To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet local authority representatives to discuss the effects of pay settlements in local authorities in Scotland. [6690]

My right hon. Friend met local authority representatives on Friday 4 July, but pay was not on the agenda. The local authorities know that any increase agreed must be funded from their existing resources.

Will the Minister share his views on how a £4 an hour minimum wage would be funded if the Scottish local authorities and the trade unions agreed to pay such a wage?

Pay awards are matters for local authorities within their allocated resources. Clearly, the substantial increase announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget—£89 million for education—will help local authorities considerably next year. Adherence to the best value regime, which we are promoting as a key plank of our policy, will help local authorities greatly.

Can the Minister assure us that, within the budgetary constraints imposed on councils this year and next year, councils will be able to fulfil their statutory requirements?

Councils will be able to fulfil their statutory requirements and, because of the Budget, will have extra resources for education. We stand by our election pledge to make education our number one priority.

As local government is one of Scotland's biggest employers, surely Labour's continuing of the Tory policy of self-financing pay awards must lead to service cuts or higher unemployment. How many jobs will be lost or services cut as a result of this policy?

We said at the election that we would abide by the public expenditure guidelines that we inherited, for years one and two. We have found substantial additional resources for education, and we are expecting efficiency savings in local government from the best value agenda.

Is not the truth that the £4 deal is about Labour councillors buying off the trade unions in case they have to turn to them for support when it comes to running a Scottish Parliament, should one ever be established? Does not this mean that the ambition of Labour's second-raters will be paid for with the jobs and services of the ordinary people of Scotland?

The simple answer to that is no. The agreement is between local authorities and the trade unions and has nothing to do with the Labour Government. Labour and other authorities know full well that any pay award must be funded from within existing resources.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department will take to cooperate with local authorities in preparations for a Scottish Parliament. [6691]

The Government are committed both to strong local government and to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. We are committed to establishing an independent review to consider the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament, and we shall be consulting on its terms of reference after we publish the White Paper on our proposals for a Scottish Parliament.

Does my hon. Friend remember the absolute fiasco that local government was landed in by the Tory Government, and the fact that a lack of consultation and finance led to a disastrous position? I am absolutely convinced that the measure that the Minister has announced will strike up an accord between local authorities and the Scottish Office to ensure that we have one of the most famous Parliaments ever, set up in Scotland. I look forward to seeing close co-operation between the Scottish Office and local authorities.

Let me assure my hon. Friend that we intend to ensure that co-operation and partnership strengthen democracy in Scotland. Our intention is to strengthen instead of weaken local government. We want to see powers moved from Westminster to Edinburgh, not from the Western Isles, Glasgow and Fife to Edinburgh. We make a firm commitment on that basis. In view of the spirit that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has shown, we believe that we can march forward together and ensure better-quality services and a fundamental strengthening of democracy.

When the hon. Gentleman consults local authorities in Scotland, will he please make the point that devolution proposals will not prove durable unless they are fair to England? Will he go on to make the point that the present proposals are not fair to England and will not be fair to England unless, for example, they are set in the context of a federal scheme for the entirety of the United Kingdom or, as another approach, they provide for a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in this House, a reduction in their capacity to intervene in the affairs of other parts of the United Kingdom, and a further reduction in per capita spending in Scotland? Will he suggest to the local authorities that, if the Scottish people were faced with those realities, they might vote against devolution?

Far be it from me to try to curb the enthusiasm of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What he has just said to the House convinces us that, when he sees the White Paper, he will be able to acknowledge and discuss some of the important issues facing Scotland. We want a fair settlement. Enormous discussions have taken place, but at the end of the day the White Paper will be published and that will be the time for the nation and the House to debate those matters.

May we have an assurance that the contents of the White Paper on the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be influenced more by our men of mettle in the Scottish Office than by our man of Straw in the Home Office?

It is widely known that we in the Scottish Office are, indeed, men of mettle. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall produce a substantial and detailed White Paper which will ensure a fair debate. Scots will soon have the chance to vote in a referendum on their future. The House has taken some decisions already. It will soon have a White Paper to debate. Then we shall move on speedily to the referendum. After we have had an endorsement through a substantial yes, yes vote, we shall come back to the House and introduce a substantive Scotland Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next attend an EC Fisheries Council to discuss the Scottish fishing industry. [6692]

My noble Friend, the Minister responsible for agriculture, the environment and fisheries at the Scottish Office will normally attend Fisheries Councils. The next Council is planned for 30 October.

Does the Minister accept that the quota hopping agreement reached at the intergovernmental conference has been received with disgust by Scottish fishermen? How many representations has he received in favour of the agreement? Does he accept that the arrangements for a Scottish Parliament—if they ever come about—will mean that the Minister responsible for Scottish fisheries will be able to achieve even less than this wretched Government did in respect of Scottish fisheries at the IGC?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. The agreement at Amsterdam was highly significant. For the first time, we have a written statement from the Commission, which is guardian of the treaties. It sets out in precise terms the measures that can be taken to establish economic links between vessels and local communities. The new Government established more and achieved more in eight weeks than the hon. Gentleman and his friends achieved in 18 years.

May I remind my hon. Friend—if, coming from the old herring port of Leith, he needs such a reminder—that it was a Conservative Government who inflicted the common fisheries policy on our fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom and agreed over-generous concessions to the new member states of Spain and Portugal? The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) ignores those facts. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to argue for a severe restriction in industrial fishing, particularly of sand eels at the Wee Bankie and the Buckie Man's Bank?

I agree that there must be tighter controls of industrial fishing. The Government support the common fisheries policy but, equally, we believe that it must be reformed, and we will pursue that vigorously from within.

When the Fisheries Minister next visits Brussels, will the Under-Secretary ensure that he has in mind the importance to the Scottish fishing industry of its village-based component, not least in the East Neuk of Fife in my constituency? Will the Fisheries Minister seek to ensure that the common fisheries policy takes account of the problems of the village-based industry, especially as it is suffering from an aging fleet and declining work force? What assurance can the Government give that it remains an important part of the fishing industry in Scotland?

I shall certainly convey the concerns of the hon. and learned Gentleman to my noble Friend the Fisheries Minister. We have a wide agenda for reform of the CFP, including a greater regional dimension for it. I shall also convey the hon. and learned Member's concerns about Fife.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a serious problem of black fish in the North sea. Scottish Office inspectors have recently clamped down on the markets in Scotland, but there seems to be no evidence of that happening in English markets, particularly in Grimsby. Will my hon. Friend communicate with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that enforcement of all aspects of our fisheries policy is as intense as it is in Scotland?

I know that my noble Friend the Fisheries Minister has been very concerned about black fish since he took over at the beginning of May. He has promoted his concern in speeches in Scotland. I am sure that he will also convey to the Minister responsible for fishing in England the need to ensure that there is action against black fish in both England and Scotland.

Can the Minister confirm that, as a Scottish Fisheries Minister in a United Kingdom Government, he can attend, speak and vote at meetings of the European Council of Ministers, but that, if fisheries became the responsibility of a Scottish Parliament, he would have to rely on an English Fisheries Minister to speak for Scotland there? How will that put Scotland at the heart of Europe?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on matters of constitutional change. The Scottish Fisheries Minister will play a full part in those matters when the Scottish Parliament is created. I suggest that he reads with great care the White Paper when it comes out next week.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make public funds available to groups campaigning in the forthcoming referendum in Scotland. [6693]

The Government made it clear during the debates on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill that no state aid will be provided to any party or organisation for the purposes of campaigning at the referendum.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there an intention to distribute widely in Scotland leaflets describing the White Paper, as has been reported in the press? If so, what arrangements will be made to guarantee their neutrality in the light of what he has just said?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that any material published and produced by the Government in relation to the referendum campaign will be totally objective. The Government intend to assist the voters in the referendum, first, through an absent voters campaign targeted at people who will be away from home or unable to attend a polling station on the day of the referendum. Secondly, a detailed White Paper will be published shortly. Thirdly, a summary of the White Paper will be made available to all households in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be grateful to the Scottish Constitutional Convention for preparing the ground for the White Paper with its proposals? Does he also agree that gratitude should be expressed to it for bringing forward proposals to ensure that women of mettle in Scotland play an equal part in that Scottish Parliament when it is formed? It is a disgrace that other parties are not willing to do the same.

I am very pleased to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend. The Scottish Constitutional Convention has done an excellent job in preparing the way for the Scottish Parliament. It should be applauded for the preparation it has done towards the White Paper and the subsequent Bill. Of course, our White Paper will be based substantially on the document produced by it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his proposals for tax—varying powers for a Scottish Parliament. [6694]

As stated in the Government's manifesto, Parliament will have defined but limited power to vary revenues. The details will be set out in a White Paper to be published shortly.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that, despite some recent uncertainties, the Government retain their commitment to impose 18 tax rises on the people of Scotland compared with the 17 tax rises announced in the Budget for the rest of the country.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her assiduous repetition of propaganda from central office. I commend the White Paper to her when it is published. Perhaps she could start, however, by visiting Scotland and talking to people there. As I am sure she will know if she reads the papers even in a cursory fashion, the polls show an increasingly healthy majority support not just for the concept of a Scottish Parliament but for the need to give it the discipline and responsibility of having powers to vary some of its revenue.

What is the answer to the question put in yesterday's leading article in The Scotsman as to who pays for the new Parliament building on Victoria quay, which apparently the Secretary of State has discovered he now needs?

The one thing that I have always enjoyed about my hon. Friend is his precision, but I can assure him that on this occasion he has fallen short of his normal high standards. Consideration is being given to various options, the reasons for which I think anyone who knows the Royal high school building will appreciate. We will be looking for a scheme that gives value for money, combined with effective government and an effective working environment for new members of the Scottish Parliament. I think that there will be widespread support for that.

Although the Labour party has suggested that it would not necessarily use any tax powers given to the Scottish Parliament in the first term of that Parliament, can the Secretary of State confirm, having consulted his officials and the Inland Revenue, that those powers will be available for use by that Parliament in its first term if the Parliament wishes to make the necessary additional investment in education and health that some of us think is needed?

That is the intention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for precisely drawing attention to the difference between an existence of the power and the use of it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a directly elected Scottish Parliament will have a democratic legitimacy that cannot be matched even by the Scottish Office? It will therefore be a far more significant player in the annual public spending round than any Whitehall-based Department. It will therefore be better placed to defend levels of public spending in Scotland and to build upon that with its tax-varying power. Will my right hon. Friend therefore join me in recommending all those who want to see better public services in Scotland, which are better funded, to go out at the referendum and vote yes, yes?

I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the need for a good turn-out and to maximise the enormous potential support that exists, as almost every opinion poll has shown. The most recent one showed that eight out of 10 Scots, in the sample polled, felt that a Scottish Parliament directly elected in the way we suggest would produce policies more attuned to the needs of Scotland. There is an essential democratic case at the very heart of our argument for a Scottish Parliament.

The Secretary of State is always keen to remind the House that the tax-varying power means downwards as well as upwards, so can he confirm the statement made in the other place recently by Government Treasury spokesman Lord Haskel—that, if a Scottish Parliament lowered the standard rate of tax by the permitted 3p in the pound, the Treasury would cut the Scottish block by £450 million to make up the lost revenue? On that evidence, can the right hon. Gentleman still claim that the tax-varying power, to reduce or put up tax, is good for the Scottish people? Will they not suffer either way from this half-baked tartan tax idea?

The right hon. Gentleman will want to read the White Paper with care. I congratulate the noble Lord, who seems to have gone some way to educating Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen about the proposals. If we reduce taxation, that will have an obvious impact on the subvention from the United Kingdom Exchequer—it would be extraordinary if it did not. I hate to imagine the assault that would be mounted on us if we proposed otherwise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his White Paper on his proposals for the Scottish Assembly. [6695]

The White Paper will be published on 24 July. This will allow both Houses proper opportunity to debate it before the summer recess.

Why has the White Paper been so long in coming? Surely, after all the years of discussion and debate about devolution, it would have been far better to produce specific proposals immediately after the general election.

That shows a remarkable degree of naivety. For the hon. Gentleman's sake, I am glad that he is on the Opposition Benches; he will have some time in which to learn about the realities of government. If he were truly interested in what we have promised, he would know that we have said definitively, from the beginning, that we would publish a White Paper before the House rose for the summer recess. We have met that promise exactly, just as we shall meet many other promises in the time that lies ahead.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the support of tens of thousands of former Conservatives for the White Paper, even before it is published? Will he comment on the decision of Arthur Bell, a leading Scottish Conservative, who has decided to dump that lot opposite us because they are anti-Scottish, anti-British and anti-Conservative?

I do not want to intrude on private grief by discussing the internal state of the Conservative party. There is, however, substantial polling evidence to show that many Conservative supporters will vote yes in the referendum. That is perhaps not surprising when we recall how attractive the concept of devolution was to many distinguished Conservatives now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.

If the White Paper includes the option of a new building for the Scottish Parliament, will the Secretary of State consider making it our celebration of the millennium—not a dome or a museum, but a building that reflects the best traditions of Scottish culture and architecture? It should be a living and working building, serving all the people: a truly exciting Scottish experience.

I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Lady says. For one horrible moment I thought that she was about to suggest that the Parliament should be housed on a hill above Oban, where, the House will recall, there is a building that might be turned into a dome with a bit of new roofing. I agree with the hon. Lady; the start of the new Parliament will, we hope—it depends on the vote of the Scottish people—almost coincide with the millennium, and I should very much like to think that it will catch the spirit of the time and will usher in a new era. I want an environment and a building that is worthy of that.

If the Royal high school building in Edinburgh is no longer suitable for the Scottish Parliament, does that open up the debate about where the Parliament will be located? Does it need to be in Edinburgh? Will the Secretary of State's proposals include consultation with local authorities, especially Glasgow, to ascertain what suitable alternative buildings and sites may be available to house the new Parliament?

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to make the position clear. The Government have not ruled out the Royal high school, but we are conscious of its shortcomings as a possible site, and we want to look at other options. To stop many hearts a-fluttering and rumours a-running, I should say that we shall not be looking beyond Edinburgh.

Given that, on his own admission, it has taken the right hon. Gentleman a quarter of a century to bring the proposals to fruition in a White Paper—and it has taken the Labour party 18 years, the convention eight years and the Cabinet three months to bring the White Paper to fruition—does not he think that he is treating the Scottish people with contempt by asking them to make a sensible and valid judgment on the proposals in less than two months? Would it not be right, even now, for him to show some respect for the importance of his White Paper and postpone the referendum until the Scottish people have had a chance properly to consider and understand the highly complex issues, over which, we understand, even the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues are falling out among themselves?

I understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants more time to try to invent a few arguments to put to the people in Scotland. I realise that, through no fault of his own but through electoral mischance, he has been removed from the debate for a long time to come. If he is in Scotland more often, as doubtless he will be with his new responsibilities, he will find that, after the lengthy period of discussion, the mood in Scotland is that it is time for action. That will be confirmed by the referendum vote, and I look forward to making progress rapidly thereafter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speed with which he was able to bring forward the White Paper is based wholly on the fact that, for the past eight years, the Labour party has been engaged in detailed discussions, rather than—as it could quite easily have decided to do—telling the people of Scotland what to do? We have been discussing with all the parties that have been prepared to sit down with us in the constitutional convention; even at the last moment, the offer was still open to Conservative members to join us. That discussion has allowed my right hon. Friend to produce the White Paper within such an excellent time scale.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the discussion over recent years laid a valuable foundation on which we were able to build when we came to power in May this year. I do not want to sound complacent, but we have made good progress in getting the White Paper ready for publication within a tight timetable. To be fair to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I am sure that, with his knowledge of government, he will accept that. People have worked hard, and with great skill and commitment, to achieve that end.

As he is talking about recent years, does the Secretary of State recall that he was the co-author and signatory of the Claim of Right, which asserted the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his Minister of State endorsing, in front of 25,000 people, the democracy declaration that stated that the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament was no longer acceptable to Scots? Does the Secretary of State still hold those beliefs and will they be reflected in the White Paper, or has the Home Secretary told him to change his mind?

The hon. Gentleman always puts it so endearingly. Of course I signed the Claim of Right. I was pleased to do so—proud to do so, almost—and I do not regret having done so. The fallacy in what the hon. Gentleman has put to me—we have had this debate before—is that he makes the arrogant assumption that that right of the Scottish people has to be exercised in a specific way. In my view, however, they could exercise that right as they think fit. I feel that they will want to exercise it in favour of the devolution proposals within the United Kingdom that I am advancing. The referendum puts that to the test, and I hope that, afterwards, we can move ahead with the minimum of further delay.

Before the Government finalise the contents of the White Paper, will the Secretary of State ensure that it addresses the issue of Scottish representation in this Parliament?

It is a comprehensive White Paper. I have no intention of revealing its detailed provisions, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a well-founded and well-formulated scheme, which I know he will read with great interest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review his Department's policy on environmentally sensitive areas. [6696]

Policy reviews for the Breadalbane and Loch Lomond environmentally sensitive areas are due to be undertaken later this year. Reviews of the remaining eight areas are scheduled for 1998.

I thank the Minister for his reply. As he must be aware, environmentally sensitive areas are designed to help farmers and crofters adopt more environmentally friendly farming practices. In his review, will the Minister examine the ceilings for payments, which do not exist in England, with a view to increasing uptake of the scheme and ensuring that farmers and crofters are much more involved in ESAs?

The ceilings exist to prevent a disproportionate share of resources being swallowed up by a few very large farms or estates. My hon. Friend refers to England, where there is a different farm structure, without the large hill farms that we have in Scotland. The principle of ceilings is supported by the Scottish Crofters Union and was endorsed by the Scottish Affairs Committee in a recent report.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet health board chairpersons to discuss health services for women and children. [6697]

I meet health board chairmen regularly to discuss a range of issues.

When he next meets health board chairmen, will my hon. Friend emphasise the importance of full public consultation on the provision of services for women and children, especially in obstetrics and paediatrics? Will he further agree to urge the new chairman of Fife health board to go out directly to the communities throughout Fife and seek out and listen to their views on how best to provide local maternity services?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in maternity services, especially in Fife, and the efforts that she has made on behalf of her constituents. As we all know, maternity services are undergoing significant development and change in the health service. That process will vary depending on each health board. I am convinced, however, that the main motivation for that change must be the health and safety of mothers and babies, and that that will be the motivating factor in Fife as well.

When he meets the chairmen of the health boards, will the Minister tell them whether the Scottish Parliament—if there is to be one—will be competent to determine abortion questions?

The hon. Gentleman has thought to be clever and introduce an issue relating to the devolution proposals. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, he need be patient for only a little longer. The White Paper will be published on 24 July, and he should read it with great interest then.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for increasing the use of public transport. [6699]

I intend to publish a White Paper on an integrated transport policy for Scotland early next year.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Government's promotion of public transport, combined with the decision that the roads review will pay regard to environmental as well as economic factors, should help us to fulfil our ecological responsibilities? Will he further be prepared to consider, with specific regard to my constituency, whether the western peripheral road, combined with an integrated public transport service, might be an environmentally friendly and economically sound way of solving Aberdeen's traffic problems?

As I told my hon. Friend in the Scottish Grand Committee, I shall look at the western peripheral road as part of the roads review. The criteria that we shall use for that review are the environment and the economy, but we shall also have regard to considerations of safety and congestion. We shall look at the scope for a modal shift towards public transport, which will be a key theme of our White Paper, and we shall consult on that very soon.

If the democratic will of the Scottish people is that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-raising powers, and if local authorities in Scotland go to that Parliament asking for public transport grants to help them to get more public transport, will the Labour Government stop that new Parliament from raising additional taxes? Are they asking the people of Scotland to give a democratic view of what should happen and then denying them the ability to use that varying power?

Once again, Conservative Members try to tempt us to reveal what will be in next week's White Paper. Transport will be dealt with clearly in the White Paper. A debate about congestion charging is going on at UK level among the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Scottish Office and local authorities.

Will my hon. Friend give us some idea about the progress that has been made on the roads review, particularly in connection with the A77? The economy of Ayrshire will be greatly affected if the section that has already been proposed does not go ahead.

I am aware of the arguments in favour of that section of road, and it will be considered as quickly as possible. It will be early next year before it is completed, because we are determined to have a comprehensive review to introduce a coherent rationale into the road building programme. We inherited from the previous Government a make-believe roads programme; we are determined to form a real roads programme. The previous Government promised roads here and there, but there was no money in the forward budget plans to pay for them. We shall therefore introduce a coherent roads policy, which will be revealed early next year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the future of the formula used to calculate the Scottish block grant. [6701]

People express a range of views to me about how public spending in Scotland should be financed.

From what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House this afternoon, can we take it that he intends to build a new Parliament building for Scotland? If so, can we have a categorical assurance now—there is no need to wait for a White Paper—that it will be paid for out of the Scottish block grant, not by taxpayers in England?

The hon. Gentleman wants details but, yes, there will be expenditure on a new Parliament building, whether on the refurbishment of the Royal high school or on a new site. Obviously that is an integral part of our proposals, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the new Parliament when it comes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reduce the number of health boards and trusts in Scotland. [6702]

I certainly intend to reduce the number of trusts, but I have no master plan. All proposals that are sensible, involve clinicians, are supported by local health boards, and will improve clinical links between hospitals and between hospitals and primary care, will be considered on their merits. I have no immediate plans to change the number of health boards in Scotland.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. My constituency and that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) have two trusts and one health board in a sparsely populated area. Is not such a system overburdening in terms of bureaucracy and red tape?

I do not want to pre-empt any review at this stage, but any review will be put out to wide consultation and the hon. Members who represent that area will be involved. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for putting his proposals to me at this early stage, and I shall certainly take them into consideration.

Will the Minister intervene with Dumfries and Galloway health board in connection with the number of community care beds being provided in Stranraer, a matter that is causing great concern in Galloway?

I was not aware of that problem, but I shall look into it on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and give him a reply when the information is available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends meeting the British Dental Association to discuss dental health in Scotland. [6703]

I have asked my officials to arrange a meeting with the British Dental Association in September.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the British Dental Association that the quickest and most effective way dramatically to improve dental health in Scotland, particularly among young people, is to ensure an adequate supply of fluoride in the public water system? If he agrees, will he hold urgent talks with the water authorities to ensure that that happens and, if they refuse to fluoridate water, will he introduce legislation to ensure that it happens?

There are three main ways to reduce dental caries. The first is to cut sugar intake, the second is to clean teeth regularly and the third—and by far the most effective—is to introduce fluoride, which is the best way forward.

To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the role of the Privy Council in relation to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. [6720]

The offices and bodies, membership of which disqualifies individuals from being Members of the House of Commons, are listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Amendments to the list are made by Order in Council on the advice of the Privy Council. In addition, the judicial committee of the Privy Council would consider any application that might be made to Her Majesty in Council by a person claiming that a Member of the House of Commons is disqualified by that Act.

Did my right hon. Friend notice the recent remarks of Lord Nolan, who suggested that the time had come for the House to look again at the issue of outside interests? Now that certain Conservative Members have expressed their intention of responding to the rigours of opposition by devoting themselves to making serious money outside, is it not time to examine the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the role of the judicial committee to see whether that is a way of dealing with the matter? Will my right hon. Friend give it urgent consideration?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues that are of concern to many people. We now have a code of conduct for Members of Parliament and the new system that is supervised by the Standards and Privileges Committee. In view of that, it is somewhat early to suggest a different course of action. The Standards and Privileges Committee is working well.

Will the President consider whether the Privy Council might have a role in examining blind trusts for the financing of private offices? I have taken advice from the assistant registrar, who says that a blind trust would no longer be acceptable because when the system was last used it broke down. Perhaps the Privy Council could advise the Prime Minister whether he should publish the names of all the people who donated to his blind trust.

The matter was considered by the previous Standards and Privileges Committee on the advice of Sir Gordon Downey. The new Standards and Privileges Committee will inherit some of that work and make its recommendations in due course. It is right that the guidance should come from there.

To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress made in respect of the modernisation of Parliament. [6721]

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons was set up on 4 June with a wide remit to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised. I hope that the Committee will soon be able to report its initial conclusions on improvements to our legislative procedure. We have already made suggestions about changes in the voting Lobby, which are being adopted on an experimental basis.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for her reply, may I remind her that impatience for change is shared not only by newly elected Members, but by Members of all generations, not least my intake of 1992. With reference to long overdue reforms, has my right hon. Friend any plans to remedy the absurd situation that occurred yesterday evening, when the House was kept up until the small hours by a handful of Liberal Democrats on entirely non-controversial legislation?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the House was detained last night by part, if not all, of the Liberal party. He is certainly correct when he says that not only new Members of Parliament favour change: many experienced Members have submitted ideas and evidence to the Modernisation Committee and we hope to take their views into account in due course. I think that there is a general mood for change the procedures of the House.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that, if her laudable desire for full and proper scrutiny of all legislation is to come to pass, we must have more prior consultation and much fuller debate than she has allowed us today on the Finance Bill?

The hon. Gentleman will know that today's Finance Bill debate was agreed with the Opposition: the Government acceded to their request to consider the Bill for two days in Committee of the whole House. In the longer term, we must examine procedures to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny of all Bills. However, I do not wish to rehearse the issues raised in yesterday's guillotine debate.

To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to propose changes to the format of the Order Paper. [6722]

The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently considering ways in which the Order Paper might be made more user friendly.

My right hon. Friend may have noticed the event being staged outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for Plain English Week. In view of that event and the fact that many hon. Members have great difficulty explaining to our constituents the meaning and structure of the Order Paper, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider revising its format to make it more user friendly? We must avoid the pitfalls that the previous Administration encountered when the Department of National Heritage won the plain English booby prize.

I certainly hope that a redesigned Order Paper does not win a booby prize. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the Order Paper's current format. We want to make it more comprehensible, and we think that there is a strong case for applying plain English principles to every document, including the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pictures?"] Opposition Members may need pictures because there are so many new Labour Members. However, we are not considering pictures for the Order Paper.

Will the President accept that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Order Paper and that she would be better occupied turning her attention to more important matters? For example, will she try to help the Prime Minister recover his bottle so that he may come to this place twice, rather than once, a week?

Many people inside and outside the House believe that the current procedure for Prime Minister's Question Time is a significant improvement on the old procedure. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen think that it is boring, perhaps that shows that the new procedure is more constructive than the old one. As to the Order Paper, I repeat that we have received representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for change, which the majority would agree is long overdue.

To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to replace Norman French with English for the endorsement of Commons Bills being sent to the other place. [6723]

None.

While we are on the subject of plain English, why do we use Norman French in all communications when sending amended legislation from the House to the other place? Is it not ludicrous that, 550 years after the last speech was made in French in this place, we still do not use English, plain English, modern French or even grammatical old French for those communications? If it is considered indelicate to use the English language when endorsing Bills and returning them to the other place, why do we not use the language of heaven?

I must take my hon. Friend's word for it that the Norman French that is used is not even grammatical; I would not like to challenge him on that point. There is a role for traditions in the House but we should always ensure that any tradition that we maintain has a purpose. It may be that in due course the Modernisation Committee will be able to turn its mind to these issues, but I do not think that they can be a priority.

Is not the proposal modernisation gone mad? Will the President confirm that the phrase "La Reyne n'avisera pas" was last used in the House during the reign of Queen Anne? Unless someone has a rush of blood to the head, we are unlikely ever to hear it again in our lifetime. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) cannot cope with one phrase in Norman French, there is a real problem with the national curriculum in Wales. Perhaps it is about time, with all this modernisation, that we started sending Cromwell's men back to their barracks.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's attitude, approach and comments will be taken into account during the devolution debate.

Would it be fair to record that during the past 18 years a great deal of modernisation took place? Successive Conservative Governments desired its introduction. Most of those who have spoken of modernisation, apart from new Members, marched into the Lobby to support so-called modernisation of the House. They removed many opportunities for Back-Bench Members by getting rid of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Countless other measures were taken to prevent Back Benchers from speaking. They got rid of Adjournment debates before recesses, of which there were three in any given year.

Order. We heard all this yesterday. It is becoming rather tedious.

My hon. Friend's analysis of the attitude of Conservative Members is entirely right. Of course, the Jopling report did not deal with Norman French.

To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the estimated annual cost to public funds of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee. [6724]

Separate estimates for the additional indirect costs of the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee are not kept independently. A manual check of the records for the financial year 1996–97 for the 13 meetings that were held of the Scottish Grand Committee furth of the Palace of Westminster totalled £108,000, an approximate cost of just under £10,000 per meeting.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he believe that the cost of the proposed Scottish Parliament will be very much greater? Would he envisage the Scottish Office team of Ministers, which is paid for out of United Kingdom funds, being cut pro rata? Does he think that that would be a good idea?

I can confidently give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the House of Commons Commission has no immediate territorial ambitions to invest in real estate in Edinburgh; we have enough difficulty dealing with estimates to cover the costs of the administration and works budget. These are matters for Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his political point in his own way, but I suspect that the publication of the White Paper next week will provide him with a better opportunity so to do.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the costs of the Scottish Grand Committee during the past Session were inflated because of the decision taken by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to take the Committee on a tour of every constituency in Scotland that had a Tory Member? As every one of them was defeated in the subsequent general election, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has never been such a waste of public money at any time by any Government?

The House of Commons Commissioners are simply servants of the House; we will the means while the House wills the ends. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of a motion of 30 June, which will restrict the number of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee during the coming Session. It is true that some of us believe that the former Secretary of State for Scotland had an eccentric predilection for compering in important but out-of-the-way parts of Scotland early on Monday mornings late in the winter.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to install an accounting system that will show the English taxpayer how much of the costs of these exercises he is expected to bear in indulging these Scottish nonsenses?

Perhaps I may advert to the fact that Standing Order No. 117 contains powers for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being left out and treated less well than Scotland, which has access to a Scottish Grand Committee, the Leader of the House might table a motion to constitute such a Committee and the hon. Gentleman could have the same benefits as members of the Scottish Grand Committee.

To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to review the responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. [6725]

I have no such plans, but I will, of course, consider any views that hon. Members might wish to put to me.

On a relatively minor matter—I would not describe it as anything else—is the Leader of the House aware that I sent a note to the Clerk regarding dress? It would be odd for us to wear the dress of our predecessors of centuries ago, so is not it about time that we brought the Chamber into line and perhaps—without in any way wishing to be offensive to anybody—remove wigs and the rest of it?

That could be considered by the Modernisation Committee, although not by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.