When he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss job creation in Scotland. [17090]

I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry met representatives of Scottish Enterprise on 26 November when a number of issues, including job creation, were discussed.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. At a time when unemployment in Scotland is at a higher level than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and with press reports this morning that more than 1,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland are under threat, what can the Secretary of State do to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow some economic policy other than total dependence on interest rates as a means of slowing the overheating economy in the south-east of England, which has nothing to do with Scotland?

It is in the interests of the whole United Kingdom that we place public finances on a sound footing and get levels of growth that we can sustain and build on in the future.

Does the Secretary of State agree that long-term unemployment is a huge problem in the city of Glasgow? Will he gave an assurance that the Scottish Office will give its fullest support to Glasgow's bid for employment zone status, which will enable the city to tackle this critical situation?

My hon. Friend can be assured that we fully back Glasgow's bid and hope that it will be successful. I remind him that the welfare-to-work programme, which deals with those who have been out of the labour market for a considerable time, is an enormously important commitment, backed by heavy funding on the part of the Government, and Glasgow, in Scottish terms, is a very important part of that programme.

In considering disbursement of money from the Scottish Office, will the Secretary of State recall that in the entire county of Sutherland there are now fewer than 2,000 people engaged in agriculture and country occupations while in the city of which the right hon. Gentleman represents a part there are 82,000 registered drug addicts? Which section of society does he think is more deserving of reward from the public purse?

I think that the choice is a false one; it is not a matter of choosing between the two, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I welcome his interest and concern for those who are struggling in Glasgow. No doubt he will be glad of my assurance that we work very closely with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local authorities and other agencies to examine the problems of areas such as Sutherland, with which we are very familiar. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the pleasure that I do in the fact that a working party is closely studying land management and the ownership in that part of the world.

Is the Secretary of State aware that yesterday the Wrangler jeans company announced 250 redundancies at the factory at Camelon in my constituency, and that that is a devastating blow for the work force and the entire local community? Will the Secretary of State therefore make urgent contact with the company to discover what can be done to save as many jobs as possible?

I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate the importance of this to his locality—it was disappointing news. I gather that it is proposed that production should go abroad on this occasion, but we shall do everything we can to help with the difficulty. Forth Valley Enterprise is already involved and my office is looking at the matter closely. We shall try to offer any constructive help that we can.

In his discussions with Scottish Enterprise, has the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that it can offer new businesses coming to Scotland higher grants, that tourism in Scotland gets a lot more money, and that public spending there is higher too? Has he been able to reassure its members that Scotland will always enjoy that advantage over the other regions of England and that he will fight in Cabinet to ensure the continuation of that unfair advantage?

That was a somewhat confused question. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for my view of the current discussions on the proper co-ordination of the inward investment effort across the United Kingdom, I certainly welcome such co-ordination. In the context of regional selective assistance, the hon. Gentleman will know that there are guidelines on the money per job that can be offered which apply across the United Kingdom. We observe them closely in Scotland. It is true that Scotland has a big success record, but that record is based on the virtues and merits of the services offered, not on any unfair advantage. I welcome sensible co-ordination which ensures that every part of the UK can properly put its case. That is what the current discussions are about.

Like my hon. Friends, I represent a constituency that has felt the full impact of large-scale unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the success of local authorities and local enterprise companies that work together on job creation, especially in Fife, where we have the fast-track skills seekers youth employment initiative involving 1,100 businesses, and where we have attracted inward investment? Will my right hon. Friend also join me in welcoming the unequivocal commitment offered by Hyundai last week to establish 800 new jobs in Dunfermline by this time next year?

I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's good opinion of the efforts made by local enterprise companies and local authorities, in Fife and throughout Scotland. We are watching the Hyundai situation closely. There has been a good deal of rather excitable copy in the press about the costs of attracting that company. Most of the figures that I have seen have been wildly exaggerated. I also remind the House that under regional selective assistance and the many other elements involved payment is not made until the jobs are there: no jobs, no payment. However, I welcome the fact that the company has made it clear that it is committed to completing the first phase on time. We shall watch carefully—the more so in view of the unfortunate shock waves that have hit the Korean economy.

What do the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect to happen to unemployment in Scotland over the coming year? Following the job losses at Wrangler, Pringle, Grampian Brands, Telecom Sciences and others, who else will be joining the dole queue to satisfy the Chancellor's commitment to preparing for economic and monetary union?

That is a very prejudiced view of what is happening in the Scottish economy. I have before me a long double column of recent job increases, but I do not think that swapping that sort of statistic is very helpful. The important point is that unemployment is low and there is growth in the economy. Our aims and policies, in Scotland and the rest of the country, are designed to sustain that state of affairs and to make sure that we avoid the stop-go cycles with which the hon. Gentleman, given the record of the Government he supported, will be very familiar.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new deal must be tailored to meet local job creation requirements? The Minister for Education and Industry was in Dundee recently at a meeting hosted by Michelin and NCR—a meeting called to reflect the concerns felt on Tayside by all sections of the community. The one thing that marks out Tayside is the co-operation across the board between all in an effort to make it a successful pathfinder area.

The Government see the importance of welfare to work as real and pressing. Dundee is a pathfinder area, and I am very satisfied to hear reports from my colleagues that these matters are going extremely well there; that was an impression that I gained from my own recent visit to Dundee. I associate myself with what my hon. Friend said about Michelin and NCR, and the level of commitment shown by local employers generally. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be embarrassed if I say that the hard work of both Dundee Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)—has been a feature of that effort.

How many Scottish universities he has visited since 1 May to discuss higher education provision in Scotland. [17091]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the university of Dundee in November. I visited the universities of Abertay Dundee and Strathclyde in September and the university of Edinburgh in November.

The Government claim that nobody should be deterred from higher education because of financial circumstances. Why, since the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of tuition fees—in addition to student loans—have applications for universities fallen by about 10 per cent.? Will the Government now abandon that short-sighted and disastrous policy?

The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to wait until the figures are finalised. He would do his constituents and the young people of Scotland a service if he contributed to a more accurate flow of information.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that access to higher education is just as important for adults as it is for young people, and that the announcement last week of £28 million for out-of-school child care is an important part of that? Will he confirm that access to that is available to lone parents who will be taking part in further education?

Indeed, I confirm that that will be the case from next April. That is a move forward of great importance to lone parents. We shall be producing a separate Scottish White Paper on lifelong learning which will cover a wide range of initiatives in that field.

The Scottish higher education budget is part of a wider education budget for Scotland. It is a matter of fact that that budget, per head of population, is 25 per cent. higher than it is for England. How long will that situation continue for Scotland, when the income differentials between England and Scotland have narrowed almost to nothing?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could take a tutorial from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who has some acquaintance with Sutherland. The hon. Gentleman would then learn something about the geography and demography of Scotland, and he might understand why more factors than mere population statistics determine how public funds are allocated. The decisions within the Scottish budget are taken according to priorities and needs. We place a high priority, as I am sure do my hon. Friends south of the border, on education.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurances in relation to adult students. I am particularly concerned about the situation of students from low-income families. Can the Minister tell us what policies there are to assist such students?

It is important to understand that the headline caricature of £1,000 a year tuition fees is not true. On present statistics, 40 per cent, of Scottish students will be entirely exempt from tuition fees. That is extremely important.

How many of the principals of Scottish universities whom the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have met have given unequivocal support to the proposal for tuition fees, especially bearing in mind the effect that the proposal will have on students from other parts of the United Kingdom deciding to come to Scottish universities?

I would be anxious to visit a cross-section of universities. If I went to St. Andrews with its 44 per cent. of students from south of the border, I might equally go to Paisley university with its 1 per cent. If I went to St. Andrews, I would not swallow whole everything that the principal told me. I might even advise the principal that if he wants to maintain the precise number of students from outwith Scotland, especially from England, it is absolutely open to him to do so. He could do so by taking more students from that large group who are not subject to tuition fees and are therefore not affected by our proposals.

It would make it more exclusive.

By definition, those who do not pay tuition fees are students from lower-income backgrounds. If the principal of St. Andrews wanted to go down that road, I would welcome it. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would do so.

If he will make a statement on the interdepartmental concordat relating to inward investment in respect of Scotland. [17092]

What discussions he has had recently with the President of the Board of Trade on inward investment matters. [17099]

The Government undertook in our White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", Cm 3658, to produce a concordat on common guidelines and consultation arrangements on the handling of financial assistance to industry. Discussions are proceeding among interested Departments.

Is not the concordat really a con on the people of Scotland? The Government are seeking to give the impression that a Scottish Parliament will have control over inward investment into Scotland when the reality is that under the dead hand of the Treasury control throughout the United Kingdom will be transferred to the President of the Board of Trade. Far from more influence being in Scotland, more influence will be exercised by Ministers in London. Is not one of the reasons why it has taken such a long time to publish the Bill on the Scottish Parliament the fact that it is difficult for even the most creative parliamentary draftsman to produce a Bill that is not entirely transparent in terms of the con on the people of Scotland?

I can understand the attractiveness of that line of argument to the hon. Gentleman. However, the timetable is bang on schedule. That is a tribute to the draftsmen and to everyone else working with them, and one that refutes the hon. Gentleman's implied criticism. It is entirely proper, and much in Scotland's interests, that a concordat should be in place and that there should be a set of rules.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the record £5 billion of inward investment that was achieved under the Conservative Government? Does he agree that that record achievement stands a good chance of being undermined by the triple whammy of the Scottish Parliament, the social chapter and the minimum wage?

The brief answer is no, but I will make a slightly fuller reply in response to the earlier point. Yes, I pay tribute to a great deal of the work that was done. I pay tribute to some of the decisions that were taken and to the continuing work of Locate in Scotland throughout that period. I do not pay tribute, however—I do not attribute this to the hon. Gentleman—to hon. Members, perhaps from other parties, who welcome job announcements, but who at the first whiff of grapeshot and difficulty start to condemn and say things that are very different from what they said when the announcements were greeted. We have seen examples of that in recent days in relation to the reports on Hyundai.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the success of Britain has been considerable, as a share of the European total the number of jobs and projects that Britain has achieved has fallen, that it is essential that there should not be wasteful competition between the various parts of the United Kingdom, and that for that reason as much as for financial concerns we need a proper concordat between the English regional development agencies, when they arrive, and the Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Development Office?

My hon. Friend speaks with authority on these matters, and is absolutely correct. It is a paranoid response to believe that rules will always work against us. That is not the case. The political situation is changing, and there will be devolved Parliaments in Scotland and Wales. At the same time new agencies with their own ambitions will emerge in England. It is entirely right within those circumstances that there should be rules that are simple to understand and enforceable, but in which flexibility, which has ensured the success of agencies such as Locate in Scotland, is maintained. That is simple, it is in Scotland's interests and it is what we hope to achieve.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent joint ventures across borders between, for example, Elf of France and BP in my constituency at Grangemouth, or Toatsu of Japan and Zeneca in my constituency, or Rhom and Haas and its Japanese partners? Does he agree that it is the stability of the relationships between Scotland and the regions of England that has created these? In fact, in the chemical industries people do not talk about Scotland, England or other parts of the UK, but about east coast Britain, which goes from Teesside to the Don in Aberdeen. Does not the small-minded and hypocritical approach of the Conservatives merely continue the attempt to divide people and to prevent decent partnerships from being put together between the private and the public sectors, which has always been their strategy?

I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says, although I do not associate the last charge with anything that we have heard from hon. Members today. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that part of Scotland's strength as an inward investment destination is its place within the United Kingdom. In a recent visit to the far east, I had excellent assistance and co-operation from UK representatives abroad. There is, of course, a crossover between what we can do for Scotland directly and our inward investment effort for the United Kingdom as a whole, and long may that continue—it is very much in Scotland's interests.

Does the Minister agree that, as well as the important job of attracting inward investment, the Scottish Parliament will be wise if it tries to devise strategies to promote indigenous companies in Scotland? It might equally be wise to enter into a concordat with other development agencies in the rest of the United Kingdom to try to prevent—I think that these were the Minister's words—the expensive and unproductive outbidding that there has been? Will the Minister assure the House that that will be a decision that the Scottish Parliament can freely make and not be bound beforehand by any decision of the Secretary of State?

The Scottish Parliament's responsibilities in this area are clearly set out in the White Paper and will be translated into legislation. They are easily understood and must be enforceable. I have no doubt that the political focus that the Scottish Parliament will put on issues of economic development and inward investment will be beneficial for Scotland. I must make it clear that we are completely evenhanded. I am very anxious to stress again the support that is available to indigenous companies. No case has been brought to my attention in which indigenous companies have been refused assistance because resources were unavailable through the investment that was made in attracting companies coming into Scotland. The happiest arrangement of all is for inward investors to stabilise, expand and become indigenous companies. The sooner we stop making these false distinctions the better.

Given that Locate in Scotland is one of the most successful inward investment agencies in Europe, will the Minister explain why new rules are necessary at this stage? Furthermore, as Scotland usually competes not with the north-east of England but with the Czech Republic or the Irish Republic, is there not a danger that new rules will reduce the total amount of inward investment into the United Kingdom rather than transfer it to somewhere else in the United Kingdom?

Let us be clear about this: Locate in Scotland does better for Scotland within the United Kingdom than any other development agency in Europe, and that is how we intend to keep it. The hon. Gentleman asked why we needed to change or update the rules. It may have escaped his notice that major constitutional change is taking place. There will be a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament, and there will be a group of powerful economic development agencies in Europe. The hon. Gentleman should understand that rules can work in Scotland's interests. The idea that someone is always trying to steal our piece and working against Scotland is ridiculous. I welcome the rules, and we shall work with other Departments to bring them to fruition.

Why were these important and totally foreseeable inward investment issues not resolved before the devolution referendum, which has given them such unhelpful exposure? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the unseemly Cabinet row that is now raging is very damaging to inward investment not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he share my fear that if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the same Cabinet find it so difficult to agree on such matters it will be well nigh impossible in the future for a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a queue of English regions to do so? Is that what his right hon. Friend meant by devolution strengthening the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman should not always believe what he reads in the newspapers. There is constructive dialogue to produce the best possible solution for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is our aim, and that will be our achievement.

If he will ensure that the present level of Caledonian MacBrayne ferry services is maintained. [17093]

The Government are committed to safeguarding appropriate lifeline ferry services for communities in the highlands and islands, and to maintaining Caledonian MacBrayne in the public sector. The level of service on individual routes within the Caledonian MacBrayne network is regularly reviewed by the Scottish Office and the company in the light of changing service requirements, the introduction of new vessels and other relevant factors.

The Minister must be aware of the increasing concern that Caledonian MacBrayne is not able to maintain services. When will a decision be made about the Tarbert-Portavadie service? I take this opportunity to give the Minister a friendly but timely warning that he will encounter enormous opposition if any attempt is made to downgrade or remove the Dunoon to Gourock service, given the damage that it would cause to the economy of Dunoon. In the 1980s, the Tory party tried to remove the service, so I hope that the Labour Government will not go down that road.

Ministers have given approval for the Tarbert service to continue for the summer of 1998 pending further consideration in the comprehensive spending review. A report commissioned by the previous Government on the Gourock-Dunoon service is awaited. It will examine a number of options, and the recommendations will be carefully considered. I remind the hon. Lady that in 1981, when there was a proposal totally to withdraw the CalMac service on that route, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave evidence for the objectors at the public inquiry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is serious concern in Gourock about the management and development of the company under the regime of Admiral Rankin and Captain Simpkin and that the two vessels which operate the Gourock-Dunoon service are, in shipping terms, very elderly ladies and should be replaced long before 2002?

Of course we shall consult local bodies when we have received the report and I shall also be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

What plans he has to take action against anti-social neighbours. [17094]

We are giving effect to our manifesto commitment to take tough action on neighbour nuisance and anti-social behaviour. Provisions for anti-social behaviour orders will be included in the crime and disorder Bill. We recently announced proposals for further legislative and administrative measures to tackle this totally unacceptable menace in every community in Scotland.

Do my hon. Friend and the Government accept that anti-social neighbours are a curse on good and decent people in all parts of Scotland? Will my hon. Friend pledge that the Government will take action during their first year in office? It is essential that action is taken quickly because the problem was completely neglected during the 18 years of the previous Government.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This is not within my power, but I expect that the crime and disorder Bill will become law by the summer of 1998. Everyone should appreciate that we are embarking on the toughest ever crackdown on anti-social behaviour. It will cover local authority tenants and private tenants and, of course, it will also cover home owners. We intend to make sure that the mindless behaviour of the few in every community in Scotland who undermine at every turn the quality of life of the many will be vigorously tackled.

Will the Minister assure the House that the provisions that he outlined will extend to hon. Members whose constituencies neighbour that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), whom we are delighted, if rather surprised, to see in his place?

I am sure that that contribution was about suggesting that every hon. Member supports the tough measures that the Labour Government are taking on anti-social behaviour. We expect that the orders could cover almost 600 people. That means that the tiny minority of people who are causing mayhem in towns, villages and cities will be tackled. That is real progress and we await with interest the passing of the Bill.

Does the Minister recognise another matter in addition to his legislative proposals? For example, every time I visit west Inverness in my constituency for discussions with the three key public agencies involved—the police, the social work department and the housing department—they all point to the continuing resource starvation since the general election and the lack of improvement since the Conservatives were, thankfully, turfed out. Therefore, will he recognise that, until those agencies get more money, no amount of legislation will bring about a great practical improvement for people who are affected at the local community level?

We appreciate that our measures will involve resources. We are willing to face that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are speaking not just about anti-social behaviour orders. We need to look at the questions of eviction and of witness intimidation, which is rife in many cases, and, of course, we want inter-agency co-operation in relation to witness protection. This is a package of measures and I assure the House that we intend to pursue the matter speedily to get appropriate and effective action.

I am sure that the constituents who have written to me describing the misery that they have experienced as a result of anti-social neighbours will be delighted by my hon. Friend's statement, particularly his comment that not just council tenants but owner-occupiers and private landlord tenants will be covered. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that, when such legislation is passed, anti-social neighbours are dealt with through the courts as quickly as possible to put the victims out of their misery.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I reassure her and the House that, when the Bill is passed, we intend to have proper procedures in place to maximise the speed with which anti-social neighbours are dealt with. That has been the problem: it has taken far too long to bring culprits to the courts. That has meant more misery for the victims, who can be found in every constituency.

When he expects construction of the new Midlothian community hospital to commence. [17095]

I understand that the East and Midlothian NHS trust expects to submit a revised outline business case for the hospital to the NHS management executive by the end of this month.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I hope that he is aware that Midlothian is the poor relation in terms of medical facilities. We have two hospitals: the Rosslynlee, which is a mental hospital and is due for closure, and a geriatric hospital in Loanhead, which is due to be refurbished or replaced. As Edinburgh's Eastern general, Northern general and City hospitals, as well as the Princess Margaret Rose hospital, may close as well, my constituents are worried. They are not only poor; many are disabled, and to go to St. John's in Livingston or to the Western general in Edinburgh is an ordeal. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the utmost priority to the new hospital, which is badly needed in Midlothian.

I think I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that no hospital will close until suitable alternative facilities are in place. The timing for development of the new hospital is a matter for the trust and the board, but I know that, with a doughty fighter such as him taking up an interest, the hospital will progress as quickly as possible.

What representations the Scottish Health Department has received since October about the links between poor housing conditions and public health. [17096]

Since October, 127 representations have been addressed to the Department, almost all in response to a campaign by Shelter. The links between housing and health are clear, as our forthcoming Green Paper on the subject will mention.

I thank the Minister for that answer. In the light of the representations and the fact that 93 per cent. of Scottish housing is below minimum energy efficiency standards, does he accept that, in the long run, investing in improving the housing stock will benefit the health service by reducing the winter health crisis?

I have absolutely no problem with that. Poor housing is undoubtedly one of the links to ill health. We recognise that. It will be re-emphasised in our Green Paper. Recently, however, we have taken measures to deal with the problem. We have reduced value added tax on materials for insulating houses from 17.5 to 5 per cent. and the welfare-to-work programme contains a special option to insulate houses. We are taking action that will benefit the health of the whole nation.

My hon. Friend will accept that the statistics on the relationship between poor housing and poor health in Scotland are appalling. Ninety-seven per cent. of our stock failed a national energy efficiency rating, one in four houses suffer from damp and condensation and, every winter, there are 2,000 excess deaths as a result of poor housing in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend therefore accept that the link between bad housing and bad health in Scotland will never be finally broken until the Labour Government have the courage to recognise that we require a major programme of public investment in housing stock and in tackling the reasons for poverty, which cause so much ill health in our country?

I like to think that one of the differences that I have made to the health agenda is the recognition of the link between poverty and ill health, something that was always denied before. The problem relates not only to housing but to jobs, education, transport, leisure and recreation. Only when we have got these things right can people genuinely make choices, so we have not only to present them with information about the choices but to give them the economic wherewithal to improve their health.

What assessment he has made of the impact on Scottish universities of the number of students from England wishing to study at such institutions. [17097]

Cross-border flows of students in both directions can contribute to a healthy diversity of backgrounds in our universities. The proportion of students from England attending Scottish universities varies greatly. In financial terms, English-domiciled students bring with them tuition fees paid for by local education authorities in England, and the remainder of the cost of teaching is met by grant funding from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but my commitment to the Union comes from my four years' experience as an undergraduate at a Scottish university. How much would it cost the Department for Education and Employment in England to pay the tuition costs of English students at Scottish universities during their fourth year, thereby enabling them to benefit from the four-year Scottish education as I did and as I know the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) did at the same time, in the same faculty and at the same university?

I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed his years at Dundee so much. I am sure that he benefited from them, although I would have liked to see further improvement.

What assessment she has made of the advantages of introducing time limits on Front-Bench responses to statements. [17120]

I have not considered any changes to the House's rules on this, but I know that you, Madam Speaker, have often called for shorter questions and shorter answers, both on statements and at Question Time.

Has the right hon. Lady noticed that the main spokesperson for the official Opposition seems to be taking longer and longer to reply to statements and that that not only makes it difficult for the Minister, who has to try to remember all the questions to answer, but tends to leave less time for spokespersons from other parties and for all Back Benchers? Will the right hon. Lady consider what to do about this in the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. There have been occasions when the official Opposition have taken a very long time, but there are of course times when a statement is complex and detailed questions have to be answered. However, I think that we could probably improve the situation.

Is this not actually a matter for the Speaker? Is there not a precedent in the fact that Mr. Speaker Selwyn-Lloyd on one famous occasion simply told the official Opposition that enough was enough?

Madam Speaker, it might be better if I left that to you.

If she will make a statement on the arrangements for the payment of Members' allowances. [17122]

Allowances for hon. Members are provided by resolution of the House. Claims and payments are handled by the Fees Office, whose systems are designed to ensure accountability for the taxpayers' money involved.

Because of the misdemeanours of one or two Members of Parliament, there has been an understandable push for greater transparency when allowances are claimed from the Fees Office. However, is the Leader of the House aware that this has resulted in a plethora of forms such as C1s, which are the reimbursement claim forms, C2s, C3s, Members' car allowance scheme forms and Members' constituency mileage continuation sheets? There is also a 43-page document called "Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions" which includes details of where to get help. It takes many hours every week to fill in these forms, but would not that time be far better spent looking after one's constituents? Surely, accountability and transparency do not have to mean excessive form filling. We are not all crooks.

I think that hon. Members have a duty to ensure that our own systems are transparent and that we are as accountable as people in other spheres of public service. I realise that there has been additional paperwork for hon. Members, but I think that the vast majority of them are not finding it difficult to comply with the regulations.

What plans she has to review the arrangements for Prime Minister's questions. [17123]

The new arrangements have been in use for barely six months, and I have no plans to review them.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in a parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament? Did she see yesterday's report in The Times revealing that the Prime Minister had not voted since the summer recess—which may have prompted him to vote once, yesterday? Is she aware that the Prime Minister failed to declare a registrable interest by going to Silverstone, in 1996, and not putting the visit in the Register of Members' Interests? Does she agree that that shows that the Prime Minister does not consider himself to be accountable to Parliament? Furthermore, does she agree that he is treating the voters—all those, of whatever party, who elected us to this place—with contempt and treating parliamentary democracy and the House with disdain and contempt?

The hon. Gentleman was, I think, asking about Prime Minister's Question Time and accountability. Before I came into the Chamber, I checked the number of questions asked of the Prime Minister in the last week of the previous Parliament, before the system changed—when a total of 16 questions were asked—and last week, when he was asked 25 questions. The figures mean that more hon. Members had an opportunity to ask a question of the Prime Minister and that, perhaps most important, more Back Benchers had an opportunity to ask him a question.

What attempt has the Leader of the House made to discover hon. Members' reaction to the change? Is she aware that many hon. Members who sat in the previous Parliament do not believe that an improvement has been made? Will she also give the House a total assurance that there will be no more arbitrary changes to our procedures without consultation?

Yes, I can give an assurance that, when we are considering changes to the rota—which may occasionally happen, depending on the pressures and the wishes of the House for more time for certain Departments—there will be consultations through the usual channels. We have had very few representations criticising the current format of Prime Minister's Question Time. As I said, many Back Benchers seem to approve of the fact that more Back Benchers now have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister.

If she will take steps to increase the time available for private Members' Bills. [17127]

I have no plans to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that that is a very disappointing reply, bearing in mind the fact that we were elected as new Labour—[Interruption.] Some of us are Labour mainstream. Does she agree that, as well as checking the Executive, the role of Back Benchers is to be proactive in the House? It would therefore be greatly welcomed if she were to find parliamentary time so that the rank and file in this place could contribute to the legislative process.

I can confirm that my hon. Friend was absolutely on message about increasing the role of Parliament. I realise that Back Benchers have opportunities to be proactive, and that he is one of those who takes many of those opportunities and uses them to good effect. The Standing Orders of the House provide 13 Fridays in each Session for private Members' Bills. I know that some hon. Members think that that is not enough, but it is a rule of the House.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that many, if not most, members of the public do not wish to regard this place as a legislation factory? The thought of random, if not bizarre, legislation by private Members would scare the wits out of the public.

The public, like the House, have made their views on certain private Members' Bills very clear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that extra time would not be needed if certain hon. Members recognised the will of the House as expressed last Friday and did not try to obstruct it?

One of the most disappointing things about last Friday was the intervention by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who made it clear that, no matter how much time was provided for certain Bills, some Conservative Members would try to block them. Hon. Members have a responsibility to consider not just the strong views expressed and the strong majority last week, but public opinion.

What assessment she has made of the advantages of spreading consideration of Bills more evenly throughout the parliamentary Session. [17128]

The annual nature of the legislative programme inevitably means that it cannot be spread evenly throughout the Session. The possibility of carry-over, which was approved by the House on 13 November, creates an opportunity to improve the House's consideration of Bills. I hope that we shall be able to test that out on appropriate occasions.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. I welcome the advance publication of certain Bills, which is helpful. To return to a previous point, however, is the right hon. Lady aware that, following the Jopling recommendations, there is less and less time for Back Benchers to debate issues in the House? A case in point was the wild mammals Bill last Friday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wild Members?"] Hon. Members must have misheard; I am referring to the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which had overwhelming support in the House and elsewhere. It is not tenable for a Government who have such a large mandate to rely on the Opposition not to oppose in order to get their Bills through. I ask the right hon. Lady to allow Government time so that the Bill can progress.

I do not think that there is anything I can add on that Bill. I believe that, post-Jopling, there have been a number of useful extra opportunities for hon. Members to raise issues. The Wednesday morning debates, for example, have proved extremely important for Back Benchers; that comment is slightly wide of the hon. Gentleman's original point. I believe that it is a question of swings and roundabouts, and that the interests of Back Benchers have been protected.

Was it not a fact that, in the debate on the report by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, it became clear that the carry-over of certain legislation would lead to the better distribution of legislation? Was it not particularly notable that a well-respected former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), wished to go even further than the report suggested?

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point. It is true that the very distinguished former Leader of the House, who happens to be in his place this afternoon, strongly supported the principle of carry-over. I am pleased that the second report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Procedure also accepts that there is a case for the carry-over of some Government Bills. This is the first Session of this Parliament; I am not sure whether there will be any Bills that are candidates during this Session. I hope that we can move towards looking at legislation, especially if we can manage to publish draft Bills, in a more ordered way and I believe that carry-over will have a part to play in that.

What assessment she has made of the allocation of time to different Ministers to answer oral questions. [17129]

We will review the rota from time to time. There have not been many criticisms of the existing rota, but I am always willing to listen to representations.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that, in Scottish Question Time earlier this afternoon, we reached only Question 8? Until such time as the Scottish Parliament is established, can we have the restoration of a full hour of Scottish questions?

I sat through some of Scottish Question Time and I noticed that at 3 o'clock we were still on Question 3. I did not hear all the exchanges, so I do not know the reason for that. I know from conversations on the Bench that Scottish Ministers were disappointed by that situation.

How many minutes has the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), spent answering questions or making statements or speeches at the Dispatch Box since his appointment to the Government?

I do not monitor those figures.

What are the main recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons which (a) have been implemented, (b) were rejected and (c) are pending further decisions. [17130]

A new style of Order Paper has been implemented. The recommendations of the Modernisation Committee on the legislative process were approved by the House on 13 November. I am pleased that none of the recommendations has been rejected.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Has she received any representations about better protection of time for private Members' Bills? For example, has she received any representations that any private Member's Bill that gets a majority greater than one third of the total membership of the House should be able to proceed without let or hindrance from delaying tactics? I say that in the hope of encouraging private Members to be more proactive, rather than "Prozactive".

I answered that point earlier, to a certain extent, but my hon. Friend is entitled to make it again. If Conservative Members do not frustrate the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill which was given a Second Reading last Friday, there is no reason why it should not progress further.