What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the changes to the national lottery introduced by the National Lottery Act 1998. [119872]

The changes in the 1998 Act reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that lottery money gets to where it is needed. The strategic plans that distributors are obliged to produce under the Act place a high priority on targeting areas of social and economic deprivation, and new powers of delegation mean that decisions are now being taken at a more local level.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, in the past few days, there has been discussion about delivering the funds and making life better for people and that the changes in the lottery fund have done just that? They have brought confidence to people with cancer because of the provision of radiotherapy machines; they have brought our crazy brilliant young scientists money to try out their ideas and they have thrown money at the right areas of sport. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest success has been in cities, such as Norwich, where funds have been put into areas of great deprivation so that the young and the old alike can indulge in pursuits that give them confidence and optimism for the future?

My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, we promised the electorate that we would make such changes when we went to the country in the general election. I am very pleased that we have now put those promises into action. None of the things that have happened—the establishment of the new opportunities fund, the ability to solicit applications from areas that need them, the ability to establish joint schemes between distributors, the fairer geographical spread that is now coming through and, above all, the focus on areas of social deprivation—would have been possible without the changes that we introduced in the 1998 Act.

Whatever the merits of the new opportunities fund—I note what the Secretary of State has just said about the promises made before the previous election—is it not in total contrast to what the Prime Minister said about the lottery fund when he was Leader of the Opposition? He said that he did not

believe that it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that when he did and it remains the Government's clearly stated policy; it is what we are doing. Lottery funds are used for things that are additional to the core responsibilities of government; they do not replace Government expenditure.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that the Library has produced a fine research document on where lottery money is spent. In many constituencies, £30 million, £40 million or £50 million is spent on lottery tickets, but much less is returned to those communities—between £2 million and £5 million. In the light of that, does he feel that there should be a stronger community element in a new lottery Act?

My hon. Friend is right to identify a discrepancy, which is partly due to the fact that only 28p out of every £1 spent on lottery tickets comes back to any of the good causes established. The average figure per constituency of spending on good causes by lottery distributors is about £10 million, but I am well aware that many constituencies have not reached that level of expenditure. I can fully understand the anxiety that colleagues on both sides of the House have in ensuring that a fair share of lottery money is spent across the country as a whole. In that respect, I welcome the fact that, over the past year, the number of small grants made by lottery distributors has doubled, because that means that more money reaches the grass roots and local communities everywhere across the country.

I seem to remember that the Secretary of State's constituency does rather well out of the lottery.

The hon. Gentleman's questions get more unbelievable every month. The new opportunities fund has already embarked on its out-of-school education and child care initiative, for which £400 million is earmarked. It has also embarked on its information communications technology training and content creation for teachers and its health living centres programme, for each of which £300 million has been earmarked, and its cancer prevention, treatment and care initiative, for which £150 million has been earmarked. Detailed bidding for the green spaces and sustainable communities initiative and the access to lifelong learning initiative is about to begin.

What action his Department is taking to promote environmentally sustainable tourism. [119873]

The Government's strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", published in February 1999, places sustainability at its core and seeks to integrate the economic, social and environmental implications of tourism.

I recall my hon. Friend coming to Stafford last year to launch the borough council's strategy for tourism, and I thank her very much for that. I am aware of how much good work her Department does to promote the maximising of the economic advantages of tourism while preventing environmental harm to the attractions themselves, and more widely. What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to persuade others such as councils, tourism organisations and private owners to have a similarly high regard for sustainability?

My hon. Friend is right, and I congratulate him and Stafford borough council on the work that they are doing in that area.

Does the Minister agree that uninhibited access to environmentally sensitive countryside can sometimes do immense damage to the attractiveness of the very landscape that visitors and tourists want to enjoy, and can threaten wildlife and conservation? Clearly, there is consensus on the need for a balance. However, will the Minister join me in urging her ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to listen to the concerns of Britain's 4 million anglers and reject a Labour Back-Bench proposal to allow an unrestricted right of access to all river banks and fisheries, which would be extremely damaging to the sport of fishing, as well as fish stocks and other wildlife?

That is not a matter for my Department. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the sustainable tourism component of our strategy has been informed by our consultation document, "Tourism—towards sustainability", which formed part of the wider consultation conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on updating the United Kingdom's sustainable development strategy. That represented the first ever attempt by Government to consult on such a scale.

How many Indian-produced films were made in the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what benefits accrued to the UK film industry; and if he will make a statement. [119874]

Two Indian-produced films were made in the UK in the last 12 months. The UK film industry benefits directly from the production budget spent on the use of UK crew and facilities.

That was an interesting reply. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Bollywood annually produces about 600 films, rivalling Hollywood. Given the creativity and talent in Britain, what can the Government do to encourage the growth of our indigenous film industry?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Film Council, which was established by the Government and launched last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the greatly respected director Alan Parker, will do much to help. Of course, the Government introduced tax breaks in 1997 and a new definition of British film, making it much more attractive to film in the UK.

What assessment he has made of the impact of millennium projects on the tourism industry. [119876]

Evidence so far is encouraging: for example, Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh has already attracted more than 440,000 visitors, far exceeding expectations; the millennium stadium in Cardiff was the centrepiece of the Rugby world cup; and Tate Modern, which opens this week, has attracted enormous international interest. In addition, the huge number of new environmental projects, such as the Sustrans millennium cycle way and the National Botanic Gardens of Wales, are proving attractive components of the BTA's latest marketing campaign, "Green Britain".

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that £390,000 of Millennium Commission money has helped to fund the restoration of the Urdd Gobaith Cymru centre for young people in Glanllyn, Bala, which can cater for 9,000 young people every year? Although I welcome the news about the National Botanic Gardens of Wales and the millennium stadium in Cardiff, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how such major projects, which are so far away from tourist areas such as my constituency, can help us?

I am aware of the vast number of smaller, local projects that the Millennium Commission has helped to fund in many parts of the country, including, I am pleased to say, in some parts of north Wales. The siting in Cardiff of the millennium stadium was a decision taken by the Welsh rugby authorities, not one imposed on them by the Millennium Commission, but it would have been difficult to understand if the site of Cardiff Arms Park had not been chosen to be the new national stadium of Wales. However, we need to ensure that north Wales, especially the tourist areas, benefit as much as possible, not only from Millennium Commission money, but from lottery money in general. Through the directions that we have issued to the lottery distributors, we shall ensure that that occurs.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Herriot museum in Thirsk on being nominated for a tourism award? Will he support attempts to attract as much millennium funding as possible for tourism projects that are sited outside capital cities, such as London or Cardiff?

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the museum on its award. Many of the millennium projects that are being supported are located outside capital cities. There are 14 or 15 landmark projects, receiving many millions of pounds from the Millennium Commission; they are not located exclusively in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast—although each of those cities contains major millennium projects—but are spread around the country, and I am pleased about that.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having a first-class team around him? I am grateful for the recent visit made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Portsmouth to see our magnificent Gunwharf scheme, which will regenerate the economy and create more than 3,000 jobs. Although we have not yet got a tower built, we hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to assist us. I also hope that I will be joined by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in promoting the city, not denigrating it, as he has done on many occasions.

The millennium project in Portsmouth is an excellent one: much of it is already under way and is beginning to show fruit. The Portsmouth scheme would have been a perfect example to cite in connection with the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh): it is located, not in a capital city, but in a major city that can benefit from its regenerative effect. I look forward to the tower taking its place in the scheme, and we all hope that that will happen.

How many visitors there have been to the millennium dome to date; and by how many the visitor numbers have varied from the original estimates. [119877]

As the hon. Lady knows, the New Millennium Experience Company produced a revised annual target of 10 million, following reassessment of the business plan in late 1999-early 2000. Actual attendance achieved to date is 2.1 million.

The Minister's answer shows how difficult it is for Ministers to put a new Labour spin on the disappointing number of visitors that the millennium dome has attracted, despite the £750,000 million that has been spent on the project. As she knows, the industry's estimates are that the dome will attract only between 6 million and 7 million visitors this year, yet the business plan projects 10 million. How will those people be attracted to the dome? Can the Minister guarantee those figures by the end of the year?

As the hon. Lady may recall, the project was started by her party when it was in government. However, I do not share her scepticism. The dome received its two millionth visitor on 28 April, and by June it is expected to beat the 1999 visitor attendance record for all UK paying attractions. That means that the dome is the most popular tourist attraction in the country, and we are very proud of it.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that our town, Bolton, is visiting the dome in force this Thursday, and that she is welcome to join us. Is it not important that the children and people of Bolton visit the dome, to see the superb steel superstructure that originated in that town, and one of the largest turntables ever manufactured in this country, which is being used in the dome? Has my hon. Friend calculated the impact that the building of the dome has had on local economies, such as that of Bolton? I mention as an example the fact that the children and parents will have to be transported to the dome.

My hon. Friend is right. The investment in the millennium dome has a huge halo effect right round the country. I believe that the steel that was used in the construction of the dome came from my hon. Friend's constituency—from Watson Steel of Bolton. I am glad that he is taking an interest and supporting the dome, and I am sure that his constituents will have as good a day in the dome on their town day as I did when I was at the dome on bank holiday Monday. I wonder how many Opposition Members have taken the trouble to visit the dome to give it their support.

No amount of spin can hide the fact that the dome is an embarrassing fiasco. Bearing in mind that it is already £100 million over its published budget, what guarantee can the Minister give the House that the dome will not need further money in the future? If and when another bid for cash is made, will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? We need to establish what role he will be playing—will he be the chairman of the Millennium Commission, custodian of lottery players' money, or will he be in the role of Labour Minister desperate for political reasons alone to keep the dome afloat?

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman should use the House once again to denigrate the dome. He refers to it as an embarrassing fiasco. On the one hand, he pretends to support it, and on the other, he uses such language. He knows that every application to the commission for an increase in grant is considered on its merits, according to the commission's policy and criteria. The management of any project that has applied for an increase in grant will tell him that it is not an easy process.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister recall that in the weeks preceding the general election, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Deputy Prime Minister, begged and beseeched the Labour party to commit itself to the millennium dome—a project that the Conservative party had initiated? Does not that put into perspective the tosh and brazen opportunism that the Conservative party employs on the issue? Instead of willing the dome to fail, Conservative Members should highlight the fact that 80 per cent. of those who visit it believe that it constitutes an extremely good day out. Having been to the dome, I can vouch for that.

My hon. Friend is right; 84 per cent. of people have been satisfied with their visit and 70 per cent. believe that the dome is good value for money. I was there on bank holiday Monday, when almost 35,000 people visited. I saw a family whose daughter pleaded with her father to bring her back as soon as possible. That does not sound like failure. It is high time that Conservative Members got behind the national project and supported Great Britain plc.

What assessment he has made of the proposals to deal with marketing by professional sports clubs and national teams advanced by the football task force. [119879]

With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am considering the football task force's report—both the majority and minority reports—on commercial issues, and I expect to announce the Government's response shortly.

I declare an interest as the father of a soccer-mad nine-year-old. Cannot something be done about national clubs and bodies that change football strips every year and cynically exploit youngsters through overpriced replica strips? Is not it time to stop that rip-off?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the task force was much exercised about that issue, which is worrying for all parents and children. We hope that the football authorities and the clubs—especially premier league clubs—which are responsible for what can only be termed abuse, have learned from that. When we make our final decision, some of the task force's recommendations will help to ensure that such abuse cannot continue.

I am sure that the Minister will join me, the House and my constituents in Rotherham in sending condolences to the family of Terry Coles, who lost his life so tragically at Rotherham this weekend. I was at the match, and what should have been a festival of football as both teams won promotion was overshadowed by a dreadful tragedy.

I am sure that the House wishes to send condolences to Mr. Coles' family. It was a tragic incident. As my hon. Friend knows, the Police Complaints Authority is already investigating the events, and it would therefore not be right for me to make a statement on the matter at this stage.

As someone who was born in Swansea and lived there for 33 years, I add my condolences to the family on their tragic loss.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the more we get young people, children and families into football grounds, the more it changes the atmosphere. Although I now refer to a different sport, I was impressed by the behaviour and the general family feel when I attended the rugby league final at Murrayfield recently. Football could learn from that example.

What steps he is taking to promote the competitiveness of English cricket in international competitions. [119880]

Although I am not personally responsible for the results of the England cricket team, I am keen to promote its international competitiveness. I want to encourage more youngsters to play cricket and to have the opportunity to reach the top in sport. I am working closely with the England and Wales Cricket Board to ensure that that takes place.

Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of the competitiveness and integrity of English cricket and that in the rest of the world for those involved in the game at every level to support Lord MacLaurin's efforts to get to the bottom of the various allegations of match fixing? Moreover, is not that in the interests of the cricket-supporting public, who pay good money to go to matches, and all the decent, honest cricketers who have done nothing to deserve having the finger of suspicion pointed at them?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Clearly, anyone who cares about cricket and plays it or who is involved with any sport, cannot fail to be deeply concerned at the suggestions of match fixing in cricket. I welcome Lord MacLaurin's initiative to bring together the executive board of the International Cricket Council, which met recently on 2 and 3 May, and the recommendations that it has made. It is absolutely crucial to the future of cricket to ensure that the public have confidence in the results of future matches. I hope that the measures that the council and we in this country are taking, and will continue to take, will mean that people can be confident about those results.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that if we have a great Lancashire team, we have a great England cricket team. We should emphasise that there are many clubs in villages and towns throughout Lancashire and some great cricketing leagues. What help and financial support can be given to ensure that the youngsters at those cricket clubs are successful?

The board is well aware that, if it does not ensure that more youngsters become involved at an early age, it is much more unlikely that we shall have talented cricketers playing at the top or for talented and competitive English teams. The board is providing more support and has ensured that some of the money that it received from the sale of television rights has filtered down to exactly the level to which my hon. Friend refers. We want that to be encouraged. Of course money is needed at the top so that our most talented cricketers can achieve world-class performance and we need a cricket academy—the board is working on that—but we must ensure that the money at the top reaches down to where is it really needed—the grass roots.

If he will ensure that arts organisations benefiting from public funds make unsold tickets available for use by schools. [119881]

We are introducing a requirement that every arts organisation in receipt of public funds should have an access policy for young people that includes an element of free or concessionary tickets.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the increase in funding for the West Midland Arts Board from £6 million last year to nearly £11 million this year. Surely that increase and the new three-year funding deal can only make it easier for theatres and other arts organisations to extend access to all sections of the community. Will he consider requiring publicly funded organisations to make available unsold tickets to schools and youth groups?

I welcome what my hon. Friend says. Having met members of West Midland Arts Board on several occasions, I know how committed it is to ensuring that public funding should carry with it the right to better public access for the many, not just the few. On his specific recommendation, we would stop short of compulsion, but we certainly encourage arts and other supportive organisations to ensure that no tickets are wasted and that such opportunities are taken up.

Does the Minister accept that enlightened arts organisations would regard making available concessionary and free tickets as a sensible contribution not only to educational development, but to the building of their future audiences? Does he recognise that the possibilities for making such a move extend beyond publicly funded companies and bodies? Will he invite the regional arts consortiums, which he has been instrumental in establishing, to ask the education authorities and arts bodies in their areas to introduce schemes and to approach the individuals who could make a difference?

I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Some admirable arts organisations already use imaginative means to ensure better access to the arts, especially for young people. We have ring-fenced £5 million for the Arts Council to use as a new audiences fund to pilot initiatives, and those that show particular promise will be the beginning of a further process.

I support the general principle of what the Minister has said, but does he accept that allowing access to young people can sometimes be difficult for small theatres? I have in mind the Hill Ridware theatre, just north of Lichfield. It is a successful theatre, but has only 60 to 70 seats in a converted church. The Minister may be aware that it recently applied for a grant, but was refused because it could not allow access to young children under the specialist arrangements that he has spoken about. Could he advise the arts bodies and lottery councils concerned not to apply the rules in a fixed way, and to take account of size and of the practicality of such arrangements in a small theatre?

I do not know all the circumstances of the theatre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the Arts Council and the regional arts boards that distribute money on behalf of the taxpayer need to adopt suitable, sensitive and flexible approaches to particular theatres.

If he will make a statement about the work of the spoliation panel. [119882]

On Thursday 13 April, I was delighted to announce the membership and terms of reference of the spoliation advisory panel. For those who may be unfamiliar with the jargon, I should explain that the Government have set up the panel with the aim of providing an alternative to litigation, and to facilitate a just resolution of claims made for cultural objects that may have been looted in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945. The Government are determined to set an example of how a civilised society should conduct itself in making possible redress for historic wrongs committed during the Nazi era, including the looting of cultural objects.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of the claimants are now elderly and infirm, like Mr. Felix Davis, whose painting of Hampton Court is presently in the Tate gallery. I understand that there is not a great deal of dispute now between him and the Tate. Will the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure that the spoliation panel cracks on with its work to settle the claims as quickly as possible? If it turns out that its powers are not sufficiently strong, will he review them to see if they need to be strengthened?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I appreciate my hon. Friend's sensitive and determined advocacy of this issue. The answer to the questions that he puts to me is yes.

Further to the first report of the national museum directors conference, can the Minister tell the House how many cultural objects and works of art have so far been shown to be of unknown provenance? What representations has he or the spoliation panel already received about them? Can he give the House some idea about the speed with which properly completed applications can be processed, so that the works of art looted by the Nazis can be returned as soon as possible to their rightful owners?

The national museum directors conference has identified hundreds of cultural objects whose provenance in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945 contains some element of uncertainty. However, it does not follow that they were all looted objects. Indeed, only one clear-cut claim has so far been made to a national collection, and that concerns the work to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) just referred—the Jan Griffier painting "View of Hampton Court Palace", which is in the Tate.

If he will make a statement on the future of Wembley stadium. [119883]

The new Wembley stadium will be one of the finest football and rugby stadiums in the world. I look forward to its being the centrepiece of England's staging of the 2006 world cup.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the whole Wembley redevelopment scheme has been subject to dither and delay? That is shown not least by a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday that his officials were desperately negotiating with Brent council on who was to pay the £13 million redistribution and transport link costs. Will he now step in personally and take charge of the whole project to clear up the mess, so that our bid to host the world cup in 2006 is not prejudiced?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement issued last Friday by the leader of Brent council, Paul Daisley, who said:

Following detailed discussions with all the key parties involved with the development of the new stadium at Wembley, I am increasingly confident that my officers will soon be in a position to prepare a report for our planning committee which recommends approval for the stadium planning application.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Daisley and the officers of Brent council? They have trodden an extremely careful path in ensuring not only that the stadium development will go ahead as we all wish, but that the relevant section 106 moneys for the regeneration of the local area, and for the provision of a safe transport infrastructure for fans, will be provided. As my right hon. Friend has just said, that seems set to happen: planning permission will be given on the 15th. Will he join me in congratulating all who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that it does happen?

I do indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating, in particular, Councillor Daisley and the team at Brent.

Does the Secretary of State agree that Wembley stadium is arguably the most famous soccer stadium in the world, and certainly the venue for this country's greatest sporting achievement? Can he assure us that once the vandalism has taken place and the new stadium has been erected, football supporters will not be sitting in their coaches two hours after the final whistle, as happened after the Worthington cup final?

The whole point of the discussions that have been under way during the past few months between Brent and Wembley stadium is to ensure that such an eventuality is avoided. I have every confidence that the new Wembley will be even better than the old.

A few moments ago, the Minister for Sport referred to the success of the rugby league cup final held at Murrayfield a couple of weeks ago. That final is, of course, normally held at Wembley. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Wembley authorities to reflect on the success of that match, away from Wembley? In recent years, many rugby league supporters have felt exploited by Wembley, by the south of England and by London. By contrast, they were made very welcome in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland. The efforts that were made to ensure that a match could be played, although the pitch was 3 ft under water only two days before the final, were remarkable—but most remarkable of all was the fact that the match was played on a rugby union ground. A couple of years ago, that would have been unheard of.

The decision on the location of the rugby league cup final is entirely for the rugby league authorities. I hope that they will not ignore the prospect of coming, at least from time to time, to the new Wembley stadium once it is constructed, because I enjoyed a rugby league cup final at Wembley very much.

I hope that the general rejoicing is not premature. On 2 May, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Minister for Sport admitted that Ministers had been aware of Brent council's concerns over infrastructure

for more than two years.

No recommendations, views or proposals have been submitted by the Task Force to the Department.—[Official Report, 2 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 17-18W.]

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who was, I understand, a parliamentary private secretary in the previous Government. He does not understand the basic principle that Ministers in a Department cannot and should not intervene in planning decisions that may fall to the Deputy Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to determine in his semi-judicial capacity. That is the reason for the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport gave.

What proposals he has to assist English tourist resorts. [119884]

Many resorts have been included in the UK's proposals for the new objective 2 structural funds and assisted areas map. In addition, the English Tourism Council has set up a resorts task force, which is due to report in December with a programme of action to assist resorts with their regeneration strategies.

Is not it the case that all the Government have done for English seaside resorts is to cut their grants and swamp them with red tape, and to abolish the English Tourist Board? Does that not in large measure explain why only last Thursday, in places as different as Torbay, Plymouth, Great Yarmouth, Blackpool, Southend—and, indeed, Eastbourne—the Government and their Liberal Democrat lackeys were resoundingly rejected?

I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the advice of the Conservative leader of the new ruling group in Rossendale, who said that there may have been one or two switches on Thursday, but not enough to make a difference at the general election.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a real renaissance in seaside resorts throughout the country, building on the Government's extra help for those resorts, we need an urgent review of transportation corridors to places such as Scarborough—for example, the A64? What representations has she been able to make to Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that subject?

My hon. Friend will recall that on 1 March my Department held a tourism summit with Ministers from Departments throughout the Government—the first time that such a meeting had ever taken place. It was intended to ensure that tourism was put at the heart of government, and my hon. Friend's point is exactly the sort of issue that we raised with the DETR. We look forward to further discussions with that Department.

At the weekend I was fortunate to have with me a group of Russian parliamentarians, who came to see our tourism product, but also had the chance of seeing our local elections. They were of course delighted with tourism in Dorset, but were somewhat surprised by the Labour party's near annihilation in the local elections. Could the reason for Labour's election performance be that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not been providing for places such as Weymouth, Portland and Purbeck grants to encourage tourism, which I know that the Minister supports? Will she please talk urgently to Environment Ministers to ensure that grant to encourage tourism is provided to local authorities—so that, for example, public toilets can be kept open?

As I said to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), this Government have done a great deal more than any previous Government to promote tourism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's Russian friends enjoyed their visit to the United Kingdom. They will find that, increasingly, the United Kingdom has a quality tourism product that offers people value for money. No wonder so many people want to visit this country.

If hunting with hounds is allowed on Church-owned land; and if he will make a statement. [119902]

The Commissioners' long-standing policy is that we allow our tenants to decide for themselves whether to allow hunts on the land which they rent from us.

That is a very disappointing reply. Why does the Church sit on the fence on this very controversial issue? The Church of England is this country's third largest landowner, yet it prevaricates. Is the Church really neutral on the issue of killing for fun? Is it okay to kill for fun?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. The Commissioners recognise that, both inside the Church and out, there are widely varying and strongly held views on the subject, and that all of those deserve the Commissioners' respect. However, we have existing tenancies that may not be altered unilaterally. Although it may be possible to make provisions on the matter in new tenancies, enforcement of a ban on hunting would be difficult and could undermine our relationships with tenants.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Church Commissioners, on behalf of their tenants, have given evidence to the Burns committee on the continuation and beneficial effects on the countryside of hunting?

I cannot now give that confirmation to the hon. Lady, but I should be happy to look the matter up and send her a written reply.

What assessment he has made of the effect of the implementation of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill on the work of the Commission. [119903]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill on the work of the National Audit Office. [119904]

The Public Accounts Commission is responsible for examining the annual estimates of the National Audit Office. The Commission has considered the growing work load of the office, and has approved an additional £1.3 million for 2000–01. That is partly to cover introduction of resource accounting, as set out in the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. The Bill places on the Comptroller and Auditor General a duty to audit and account for the whole of the Government. As the legislation is not expected to come into force until 2005, it is too early to say what its resource implications will be.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply. Does he agree that it is essential that after enactment of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, parliamentary scrutiny of the money supply and our auditing process will be at least as good as, if not better than, they are now? Does he therefore share my concern that, by the deadline at the end of last year, only 14 of 53 Government accounts were available for audit? Will he ensure, via the Public Accounts Commission, that all possible resources necessary to ensure an orderly transition are granted?

Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that the Bill be improved in several ways, particularly in providing the same rights of access to public spending as the Government have with their own Departments. The CAG should validate the new departmental performance estimates as well. The hon. Gentleman's work for the Public Accounts Committee and the commission is, therefore, well supported generally.

I welcome the fact that all 19 non-departmental public bodies established since 1997 are to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it remains wholly unsatisfactory that just under 60 public bodies, spending approximately £2 billion of taxpayers' money, are not so audited? Does he agree that the CAG should have access to, and the opportunity to audit, all such bodies, as in Scotland, and that the proposed amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill would facilitate the speedy achievement of that important objective?

Obviously, I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for the House of Commons, which must understand that the CAG and the National Audit Office produce their accounts on behalf of Parliament as a whole. Members of Parliament should support the work of the commission and the Public Accounts Committee in ensuring that there is proper accountability in the Bill.

In what year does the right hon. Gentleman expect funding for the National Audit Office to increase to take into consideration the whole of the Government accounts, and how much does he expect the increase to be?

As we are talking about 2005, it is too early to say. There should be no increase in the cost of auditing the accounts, because they are handled in different ways and there will be an adjustment to ensure that the cost is roughly comparable. For further assessments, we will have to wait for further definitions of what will be involved in 2005 and thereafter.

If he will make a statement on the conditions relating to the disposal of redundant churches. [119905]

The Commissioners normally impose covenants on a new owner restricting the use of the property to that approved and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, the disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition.

Is the Church under any moral obligation to sell a redundant church to the existing congregation, should they wish to buy it?

The policy of the Church in relation to redundant churches is well known under the pastoral measure. The Commissioners' approval is required for any purchase of a church. Any change of use would also be a matter for the Church.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially in London, many redundant churches are sold and become unavailable to the community? They are often sold to property developers and end up as luxury housing, and any conditions that may have been imposed by the Church Commissioners are not adhered to. Will he ask the Commissioners to ensure that redundant churches that are to be put to religious or community use remain accessible to the community as a whole, and that those that are to be used for housing become affordable, accessible housing, which will end some of the problems of housing inequality in London?

Any proposal for a change of use from that already agreed with the Church Commissioners would have to be approved by the Commissioners and would be judged on its merits, but with particular regard to its suitability. About 880 churches have been appropriated for other uses. If my hon. Friend is thinking of a specific church, I would be glad to take up the case on his behalf.

To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commissioners have made on the impact on Church income of the new charitable giving arrangements. [119906]

If half the money currently given in a non-tax-efficient way were given by gift aid, the Church of England might hope to recover about another £20 million in tax in the current tax year. Our working assumption is that the new arrangements will take three years to take full effect.

I hope that the arrangements will be speeded up and that more income will come into the Church as a result of the new charitable giving initiatives. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage that he and his fellow Commissioners will be able to help churches with their running costs in the longer term?

At present, the Commissioners retain a substantial and rising liability for pensions, because of clergy who were in service before 1998. Pensions for service from 1998 onwards are being paid from the new clergy pensions scheme, so over the period 1998 to 2003 parishes are taking on the cost of pension contributions to that scheme, with transitional help from the Commissioners. By 2003, when parishes are paying pension contributions in full, we expect that giving and fundraising will constitute two thirds of the Church's income.

I am sure that the Church Commissioners welcome the changes that were made to enable Church income to be boosted in that way. What steps are being taken to ensure that people understand how they can benefit from those changes, so that Church income is maximised as speedily as possible?

We wish to communicate with the parishes, with parish churches and with parishioners to let them know what the Church is doing, what form the giving should take, and how that might assist the Church in its finances and administration.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Investigatory Powers Commission—

As I am speaking to the Government new clause and amendments, it might help if I explain their purpose and deal with issues that we debated in Committee and that were raised on Second Reading. I wish to make it clear that we have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments and have sought to address their concerns in our amendments.

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the point that part IV is over-bureaucratic. She said:

We already have a Security Service Act commissioner, an Intelligence Services Act commissioner, a chief surveillance commissioner and ordinary surveillance commissioners. None of those appears to have an independent investigatory team available to them.

I seems that the Government believe that commissioning should be a growth industry.—[Official Report, 6 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 782.]

I am glad to be present, although I feel slightly disadvantaged by the fact that, for very good reasons, my two colleagues who served on the Committee cannot attend. The expertise is therefore elsewhere.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am acutely aware of the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee is in Washington this week. I met the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to discuss that beforehand, and we did our best through the usual channels to reschedule the debate, but were unable to do so, despite the fact that it would have been better for the consideration of the Bill for all members of the Committee, particularly those who served on the Standing Committee, to be present. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Gentleman, which we did our best to meet.