1. If she will issue guidelines to sports governing bodies on the criteria to be used in assessing the fitness of individuals for senior positions. [208449]

Sport England does not issue guidelines to national governing bodies of sport for use in assessing the fitness of individuals for senior positions. This should be part of a governing body's own recruitment policies and procedures. However, Sport England has carried out fit-for-purpose reviews that have established a basis on which to provide a degree of assurance that governing bodies are indeed fit to receive public funds, and that includes human resources.

I thank my right hon. Friend. Obviously, control of major sporting bodies, whether in the professional or amateur game, has enormous importance to the sporting public and the general community. Control of a company such as Manchester United, in which I have a small shareholding, would have an enormous impact. There are rumours of a takeover by Malcolm Glazer, who was described in the United States courts as a snake in sheep's clothing when he tried to take over Harley Davidson and who is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, so is hardly a fit and proper person to take on the governance of a football club. Can my right hon. Friend put a comment on the record that might dissuade Mr. Glazer from his predatory activities?

I cannot comment on the description of Mr. Glazer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the premier league and the Football League have taken significant strides recently to ensure that there is good governance and that they have fit and proper people on the board. He can be assured in that sense. Company law is now more stringent on the appointment of company directors, particularly concerning the Football Association premier league. I was pleased to read the statement by the chief executive of Manchester United, David Gill, when he said that any decision would take into account both present and future shareholders. That is important for a football club like Manchester United, which plays a tremendous role not just in the game, but in its community. That should be considered by any board that takes the decision.

The former chairman of Wrexham football club, Mr. Alex Hamilton, described leading the club towards administration as

"the most fun I have had with my clothes on."

That was before the 10-point deduction that the club received from the Football League. He was deemed by the Football League to be a fit and proper person to run the club, but the population of Wrexham beg to differ. Will my right hon. Friend have further discussions with the Football League to impress on it that the current fitness-for-purpose test is not sufficient to protect football clubs, which are important community institutions? Football supporters need more support.

I reiterate what I said earlier. Both the Football League and the premier league have taken steps recently to bring about better governance and regulation of the game. They have not got everything right and I think that they would accept that. However, the fact that Wrexham had 10 points deducted for going into administration is a step in the right direction and is a deterrent to trying to manipulate the situation, which would have been unfair to the other clubs in that division. I hope that we are getting better governance and regulation in all our sports, including football.

2. What account she will take of standards of public decency in programmes screened by the BBC as part of her decision on whether to renew the BBC charter. [208450]

All aspects of the BBC's organisation, operation, funding and governance are being considered as part of the on-going BBC charter review. The mechanisms for securing appropriate programme standards fall within the scope of the review.

While I condemn the publishing of BBC executives' private addresses, does the Minister realise that many people do not consider it appropriate for public service broadcasting to use taxpayers' money to fund programmes such as "Jerry Springer—The Opera", which offend so many people? Does she realise that many licence payers do not believe that the BBC provides value for money in screening programmes that upset so many of our constituents?

Of course I accept that people throughout the country may have been offended, but people are offended when we have free speech. I would rather have free speech than try to legislate against people being offended.

What is broadcast or printed is not and never should be a matter for the Government. In our nation, which cherishes free speech—it is so important—there is a legislative framework to which people can appeal, as they have done in this case. Both Ofcom and the BBC governors have that responsibility and no doubt will respond to concerns expressed by the public in due course.

Is not it better that we choose our own infantilisms like real grown-ups, rather than be infantilised by the censor or even by my right hon. Friend herself?

My right hon. Friend is right. Heaven forbid that anyone should dictate what we can see, what we should listen to, or anything else. I would sooner run the risk of being offended than of having artistic performances denied to me.

Does the Minister agree that although the independence of the BBC is important, and although I have not the slightest problem about the BBC giving offence over some tacky American programme, the screening of any programme that gives gratuitous offence to the Christian community or any of the great faiths prevalent in our land is a rather different matter? Does she, therefore, agree that a degree of self-restraint would be appropriate from the broadcasting authorities in that case?

What is broadcast is still a matter for the BBC, and that is absolutely fundamental, but because of the importance of free speech and artistic freedom, a legislative framework covers not only broadcasting but theatre and print as well, and it is against that framework that decisions should be made. As far as I am concerned, the BBC will look at the framework and it will make a decision about whether it should broadcast. That is a fundamental principle that in no circumstances should be crossed.

This is a good time to remind ourselves that censorship is a dangerous thing for religions generally, especially minority religious views. Whether it be plays, books or operas on television, religionists would be ill advised to go down the road of censorship, not least because although I have not seen the "Jerry Springer" programme, having watched the play about it on the BBC the other week, my inclination would be to demonstrate against the makers of the "Jerry Springer" programme rather than against the BBC, which gave a strong moral message behind that play.

My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting that different perspectives can be brought to the issue. Most people of religious belief are well able to stick to their belief and defend it against those who criticise it or disagree. That is an article of faith, and many people who hold religious beliefs are happy to do so in the face of criticism.

Following on from the Minister's response to >my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), is she aware that the BBC board of governors continues to argue that it has no role in pre-viewing material before broadcast and thus refused to intervene before the transmission of "Jerry Springer—The Opera", despite 50,000 complaints from the public? Given that the job of adjudicating complaints after broadcast has passed to Ofcom, the question arises as to what the point of the BBC governors is. Will the right hon. Lady make that a priority in the review of the BBC's charter?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman wants to give the BBC governors the power of censorship before something is broadcast. That is exactly what would happen if he had his way. What is clear is that there is not pre-viewing to censor what is broadcast, but that afterwards representations can be made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the range of measures that Ofcom can use if it finds that the boundaries have been crossed. To give BBC governors the power to watch what is broadcast, ahead of Ofcom and ahead of the public, and for the governors alone to decide whether the public are able to see it, would be censorship that is almost worse than the censorship we got rid of between 20 and 30 years ago.

4. When she expects to announce the completion date for digital switch-over. [208452]

The Government will confirm the timetable once all the remaining issues relating to digital switch-over are resolved and we are satisfied that the interests of consumers, especially the most vulnerable, are well protected. The timetable will be set on the basis that it can be met by the broadcasters. The House will note—I have placed written statements to that effect—that the BBC and Ofcom estimate that the completion of switchover can be achieved by 2012.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I understand that Wales will be the first area to switch off—

Switch over.

Sorry—switch over, not switch off.

Has my right hon. Friend considered that as the south-east is the business engine room for the whole United Kingdom it would be much more sensible for switch-over to be simultaneous for Wales and the south-east so that we could, as it were, make more wealth for the whole United Kingdom?

We have made it clear that switch-off—[Laughter]—just checking whether Members are listening. We have made it clear that switch-over will take place on a region-by-region basis, and no decision has yet been taken about which region will be first. My hon. Friend may be confusing the switch-over with the pilot exercise that is taking place, from which a lot is certainly being learned: it has been successful in demonstrating to sceptics the value of going digital.

A number of my constituents are unable to receive any digital television at all. They very much resent having to pay the full TV licence. Why do they have to do that?

That is precisely the reason why it is important to set a timetable for digital switch-over. Almost 60 per cent. of households have a digital television, and we are very close to a point where the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be shut out from the opportunity to upgrade their televisions. That is why we are moving switch-over forward at our current pace, and why it is such a very important consideration in the review of the BBC's charter, to which reference has also been made.

For as long as the days of analogue television are numbered, no new investment is going into upgrading the analogue network and analogue receivers, so people in Inverkip and Wemyss Bay in my constituency who cannot get analogue television, let alone digital television, have no prospect of getting a signal in the near future. Does that not indicate that we need to get a move on with digital switch-over, so that more effort is put into ensuring that those areas that cannot get an analogue signal can get a digital signal when the digital switch-over comes?

All those are very good reasons why we need to get a move on with digital switch-over, and we are doing so.

In her answers in relation to digital television switch-over, the Secretary of State has just stressed the importance of a timetable, but is that not equally true of the switch-over to digital radio? Does she recall that, back in the summer, she said that she was considering a date for digital radio switch-over? Can she therefore explain to the House why her noble Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage said at the end of last year:

"We are not considering any timetable for that at all"?

Are the Government considering that, or are they not?

At the moment, we have not yet got the figures for the number of digital radios that were given as Christmas presents, but far less than 10 per cent. of radios are digital, so digital radio is too new a technology—it is too new a domestic accessory—for us to be sufficiently confident about the rate of change to say that we will switch off the analogue radio signal. I am sure that, in future years, precisely the same consideration will be given to the future of analogue radio as in our broad decisions to switch off the analogue television signal, but the important thing is to keep pace with public demand and public enthusiasm for the change.

The role that free-to-air broadcasting plays in ensuring that the digital revolution can be shared by those on low incomes should not be underestimated, but can my right hon. Friend say why people in the middle of Northampton in NN1 and NN2 postcodes are still not able to receive free-to-air digital broadcasts? If we are to get people in those areas—many of them are on low incomes—to switch on, we need to ensure that the town in the centre of the country is not isolated and kept off the network; it needs to be on as soon a possible.

The practical reason why my hon. Friend's constituents are unable to get free-to-air digital television is that we cannot increase the coverage of free-to-air services—freeview—until the analogue signal is switched off and the power of the transmitters is increased. All those considerations are part of the plan for digital switch-over to which I have referred.

5. What role the proposed public service publisher will have in delivering regional news programmes in relation to digital broadcasting. [208453]

The establishment of a public service publisher was a proposal made by Ofcom in phase 2 of its public service television review. Ofcom has conducted a public consultation on all its proposals, and will publish its final conclusions in due course. Obviously, we in government will consider its recommendations very carefully.

Although I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, it does not answer the question. I asked what role the public service publisher would play. Yorkshire Television, Tyne Tees Television and the other regional broadcast stations play an excellent role in fulfilling their public service obligations, and I cannot believe that this new body will add anything. Will she say what role it will play and who will pay for it?

No, it is not yet possible to do that, because final decisions about the nature of the proposal have not yet been made. Ofcom has just completed the consultation on its phase 2 report in which this proposal for a public service publisher was made. My view is that the proposal merits further consideration, and I am sure that if the hon. Lady wishes to make representations to Ofcom on the basis of her regional experience, it will happily receive them.

If the Secretary of State means what she says when she refers to the priorities and importance of regional broadcasting—I am sure that she does—how does she think that those areas of the country that are near regional boundaries and that are unable to receive news broadcasting from the correct region will be in a stronger position when digital broadcasting is widespread and the relevant signals can be incorporated? For example, parts of the east midlands receive broadcasting only from the west midlands at the moment.

There are two separate issues. The first is the technology and its capacity to extend the reach of free-to-view television. The second is the current debate about the nature of regional content. One of the conclusions of the Ofcom review is public enthusiasm for even more very local regional content, particularly in news. Broadcasting and free-to-air broadcasting are a fundamental part of our democracy, and I hope that hon. Members will join in the debate about developing regional television that meets the needs and ambitions of their constituents.

If the Secretary of State, who is in charge of broadcasting in the UK, cannot think of a role for the public service publisher, what is the point of having it? Surely it is just another excuse for Labour to spend other people's money.

With respect to the hon. Lady, that is not the most original intervention. Ofcom has already set out the nature of the proposal, and it is consulting on it. It is then for it to come forward with a final proposal and in a due course—it is certainly not a proposal for the next three or four years—the Secretary of State will take a view on it.

6. What discussions her Department has had on cultural activities linked to the 2012 Olympic bid. [208454]

In February 2004, my Department appointed Jude Kelly, one of the most respected people in contemporary British theatre, as chair of the culture and education committee for London's Olympic bid. Since then, in consultation with the arts community, she has developed an ambitious and exciting cultural programme for the 2012 Olympiad.

I thank the Minister for her reply. The 1948 London games was the last time when medals were awarded for disciplines such as art and poetry, as an expression of the importance of the arts within the Olympic ideal. I am not suggesting that we return to that, but may I encourage her to maximise the opportunity of the cultural Olympiad to engage with the public beyond those interested in sport, and particularly in developing cultural exchanges as part of the Olympics with host venues such as Portland?

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is absolutely right. The Olympic ideal is about mind, body and spirit, and art and culture has a lot to contribute to that. When the candidate file is looked at and when the bid is closely examined, we will have every right to be very proud of the cultural part of the bid that the United Kingdom is putting forward. If we consider Sydney, we see that what is left of its cultural bid has served that community very well. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for the support that he has given to the cultural bid in his constituency.

Can the Minister assure us that in the run-up to the selection date in July, let alone beyond, we are selling the point that London is the most cosmopolitan city in Europe and that every cultural community—the four British culture communities and all the others—is engaged as part of the support for the bid? It will be of huge benefit to us as a country and of huge benefit to each of those many, many, many tens of communities that are in this city already.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point at the conference that was held this morning. The strength of the bid is London at its centre, but it is important not to forget the impact that it will have on the rest of the nation. The diversity and richness of London's cultural activities only enhance the strength of the bid.

Is the Minister aware of mounting concern about the cultural implications of the Government's plans to fund the Olympic bid? Even the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee says that they are funding it by

"raiding the lottery and its good causes for something the Treasury might be expected to finance".

Does the Minister agree on reflection that my party's policy of putting £340 million of Treasury funds into the Olympics by forgoing lottery duty, which would avoid existing good causes such as arts and heritage losing up to £64 million a year, would be a fairer and more transparent way of funding the Olympic bid and the associated cultural events? When, therefore, will the Government commit themselves to funding the Olympics properly and guarantee the cultural sector that it will not suffer as a result of the games?

We have been grateful for the support of Opposition parties throughout the Olympic bid so far, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman is volunteering the Exchequer to fund it. It is absolutely right to get resources for the bid from several different sources, and I have no problem with the special lottery game for the Olympics that will be launched shortly. He is absolutely right that some parts of the arts sector might lose money in the long term, but that is only a guess. It may well be that more people will buy lottery tickets, which would mean that there would be sufficient money to support not only the Olympic bid, but the arts.

8. What steps she is taking to assist modernisation of national governing bodies of sport. [208456]

UK Sport has administered a modernisation programme since April 2001, which was designed to help national governing bodies of sport to become more efficient and effective in all aspects of their work. To date, Exchequer funding of £10 million has been made available to support a number of projects of differing size and complexity across a wide range of governing bodies. From April this year, the national governing bodies of UK-wide priority sports will be invited to embed their modernisation action plans in one-stop plans and will no longer be required to submit separate applications for modernisation funds.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is important for national governing bodies to modernise the way in which they deliver services and look after their athletes. Is he aware of the Loughborough sports project, which would enable many national governing bodies to come together to share services, especially back-room services? Will he comment, and perhaps write to me, to tell me how the bid from Loughborough is going and when we can anticipate receiving money from modernisation funds to match that which we have already secured in the region, especially from the East Midlands Development Agency?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in Loughborough and wider sports, because he is keen to ensure that the modernisation programme is carried forward. It is pleasing that several governing bodies are co-operating and coming together to consider how they can develop sport in a more holistic way. I hope that that will increase participation in sport, which we would all welcome. Of course the big four governing bodies are working together, but for the small and medium-sized governing bodies, I think that the suggestion from Loughborough is imaginative—he knows that I support it. Financing is a matter of priorities. I hope that the project can go ahead, but as I think he knows, the decision is one for Sport England.

10. what support her Department offers to amateur sports clubs. [208458]

The community amateur sports club scheme provides such clubs with a relief of 80 per cent. on their non-domestic rates—mandatory rate relief—and gift aid on donations from individuals, as part of a package of benefits intended to promote community and grass-roots sport. I welcome the fact that more than 2,000 clubs have so far registered with the scheme and received an estimated total of £5 million in tax relief as a result.

I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend, who moved the amendment to the Local Government Bill which brought about that fundamental change.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome the fact that 2,000 clubs have signed up to the scheme and are receiving the benefits. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would accept that there are probably many thousands of clubs who are eligible for the scheme but are not getting the money because they have not applied, perhaps because they do not know that the scheme exists. Will he consider increasing and improving the publicity for the scheme, perhaps by launching a campaign involving hon. Members on both sides of the house so that they can contact the clubs in their constituencies to make sure that they know about it and apply for it?

That is absolutely right. I happen to have to hand one of the 10,000 leaflets, "Growing community sport", which we distributed to the national governing bodies only a few weeks ago.

What a surprise.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) pointed out, there may be 40,000 or more sports clubs in this country, and 2,000 of them are now receiving, year in and year out, £5 million of investment in grass-roots sport. Disappointingly, although the press hammered us daily, screaming for mandatory rate relief and support for sports clubs, when we wrote to every national newspaper three or four weeks ago asking it to broadcast the good news about the relief, not one word about it was printed. The Treasury has been very supportive of the move. I call on the national press and everybody in the House to make sure that every sports club in this country knows that there is money for the taking, week in, week out, year in, year out.

Bearing in mind the difficulty of finding adults to come forward to lead young people's organisations of all sorts, including those involved in sports, will the Minister commend the activities of McDonald's, which has supported grass-roots amateur football to the extent of 140 coaches in Bedfordshire in recent years? Will he do all that he can to encourage more adults to come forward to lead young people's sporting organisations, and do away with all the unnecessary regulation which makes that so much more difficult?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about trying to encourage more volunteers into sport and into voluntary work per se. Undoubtedly, there are some obstacles to volunteering, including some to which the House has agreed. For example, record checks to guarantee the protection of children are right and must be adhered to. However, other serious problems relate to insurance but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, together with the insurance industry, we are trying to find solutions to that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has instigated a review of volunteering, through Ian Russell. I hope that his report will be out in the next few weeks, and that will give us a platform for debate. Most hon. Members want to encourage more people to volunteer. Of all volunteers, 27 per cent. are in sport, and without them grass-roots sport would not exist.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bolsover they are ready, willing and able to start an amateur swimming club, and they would probably get a grant? We would provide Olympic and Commonwealth swimmers before my right hon. Friend could can bat an eye. The trouble is we have not got the swimming bath yet, so will he meet representatives of Sport England to get the money from the lottery, to get the bath, and then the show will be on the road?

With the guarantee of Olympic swimmers coming out of Bolsover, how can we refuse such a request? As my hon. Friend knows, we are working with the authorities to try to get investment for a 25 yd swimming pool, and we will continue to do so. I hope that the result will be positive.

Is the Minister aware that amateur sports clubs up and down the country face enormous extra bills as a result of the new fees proposed under the Licensing Act 2003? Is he further aware that his predecessor, the hon. Member the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), explicitly said in Committee that the Government intended to accept our proposal that voluntary sports clubs should not have to pay more than a 10th of the amount paid by commercial organisations, and that the Government have now betrayed that commitment?

I have just said to the House that amateur sports clubs that want money from the Revenue can qualify for mandatory rate relief; people tell me that they have been asking for that for 30 years. There is also gift aid and other tax breaks available to clubs under the CASC scheme. In fact, those options offer far more money to clubs than the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He does not know what the licensing fees will be, because they have not been announced yet. I hope that that announcement will be made in the next few days. Any sports club running a bar for profit, which rightly brings money into the club, will find that those fees will be small, and so easily absorbed in the running costs and by the prices of the products sold. The gains for amateur sports clubs under the CASC scheme far outweigh any cost that we will introduce through licensing.

The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that she was

"absolutely determined"

that the Licensing Bill would be

"welcomed by sports clubs, large and small". —[Official Report, 24 March 2003; Vol 402; c. 53.]

The Central Council of Physical Recreation, which represents those clubs, has said that the new fees

"risk devastating the entire country's sporting landscape".

It says that it has been inundated by correspondence from clubs that risk losing vital income that helps to keep their organisations alive. Will the Government withdraw the proposed fee levels and honour the commitments that they gave?

We consider every word that is said by organisations that represent sports clubs, but only 2,000 clubs have applied for the CASC scheme, out of a possible 40,000. In one year, those 2,000 clubs have received £5 million. At least the CCPR has been one of the more active bodies in promoting the scheme. There is money waiting to be collected by the other 38,000 sports clubs from mandatory rate relief and other tax breaks, especially gift aid, but they have not applied for it. The governing bodies, the CCPR and others should be ensuring that those 38,000 clubs apply. The proposed liquor licensing fees can be absorbed easily into the bar prices or running costs of clubs.

11. What recent representations she has received on funding for community sports initiatives. [208459]

The Department receives a range of representations on funding for community sports initiatives. By 2006, the Government will have committed more than £1 billion to the development of sports facilities through the New Opportunities Fund for PE and sport, the community club development programme, Space for Sport and Arts, Active England and the Football Foundation. I will place a full update on our sports facilities programmes in the House of Commons Library within the next few days.

Does the Minister agree that there is no better way than sport to combine social inclusion, healthy living and increased aspirations? If he does, does he also agree that we need even more flagship community sports projects, particularly in coalfield communities?

Very much so. I commend my hon. Friend for the initiatives that he has promoted in Bassetlaw and his efforts to develop such projects around coalfield communities. Let me put on record the fact that of the 4,000 initiatives that are getting the investment that I mentioned, 1,000 are now on site, 1,200 have been completed—contrary to what some Conservatives have been saying—and £203 million has been spent on the schemes. A further 2,000 are yet to be completed.

Separate from the funding available from the Government, would the Minister describe as generous, mean or middling the financial support available for young people to play tennis from the principal beneficiary of the profitability of the Wimbledon championships—namely, the All England club?

I think that about 50 per cent. of the profits from Wimbledon go into the grass-roots sport. The new strategy presented by the Lawn Tennis Association is most welcome and I am hopeful that, combined with the new grass-roots developments that are taking place, we will see a renaissance in tennis in this country. It was disappointing that we did not get one woman tennis player through the first round at Wimbledon last year, but I believe that the LTA's work in grass-roots development and the investment by the All England club of between £17 million and £20 million a year from the proceeds of the Wimbledon championships will reap rewards.

On Saturday, I went to see Daneshouse football club at Daneshouse community centre be presented with some kit by Barclays bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many ways, that type of support for community grass-roots sports by commercial enterprises provides better value than some of their high-profile sponsorship?

I agree. Barclays has now invested through the Football Foundation some £30 million over the next two to three years. In addition, the bank is now working with Groundwork—the regeneration organisation—which has several flagship projects that will be up and running within the next 12 to 18 months. Helped by Barclays' investment with the Football Foundation, which receives £60 million a year, and its work with Groundwork, the campaign is reaching into inner-city areas where sport is needed to encourage young people to become more active and to drive our social inclusion agenda.

13. Whether it is her policy to support darts being recognised as a sport. [208461]

Decisions on whether particular activities and pastimes should be recognised as sports for official and funding purposes are made by unanimous agreement between the sports councils. I understand that the sports councils keep the matter under constant review, but I was pleased to see today that darts has signed up to UK Sport's anti-drugs code, which I welcome.

What about drink?

To the best of my knowledge, alcohol is not covered by UK Sport's anti-drugs code. I hope that, in the light of that development, the sports councils will give more serious consideration to bringing darts into the family of sport.

If the Prime Minister said that he would like darts to become a recognised sport, would the Minister for Sport and Tourism throw a wobbly? Will he make a 180° turn, and throw his full weight behind the campaign to make darts a recognised sport, as millions of players and supporters already believe that it is a sport?

How much further can I go than say that I welcome darts signing up to the UK anti-drugs code? I hope that the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, their sports councils and their English counterparts will consider bringing darts into the family of sport, whether the Prime Minister did, or did not say that he wanted that to happen.

21. How much money the Electoral Commission is spending on encouraging British citizens who are living abroad and are entitled to vote in general elections to register to vote. [208469]

25. What discussions the Electoral Commission has had with businesses on encouraging their workers who are living abroad and eligible to vote in UK elections to register to vote. [208473]

I understand that the Electoral Commission undertakes a range of activities aimed at encouraging eligible British citizens living abroad to register. It expects to spend approximately £38,500 during late 2004 and early 2005 on those activities, which include specific initiatives such as advertising and leaflet provision. As for contacting businesses with employees overseas, the Department of Trade and Industry has advised the commission that the most appropriate route is via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The commission continues to pursue that route, and has also approached the Confederation of British Industry.

I am a little disappointed that the commission only spends £38,500 on advertising abroad. There are 15 million British citizens abroad, including many hundreds of thousands who live on the various Costas. A greater effort ought to be made so that they can exercise their democratic rights. I understand that a leaflet is being produced, so will my hon. Friend ask the commission to place it in consulates and embassies as soon as possible? If the Prime Minister were to panic and go in May, the cut-off date for registration would be 1 March, so February is an important month for people who want to register and exercise their democratic rights.

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Electoral Commission has indeed produced leaflets, and that they will be available from overseas posts. That is certainly in hand. He is right to emphasise the paucity of the overseas registration. When I last answered questions in the House, I reported that only 14,496 people overseas were registered from a total of about 15 million. However, the Office for National Statistics told me today that only 7,850 people overseas are registered, including 25 from the borough of Poole. There is indeed a very long way to go, and we all have a duty to encourage overseas registration.

I am old enough to remember that the turnout at the 1950 election was 84 per cent., but at the last election it was under 60 per cent. Surely the Electoral Commission's principal objective should be to encourage as many people as possible who are entitled to vote to do so. What proportion of the 15 million people who live and work abroad are entitled to vote?

The Electoral Commission does not have a figure for proportion of the 15 million overseas who are entitled to vote. The qualification, of course, is that they should have been on the register within the last 15 years, but the commission does not have an easy way of ascertaining how many people would qualify. I am sure that my hon. Friend is conscious of the fact that only 57 people from the borough of Barnet, in which his constituency is located, have registered overseas, again proving that there is a long way to go.

Would not it make much more sense to allow the 500,000 British citizens who live in Spain and pay taxes there to register to vote in Spanish elections? Similarly, we should allow Spaniards, Italians, French and German people—all members of the European Union—who live in this country and pay taxes here to vote in the UK. Should it not be a question of no representation without taxation?

That is a different point, which I think that I should not pursue today.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not be concerned that I am much more worried about the many more people who are missing from the register in the United Kingdom rather than those who are abroad. Large numbers of people are missing from the register in my constituency, partly because of the inadequate annual canvass that is carried out by my local authority—

Order. We are on questions now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch my eye later.

22. What plans the commission has to recommend that electors be permitted to register closer to the date of a general election. [208470]

The commission recommended in 2003 that electors should be permitted to register much closer to the date of an election than is currently allowed by law. The Government announced last month that they intend to act on the commission's recommendations.

I welcome that reply. Like the experience of many Members, the turnout of my electorate at the last election was the lowest ever at under 50 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman commend the campaign by the Electoral Commission to encourage people to vote following last year's campaign? Will he consider the possibility of extending that to ensure that more people register for the forthcoming election? Will he also ensure that every possible encouragement is given to individuals to register, if possible, as late as the same day as an election, as they do in many states in the United States? That means that people can register at one door of the town hall and vote in the election at the next door.

The commission takes the view that it would not be practical or of great benefit to allow registration up to the date of the election, but it recommends that that date should be carried back to the date of nominations.

As for the hon. Gentleman's point about publicity, I understand that the commission is about to embark shortly—in early February—on a multi-media campaign aimed at encouraging people to register to vote. There has been some speculation already this afternoon that if there were to be an election in May, something about which I have no special knowledge, the cut-off date would be 11 March. It is important that people should register without delay.

The commission's similar campaign during the last election achieved excellent results with about one in three correspondents who had seen the advertising saying that they had voted on 10 June as a result of the campaign. The commission is encouraged by that.

Regarding a later date for registration for elections, does my hon. Friend share my real concern about the collapse in the number of service personnel registered to vote? Does he agree that there needs to be a determined campaign by the Ministry of Defence to encourage them to register so that the brave men and women who are serving overseas, often in dangerous circumstances, are able to register before we have an election, which is likely to be in May?

My hon. Friend may have noticed a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 10 January, in which the Government announced that there would be a Defence Council initiative, which would be taken shortly, to encourage service personnel to vote. My hon. Friend is on to an extremely good point. As I have said before in the House, I am perhaps more likely to be concerned about this issue than most as the number of service voters registered in the borough of Gosport has fallen from 4,370 in 2000 to 474 in 2004. I think we all should be concerned about that.

Have Ministers given the Electoral Commission any indication when they will implement that recommendation? Have the Government pledged to do so before the next general election or have they just said that it will happen at some time?

The Government have said that the recommendation will be implemented as soon as possible but that it would require primary legislation. I think that it is most unlikely that it will be before the election, whatever the date of that.

23. What assessment has been made of the resources available to the National Audit Office to undertake appropriate inquiries into the future procurement of major departmental IT projects. [208471]

The National Audit Office already examines IT programmes and projects as part of the annual programme of value-for-money studies. The cost implications of the NAO's work are reflected in the resource bids submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General for consideration by the Public Accounts Commission. The commission will be examining the NAO's bid for 2005–06 at its meeting on 27 February.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer and commend the work that he and his fellow commisioners do through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, keeping the House informed of historic analyses of public expenditure, which is vital. He has a great deal of experience in this field. Has he any suggestions as to how the House could be better informed about future spend, particularly on ICT projects, which have huge cost implications, as they roll out? The value of the NAO reports and the Public Accounts Committee's valuable work is too historic for the House to be sure that it is keeping in touch with what is happening in some of the big projects currently being rolled out.

As the hon. Gentleman well understands, the investigatory role that the NAO carries out on behalf of the House must inevitably be retrospective. In order to retain the independence of that scrutiny, it is important that the NAO does not get involved at too early a stage. Let me report on what I think is a hopeful development, though not yet an achieved result. In November, the Office of Government Commerce appeared before the Public Accounts Committee and outlined to us a programme of gateway reviews—key stage reviews—of IT projects across virtually all Departments. When a project is in trouble, the gateway is graded red and the project does not progress until it has been examined. I suggested at that meeting that the National Audit Office should be notified as soon as a project is classified red, and that the NAO should be able to recommend it to us. A couple of weeks later we had the Ministry of Defence before us, which does not operate quite the same system as the OGC, but has a system of its own. I put the same question to the MOD, which has agreed to speak to the NAO, and I am hopeful that we will be able to develop some sort of early warning system in our next report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question is useful and pertinent, because it underlines the central importance of IT to the political debate? For instance, in the debate on identity cards there was very little mention of the fact that there are huge discussions about whether the costs will range from £1.1 billion to £3 billion, which is the Government's estimate, or £5 billion, which is the estimate of others, solely because of IT. To give reassurance to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), on Wednesday this week the NAO is publishing a report on patient choice—again, central to the policy debate. The cost of that and its effectiveness will depend crucially on IT. The question underlines the importance of the subject.

May I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his agreeing with me?

I agree, too. The learned society, the British Computer Society, offered to give advice to the Government some years ago—an offer that was refused. Is it possible to take up the offer on behalf of the commission and the National Audit Office, to provide expert advice on the construction of IT projects? Could the Home Office be under continual review in that respect, as it is the author of the most spectacular failures of IT and has still not implemented a requirement of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to set up a central register of holders of shotgun and firearms certificates? That was introduced seven years ago and not a single operation or programme has been constructed.

It is for the NAO to decide which reviews it undertakes. It is independent in the pure sense of the word and it is essential that it remains so. However, I shall draw to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

24. Whether the Commission plans to make proposals for further developing the facilities for rolling electoral registration. [208472]

The commission has recommended changes in the law enabling voters to register closer to polling day, and the piloting of online and telephone registration. The Government indicated last month that they intend to act on the commission's recommendations with regard to registering closer to polling day, and will give further consideration to the development of online and telephone registration.

That is a welcome reply. Is not one of the shortcomings of the otherwise progressive move towards rolling electoral registration that it tends to depend on people who have moved home transferring their registration? The last thing that people have on their mind when they move home is electoral registration. The time when they will have it on their mind is when an election is called. That is when they need an opportunity to change their registration through rolling electoral registration so that they can vote in the place they have moved to.

The House always listens to the hon. Gentleman with interest because he does not so much follow this subject as lead it, and many of the details in his private Member's Bill in 1993 have become law. Yes, the Electoral Commission agrees with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. It believes that it should move to individual registration in the longer term, but certainly it should move to registration nearer to the date of the election. However, as I have explained in an earlier question, it is most unlikely that this will be implemented before the election because it will require primary legislation.