.

What will the fees be for licences under the new regime? If the Minister cannot tell us the fee level now, when will he be able to tell us?

We are in discussion with the Local Government Association and others in the industry. I hope to be able to announce the fees in the not too distant future. We have already given an indication and I do not believe that it will prove to be far from the mark.

My right hon. Friend is aware that several Labour Members are concerned that the new licensing law may not necessarily bring about a reduction in harmful alcohol consumption. Will he keep the new law under careful and close scrutiny with a view to reforming it yet again if it appears that it has brought about increased levels of harmful consumption rather than a reduction?

All those consulted broadly agree with the 2003 Act. There is a misunderstanding about the extension of the flexibility of licensing. The police have said clearly on every occasion that they believe that the flexibility will bring alcohol-related crime down. All the indications to date within the UK—including Scotland, where the instance of such crimes has fallen—are clear. We have run three experiments. Over the new year period in the capital at the millennium, for example, we found that crime came down by 6 per cent. as a result of the 36-hour opening. I repeat that all the experience so far suggests that greater flexibility will reduce crime.

One side effect of the Act for the professional football clubs—the Government have a good record of support for association football—is that stewards have to be trained, and the cost that has been cited is £500 a steward, which is an enormous amount for small second or third division clubs. Is the Minister aware of the problem?

I am very aware of it. Several organisations representing the stewards have written to me, and I am seeking clarification from the Home Office. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pushing very hard and we will try to ensure that assurances given in the other place are adhered to.

I welcome the Act, but some social and sporting clubs believe that the interpretation is such that their associates and visitors will not be able to participate in the social well-being of the club or purchase or partake of any beverages there. Is my right hon. Friend aware of that, and what does he intend to do about it?

Again, I am very aware of it, and I must have signed off something like three dozen letters this weekend on what is clearly a misinterpretation by the English Golf Union concerning membership of golf clubs. In fact, there is very little variation from the previous Act. It is basically status quo for the over-18s, although there is a tightening for under-18s in clubs. There should be no change for golf clubs or indeed any other sports clubs.

It is all very well the Minister saying that the problem seems to have gone away. The English Golf Union wrote to us only today saying that it is still not happy with his and his civil servants' so-called interpretation about why, under the guidance and under the Act as written, many golfers who are neither members of other qualifying clubs nor guests in the strict definition of that term will not be able to buy a drink on the 19th hole.

The English Golf Union has not got back to me personally on that. Nothing has crossed my desk—if it does, I will hope to answer the point more fully. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position remains the same as under the previous Act, when the 19th hole was quite well watered—and I expect that it will continue to be quite well watered in the future.

What discussions she has had on consumer and worker involvement in the future of the football industry. [174897]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met representatives from a number of organisations involved in football to discuss a range of issues, including, in broad terms, the recommendations of the all-party group's report on English football and its finances and the Independent Football Commission's annual report 2003. We will release the outcome of those discussions when we respond to both reports.

Having left Bradford City at the knacker's yard, Geoffrey Richmond is now advising his son and others who are currently selling off the assets of Leeds United football club, and doubtless intending again to pay themselves handsome consultancy fees in the process. We have also seen Leicester City failing to pay 90p in the pound on its tax liability, yet still affording to go to La Manga for a week last season. The next time a football club goes into administration, will the Government take action to ensure that the taxpayer gets proper value for money by taking a slice of the club and handing it over to the supporters, allowing them to have some ownership of their team?

My hon. Friend makes his points with some passion. It was this Government who set up Supporters Direct, which has given sound information to many fans and seeks good governance for football. Many of us believe that football is very important for our communities, so we will continue to work with Supporters Direct. When a club goes into administration, that is dealt with by the authorities, and it is for them to act as they see fit.

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that another area of professional football that needs examining is the parasitic behaviour of agents? Whenever football transfers are carried out and salaries are creamed off, should not the sum taken out of the game and given to those parasites be made clear, so that supporters know exactly where the money is going?

The wake-up call for football was what happened with ITV Digital, and I believe that the nationwide league, with its chair, Mr. Brian Mawhinney—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Brian!"] Thank you for that correction. Sir Brian is looking into the whole question of corporate governance, and has brought forward a number of actions that would bring about better governance. I note that the premiership is also considering such questions. The two reports that I referred to earlier bring into focus many of the points that hon. Members have raised, and we shall respond to them in due course.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the current difficulties of Wrexham football club, where the post of chairman is vacant—I mentioned that in case it might interest him. He probably will not be aware, however, that this very evening, consumers, workers and supporters who are concerned about the position of the club are meeting to found an organisation called Wrexham First, to ensure that the future of the club lies within its community rather than in the hands of property developers. What are the Government doing to embed such organisations and clubs in their communities, rather than in the hands of those who seek to exploit football clubs for property motives, and for their own commercial ends?

As I have already said, we set up, or rather funded, the organisation Supporters Direct, and my very strong advice to Wrexham and those trying to rescue the club is to take counsel from Supporters Direct. I have no doubt that it will give them information that they will be able to work on to ensure that the club continues to play a major role in its community.

What matters were discussed when the Minister for Media and Heritage met the head of UNESCO at Stonehenge on 17 May. [174898]

Mr. Matsuura, director general of UNESCO, requested to see Stonehenge during his informal visit to the United Kingdom last week. He had a tour of the Stonehenge world heritage site with officials of English Heritage and the National Trust. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage, as the Minister responsible for world heritage sites, joined him to visit the stone circle itself.

I am grateful for that information. All DCMS Ministers, whichever House they come from, are always welcome in my constituency, as is the director general of UNESCO. Can the Minister give an unequivocal commitment that, subject to planning conditions, the developments of the road in the world heritage site and the new visitors centre at Stonehenge are firmly in the Government's programme, that there will be no backsliding and no instructions from the Treasury, and that both will be completed?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to ensure that firm commitments are made on this subject. Indeed, my officials tell me that we have got further with the current set of proposals than ever before. It is good news that the inspector's report was delivered a week ahead of schedule, which shows that in terms of time, we are still on target. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the developments are firmly in our spending plans for 2008, assuming that all planning applications and consents go accordingly.

I welcome the work that the Government are doing with UNESCO to support cultural heritage at Stonehenge and elsewhere, but when the Minister for Media and Heritage met people from UNESCO, did he take the opportunity to discuss ways in which we could do more, through UNESCO, to support cultural reconstruction in war-torn countries such as Iraq? Does the Minister therefore think that it would be vital to persuade the American Government to do what we have done recently—[Interruption.]

Order. That has nothing to do with Stonehenge.

What steps she is taking to encourage and support professional football clubs to develop community links and involvement. [174899]

The Government are working with the Football Association, the Football Foundation and other partners to encourage professional football clubs to develop stronger community links with schemes such as football in the community and playing for success.

My right hon. Friend has been to Turf Moor several times in the past 12 months, and I know that he has recently met directors and other representatives of Burnley football club; I believe that he is going to Turf Moor again soon. Does he not agree that the way forward for football clubs such as Burnley is to become community clubs, as they are anxious to do, and to form supporters trusts? Is it not that type of policy, rather than some of the others that we heard about earlier, that need the encouragement and support of the Government and local government if local football clubs are to succeed and survive into the future?

I could not agree more. Burnley is a fantastic football club, and has always played a role in the community, and I hope that the discussions to make it a strong community club again are successful. We bash professional football quite a lot, but statistics show that every year 40,000 pupils take part in Playing for Success. Many young people have gained from that experience, and nearly 1 million people have contact with football in the community. Professional footballers do a great deal of good work in their communities, and help the sport at grassroots in many ways, so we ought to commend the Football Association, the premier division and the Football League.

What the policy of the commissioners is in relation to redundant churches for which dioceses have found no suitable alternative uses. [174911]

Depending on the quality of the building, the commissioners have to decide between vesting the church in the Churches Conservation Trust for preservation or, as a last resort, demolishing it.

Since 1969, 10 per cent. of Anglican churches have been lost as places of worship. Over 300 have been demolished, of which one quarter were listed buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Churches Conservation Trust should be given greater resources to protect threatened churches, especially in rural areas, where alternative uses are difficult to find? Their historic interest, architectural quality and landscape value, however, are often of the utmost importance to local communities. How will those communities benefit if a sale does take place?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. To date, 332 high-quality and important churches have been passed to the trust, and 366 have been demolished. A sum of £33 million has been raised since 1969 from the disposal of redundant churches, 80 per cent. of which has been put back into the dioceses for the use of the living church, to answer the point made by hon. Friend. We have passed £6.4 million to the Churches Conservation Trust, which we finance jointly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend is asking for money, and as the Minister for the Arts is in the Chamber, let those who have ears hear his question.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that demolition is a counsel of despair and an admission of failure? Would he not further agree that in almost every imaginable scenario, with a degree of commitment and imagination it ought to be possible to refurbish an otherwise redundant church so that it can be made available to young people for amateur dramatics or other useful indoor activities?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that redundant churches are demolished only as a last resort, and we are keen that they should be used for community purposes. In fact, that is one of the options that we have developed positively in the interest of local communities, and we take into account other factors before any decision on demolition is made.

What about the graveyards next to abandoned or redundant churches? I find it very dispiriting indeed to see neglected and overgrown graveyards when the Church is spending money on bishops' palaces. It does not, however, have the money to maintain graveyards.

Yes, of course, redundant churches sometimes have a cemetery next to them. The use of the word "graveyard" gives away the hon. Gentleman's age and experience. No one, of course, wants graves to fall into such a condition, and every effort is made to maintain those cemeteries in keeping with the Church's commitment and in keeping with the wishes of people whose lost ones are buried there. We will do our very best to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend.

What study the commissioners have made of moneys owed to church properties resulting from wayleaves. [174912]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that I am an expert on wayleaves. The Church Commissioners, however, have not made such a study.

Many dioceses have benefited enormously from wayleave payments from private utility companies. The diocese of Exeter has received £33,500 from BT and Western Power, Salisbury received £18,500, St. David's in Wales got £10,000 and Wells cathedral £4,500. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that those are all welcome moneys to hard-pressed ecclesiastical organisations. None the less, many ecclesiastical organisations remain unclear or uncertain as to their entitlement to wayleaves from public utility companies. Will he endeavour to spread the word to encourage them to go after wayleaves, to get the money that they are surely due?

A wayleave is a terminable right of way over or under land, for which a rent is normally paid. Typically it would be used for an electricity supply line or some such. I did tell the hon. Gentleman I was an expert on the subject. The rural portfolio of the commissioners generated net rents of £6.1 million and capital receipts of £10.1 million last year. On the question whether there should be a study, we do not have a problem with the collection of wayleaves, so no study is necessary. However, on the pertinent point of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall do my very best to ensure that all parishes understand the benefit that can come to them from wayleaves.

How many parish priests were recruited in the first quarter of (a) 1997 and (b) 2004. [174913]

The ministry division of the Archbishops Council does not record ordination figures on a quarterly basis. However, I can tell my hon. Friend—the hon. Lady has put so many questions to us over the past few years that she is now an hon. Friend—that in the whole of 1997 there were 262 newly ordained stipendiary deacons available for deployment, compared with 333 in 2003.

I welcome the large upturn in recruits to parish priesthood. I hope that he will join me in recording the valuable role and the pastoral care that rural vicars in particular provide, especially in constituencies such as the Vale of York which suffered so much during the foot and mouth crisis and subsequently. To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the change? Does he believe that it will continue for the foreseeable future?

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments and her support for clergy, especially in her constituency, where I know she spends some time and follows these matters carefully. Although the number now deployed is up, there is still likely to be a fall in the stipendiary clergy due to retirements. That fall is from 9,109 in 2003 to 8,691 in 2007. However, the Church's commitment and the commitment reflected in the newly ordained stipendiaries is a reflection of a commitment to faith in the 21st century.

Is it not a fact that because the Church cannot afford ministers these days, fewer are coming into the ministry and many churches depend on retired ministers to meet their commitment to hold holy communion services on a Sunday?

I surmise that the fact that there is a difficulty in securing clergy for every church is due to the numbers of clergy, rather than to the stipend levels. The stipend levels for clergy of incumbent status in 1996–97 were £13,940 and £18,110 respectively. The figures now are £13,910 and £17,140, so the issue of money is taken care of, but the number required is still a problem.

What representations the Commission has received regarding increasing participation in elections. [174914]

I am advised by the Electoral Commission that it has received numerous representations suggesting how participation in elections might be increased from a broad range of individuals and organisations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my deep concern about the low turnout that we may experience in the European and local elections that are to be held on 10 June? Does he also share my concern about the potential for misuse, manipulation and corruption through postal balloting? What is the Electoral Commission going to do to protect us from manipulation of the postal ballots?

The expansion of postal voting since 2000 has allowed large numbers of voters to participate in elections at a time that is convenient for them, but my hon. Friend is right to focus on safeguards. In its publication "The Shape of Elections to Come", the Electoral Commission set out a range of measures that it believes should be implemented. Some of those measures have been introduced, but others have not, including the key proposal of individual registration of voters.

Increased participation in absolute terms, if not percentage terms, could be improved by electoral registration, which was the last point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. What is the Electoral Commission doing to increase registration to overcome the problems? Perhaps it could extend the provisions on rolling registration, which the Government introduced in 2000.

It is the view of the Electoral Commission that individual registration and ensuring that the register of voters is accurate are key to our democracy. As I said, the key point in the view of the Electoral Commission is individual registration, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and it will be noted.

Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the seventh report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, which investigated postal voting? The report, which would have been valuable to the House during its consideration of the recent Bill introducing all-postal pilots, makes some very good suggestions for countering fraud, including not only individual voter registration, which he mentioned, but increased resources for electoral officers, the establishment of a national database and dissemination to police forces of information on electoral offences. Can the Electoral Commission now work with the Select Committee to develop those recommendations and, it is to be hoped, to persuade the Government to introduce them?

Yes, the Electoral Commission believes that the Select Committee report is indeed valuable. As for the commission's own activities, following consultation with returning officers and political parties, it has recently released a draft code of conduct for candidates and party workers relating to postal voting. The code will be finalised later this year, following assessment of its use in the June elections.

What the Church Commissioners' policy is for developing their housing estates. [174915]

All the Church Commissioners' investments are managed according to their statutory responsibility to ensure the best long-term return from a diversified investment portfolio.

I am grateful to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for that policy statement, but in relation to developing the estates, can he give some specific examples to show what part the commissioners are playing in improving the housing stock of this country by their policy?

Middleton house in Pimlico was upgraded and repaired in April 2003, and part of the Waterloo estate was completed in March this year. Work in Vauxhall began last autumn. Work differs between the estates, but, generally, the work that we carry out involves new or repaired roofs, windows, external repairs and improved communal areas. Some £19 million has been spent or committed to those three estates, and there is other ongoing work.

If he will ask the commission to take steps to ensure that as part of the current boundary review process, all parliamentary constituencies are as near to 70,000 constituents as possible. [174916]

The Electoral Commission does not have any responsibility for the process of reviewing parliamentary constituency boundaries. Section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides for the function to be transferred from the respective boundary commissions to the Electoral Commission, but this provision has not yet been implemented.

In view of the statutory duty of the boundary commission to ensure that all parliamentary constituencies are as near to 70,000 people as possible, can my hon. Friend explain how the playing field has become totally lopsided, and why 48 per cent. of parliamentary seats are either below 65,000 people or above 75,000? Is this a matter that he could take up with the boundary commission? Does he think that it is a coincidence that 43 per cent. of all the seats with fewer than 65,000 people are held by Labour incumbents?

The facts that my hon. Friend reports are interesting, but I have to say on behalf of the Electoral Commission that it currently has no responsibility in that area.

How many (a) hits and (b) unique visits per day were received by the Church Commissioners' website in April 2004 [174919]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners' website is part of a Church of England family of sites, which currently receives some 3 million hits a month.

I look forward to hearing that that figure has jumped to 6 million, because the Church of England lags some way behind other churches in this respect. I hope not only that adequate resources will be provided centrally for the Church Commissioners' website, but that every encouragement will be given to all dioceses to use their websites much more effectively than at present.

The hon. Gentleman makes an encouraging suggestion. I can tell him that the commissioners' website continues to develop. In 2003, guidance on the commissioners' residential lettings policy and available properties was added. I shall carry the hon. Gentleman's recommendation back to the Church, and I hope that he will see something exciting and interesting in the months to come.