If he will list the annual cost of British forces in Germany (a) gross and (b) net of offsetting arrangements. [36256]

I estimate the total cost in the previous financial year of our armed forces based in Germany to be about £1.3 billion, the vast majority of which would arise wherever those forces were based. There is no offset agreement with Germany, although the armed forces benefit from barracks, some quarters and training areas, for which no charge is made.

I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that that is still a substantial cost across the exchanges for a nation that has a trade deficit with the European Union. The forces were placed in Germany because of the Soviet threat, so the important question is this: as that threat no longer exists, as NATO is being enlarged to the Polish border and as the French are about to withdraw the great majority of their forces from Europe, is it any longer right to keep about one quarter of the British Army in Europe? Should we not bring it home?

It will come as news to the French that they are about to withdraw their troops from Europe—perhaps my hon. Friend's obsession with the subject is getting the better of his grasp of the facts. As I said, the vast majority of the expenditure would have been required wherever the forces were based. Indeed, it is estimated that the additional costs of basing the Army in Germany last year were only about £150 million, in return for which we have leadership of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps, we maintain our substantial influence in NATO, we show solidarity with our allies and we improve the multinationality of training with our allies to face any threat, whether on the continent of Europe or elsewhere.

Does not the disproportionately large cost of stationing a substantial part of, in particular, our Army in Germany distort Britain's defence posture as a whole? Would not at least part of that money be better spent on providing instruments for flexible intervention overseas, such as heavy lift transport aircraft?

Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to bring all the troops back from Germany and disband the division that is currently located there, he makes no case. The 1st Armoured Division, which is based in Germany, is fully required and plays a positive role. Although there may be scope for changes in the size of our garrison in Germany, we believe that a substantial majority of our troops should stay there. If we brought back our troops from Germany but did not disband the organisations that were there, the British taxpayer would face substantial costs in building new barracks. Moreover, many extra training facilities in this country would be needed, as that resource is currently at a severe premium.

I was, indeed, about to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agreed that, if we withdrew all our armed forces from Germany, we would have to find loads of money to build new barracks and other facilities. Would it not also be difficult to find enough training areas, of which, thanks to the previous Government, there is already a shortage?

My hon. Friend makes a perceptive point. It is estimated—by the previous as well as the present Government—that it would cost about £2.5 billion in extra infrastructure and training ground to bring all our troops back from Germany. In addition, we would lose considerable influence in NATO and in the NATO tasks that British troops currently carry out. At a critical time in NATO's history, we would be breaking solidarity with the Americans who are still there, as well as with the Germans and all our other allies.

If he will make a statement about the state of defence relations with Malaysia. [36258]

The United Kingdom's defence relations with Malaysia are very good. We are both members of the five-power defence arrangements and we also have important bilateral links.

Was it wise of the Minister for Defence Procurement, when arriving in Malaysia to lead the British delegation to the Langkawi international maritime exhibition, to ignore the Malaysian Government representative waiting to greet him at the aircraft steps and spurn the travel arrangements made by the Malaysian police and the British high commission—whereby he was to travel to his accommodation in the high commissioner's Rolls-Royce with a Malaysian police escort—instead instructing his staff to arrange for a self-drive hire car? When he left the airport in his soft-top daffodil-yellow Fiat Punto, did the Malaysian police follow him through concern for his safety or through curiosity?

I was going to say that that was not the sort of question that one would have expected from a former adviser in the Ministry of Defence, but perhaps it was. We have had nine months of the strategic defence review. We are discussing the sale of defence equipment with the Malaysian Government, and we are about to sign a memorandum of arrangement on defence with them. We also provide considerable training for the Malaysian forces. Those are the issues that concern the Malaysian Government, with whom our relations are extremely good, especially after the enormously successful Asia-Europe summit, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government played an important role.

If he will make a statement on fixed-wing aircraft carriers.[36259]

The requirement for aircraft carriers has been considered as part of the strategic defence review but final decisions have yet to be taken.

I welcome that answer. Obviously, there is hope for a fixed-wing aircraft carrier, which would be a major shot in the arm for British shipbuilding and allow us to consider Eurofighter as a Fleet Air Arm variant, which would also bring benefit to British Aerospace.

That would be considered further down the line, if a decision in principle is taken on aircraft carriers. I saw HMS Invincible coming into Portsmouth last week at the end of a tour in the Gulf and could not but feel proud at the role of the ship's crew and of the embarked Royal Air Force Harriers. They certainly played a substantial part in obliging Saddam Hussein to back down from his confrontation with the United Nations. The issue is deeply important involving not only the, construction of aircraft carriers but the decision about what aircraft are to go on them.

In order to learn proper lessons for the future, would it not be honest to acknowledge that we only just escaped the serious political and military embarrassment in the Gulf of a British aircraft carrier being unable to operate effectively in combat because of restrictions on the GR7 Harrier aircraft as a result of the climate?

There is no embarrassment involved in looking carefully at what range of forces we might have in the Gulf at any point. At the end of last week, we simply announced an adjustment in our force levels in the Gulf. We are not letting our guard down for a moment. The danger and the threat have not gone away. We will not reduce our vigilance until we are absolutely satisfied that Saddam has provided the evidence to assure us that he has destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.

Given that there are six shipbuilding yards in the UK capable of building vessels of more than 40,000 tonnes, some of which have state-of-the-art, high-technology, computer-assisted design for naval ships, as I discovered at Yarrow on the Clyde last Friday, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to deny the persistent information that the Ministry of Defence would consider ordering aircraft carriers from Poland?

That can only be a delusion held in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I am sure that the management of Yarrow cannot have been the source of that rumour. In the strategic defence review, we are examining the requirement that we might have for successors to our three Invincible-class carriers, and, if we decide to go down that route, what size they might be and what aircraft they would take. We are well aware of the shipbuilding and ship repair capability in this country, which is among the finest in the world.

What representations he has received from defence equipment manufacturers about the strategic defence review's implications for defence procurement. [36260]

The strategic defence review has been characterised by its inclusive nature. Detailed work has been carried forward in conjunction with industry in seminars and working groups. I have received views from trade associations, through the National Defence Industries Council, which I chair, as well as contributions from individual companies.

Will the Secretary of State apologise to this country's defence equipment manufacturers for his Government's appalling performance in processing export applications for licences? Is he aware that they are fighting with one hand tied behind their back? He inherited a figure of 97 per cent. of applications processed in 10 days. That figure has now slumped to some 60 per cent. Will the outcome of the SDR ensure that we revert to the figure that he inherited—and on delays, can he say when the SDR will be published?

I am not going to apologise for anything. It takes the biscuit to hear Conservative Members, who are in opposition partly because of their record on arms export licences, complain about the time taken to scrutinise properly the supervision of arms sales. One reason why the right hon. Gentleman and I are in our respective positions is that the Scott report uncovered the way in which the previous Government gave arms licences willy-nilly. They paid a rich penalty for that.

In respect of the strategic defence review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his own enthusiasm for defence and the lobbying of defence equipment manufacturers do not result in extra costs for the British taxpayer?

My enthusiasm for defence and the defence of this country is undiminished—indeed, such enthusiasm on the part of the Government as a whole was one of the reasons why my hon. Friend and I did so well at the last general election. However, I have an obligation to make sure that all the money spent on defence is spent properly and wisely. That point was made by my predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo, who, in a magazine article at the end of last year, wrote:

"There is money to be saved in MOD."

In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State referred to biscuits; I hope that that is not all he intends to procure as a result of the defence review. On a matter that causes concern to defence manufacturers, will he assure the House that, when evaluating procurement, he will take into account technology and research into technological developments that needs to be carried out in this country?

The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that, under the previous Government, research expenditure was substantially reduced. I attacked that when in opposition, and I maintain my position in that respect. I am well aware that my Department is one in which research plays a big part in procuring the right equipment at the right price and at the right time. We shall ensure that that priority is maintained and built on.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that it was the previous Government who arranged to put individual manufacturers at risk of prosecution and prison by cheating on the issue of arms permits? Will he make it clear to those involved in the defence industry in this country that the Government have no intention whatever of allowing little deals to be struck between Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry who turn a blind eye and Defence Ministers who have neither responsibility nor morals?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I assure her that our policy is designed to make sure that, when the best products of the British defence industry are exported, they are not misused. We shall not turn a blind eye to the end use of that equipment.

What his current estimate is of the number of service men and ex?service men affected by Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement.[36261]

There is still no medical or scientific consensus about the nature of illnesses among Gulf veterans. Any statistical verification of such illnesses and the difference between Gulf veterans and the general population will have to await the outcome of the epidemiological studies. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far, 2,592 individuals have sought a referral to the Ministry's medical assessment programme.

I thank the Minister for that response and for the written replies that I have recently had from him. I know that he is taking a close interest in this subject, but will he ensure that the reviews and the investigation are dealt with urgently? In the meantime, will he confer with colleagues to ensure that the treatment available for those suffering from that syndrome is the same throughout the UK? At the moment, it is a lottery, as the treatment varies depending on where one lives. Will he pursue a policy that encourages more co-ordination?

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have already written to general practitioners throughout the United Kingdom telling them that any Gulf veteran who reports to them should not be dismissed out of hand, and referring them to the medical assessment programme. On the general seriousness with which the Government are treating the matter, even our worst enemies would admit that the effort put into it has been unparalleled in terms of our openness, our dialogue with the veterans, the resources allocated to the medical assessment programme, the continuation of the epidemiological studies already started, the inauguration of new studies into vaccines, and the publication of a huge amount of material on organophosphates and vaccines, to ensure that Gulf veterans are kept fully informed.

Is my hon. Friend in a position to publish the scientific studies on dead animals found in the Gulf? Would that have a bearing on those suffering from Gulf war illnesses?

I am in a position to do so. Earlier today, I published another paper, which details the outcome of the Ministry's review of information relating to dead animals in the Gulf. It had been requested by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), among others. On the basis of contemporary reports and eyewitness accounts, no evidence has been found to suggest that the presence of dead animals in the Gulf—the theatre of operations during the 1990-91 conflict—was related to the use of chemical or biological weapons. We remain of the view that there is no confirmed evidence of the use of chemical or biological weapons by Iraq in 1990-91.

May I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he and his staff are pushing ahead with what is a fiendishly complicated and difficult project? Does he agree that one of the difficulties of keeping Gulf war veterans accurately informed is that most of the studies, including those started under the previous Government, are very long term because of the complicated nature of the matters that they assess? When does he anticipate receiving the first detailed epidemiological survey relating to the Gulf war veterans?

As a general proposition, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wide range of the matters under consideration. Almost everyone to whom one speaks has his or her own theory about what may have caused a group of illnesses that may or may not be related.

If he will make a statement on the Government's smart procurement initiative. [36262]

Smart procurement is a ruthless examination, in conjunction with industry, of how value for money from our procurement programme can be improved to ensure faster, cheaper and better delivery of our future requirements. Our improved business practices will be good news for the armed forces, for industry and for the taxpayer.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the outcome, the strategic defence review will reform the way in which we procure equipment for our forces, and will eliminate as far as possible cost overruns, delays and waste, which were the hallmarks of the previous Tory Government?

We are all very much aware of the reports from the National Audit Office on cost and time overruns. They have made embarrassing reading not only for Government but for industry as well. We aim to reform that process and get to our armed forces the right kit, at the right time, at the right price.

The Government will be aware of the growing serious threat from long-range ballistic missile systems. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are seriously examining the possibility of setting up a national ballistic defence system?

Yes, I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are keeping this matter constantly under review and are undertaking the necessary studies to that effect.

What mechanism is in place to ensure that information gleaned from interception of communications by US forces at RAF Menwith Hill is not used in a way that is prejudicial to the interests of the UK. [36263]

United Kingdom personnel are integrated into every level at RAF Menwith Hill, and we can therefore be confident that no activity prejudicial to United Kingdom interests is carried out there.

Can the Minister confirm the veracity or otherwise of the statement in the report prepared for the European Parliament, "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control", which suggests that all telephone, fax and e-mail communications within Europe are routinely monitored by United States forces based at RAF Menwith Hill? Given that such activity is expanding at a rate of knots and given that the cold war is over, it is reasonable to assume that it is done for non-military purposes. Can he confirm that the UK Government have access to all intercepts at RAF Menwith Hill? If he cannot, how could he give the assurance that he just gave?

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on a report that I have never seen or, indeed, heard of—far less vouch for its veracity. RAF Menwith Hill is a communications facility, and there is total integration of United States and United Kingdom staff there. There is not only parliamentary accountability but accountability through the Intelligence and Security Committee, and not least from the hon. Gentleman. Of the thousands of questions that he has tabled since entering Parliament—at up to £600 a time—more than 20 on this matter have had my personal attention.

What representations he has received on the Government's Green Paper on defence diversification. [36264]

We have so far received three formal representations on the consultative Green Paper since its publication on 5 March. The consultation period runs until 8 May.

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today on the sale of Upholder submarines, which is welcome news for jobs in my constituency.

I regret that I have to agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, it was yet another case in which the previous Administration allowed dogma to override the interests of the industry. That is why our Green Paper on defence diversification has been widely welcomed not only by those who work in the industry but by many of the companies involved in it. It provides an excellent way forward for the defence community, and particularly for the huge amount of technology and scientific research that has been undertaken in our laboratories.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the Green Paper at the time of its publication. Owing to a misunderstanding, I was critical of him at that time; let me put things right now.

"privatisation would …result in … further competition and distancing from industry."

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should take such an attitude to privatisation. It will cause some merriment among certain of his colleagues.

What representations he has received about the deployment of British troops to the Persian gulf. [36265]

My Department has received a significant amount of correspondence about the deployment of British forces in the Gulf. I have taken careful note of the variety of views expressed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that the temporary withdrawal of HMS Illustrious from the Gulf should not be seen by Saddam Hussein as a sign of any weakening of resolve on the part of either this country or the United Nations? To ram that message home, will my right hon. Friend tell us how he intends to balance the temporary removal of HMS Illustrious with other reinforcements in the gulf?

I can assure my hon. Friend, the House and anyone who may care to listen that our resolve has not diminished one bit in the Gulf, and in our posture towards Saddam Hussein. The access that Saddam has now given to all the sensitive sites that he blocked earlier this year demonstrates the clear victory that was scored for diplomacy backed by the threat of force. We shall therefore be putting additional Tornado aircraft into the Ali al Salem base in Kuwait—with the kind agreement of the Kuwait Government—to "sharpen" our posture, and to remind Saddam Hussein of his obligation to deliver on what he himself agreed to when the Secretary-General of the United Nations went to Baghdad. We are reviewing the composition of our forces to ensure that we have the best mix for the job, and Saddam Hussein should interpret that in only one way—to mean that our vigilance remains exactly the same as it was, and that our resolve continues to be at the highest level.

Following the work of the UN inspectors, does the Secretary of State still believe that our British troops deployed in the Persian gulf are threatened by nuclear, biological and chemical warfare?

The fair assessment at present is that, as long as the danger remains, the precautions that have been established must continue. We still want the troops in theatre to take advantage of the anti-anthrax vaccine that has been made available to them. Saddam has still not convinced the United Nations Special Commission, the United Nations or the rest of the world that he has destroyed all his capabilities for producing and using weapons of mass destruction, and that is precisely why we still have forces in the Gulf with those of our allies.

May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the question of British troops—and American troops, for that matter—in the Gulf? In the light of the successful inspection of the nine presidential sites by the UN last week, can my right hon. Friend give some idea of the criteria that he will use before British troops are withdrawn? It seems to some of his right hon. and hon. Friends that this is the right time for the withdrawal to begin.

No. We are not yet satisfied that Saddam has provided clear indications that he will abide by the agreement that he signed, and we have not yet been provided with the evidence to be sure that he has destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. There would have to be a clear pattern of Iraqi compliance over time for our posture to be diminished in any way, because reducing our force posture might give him some indication that he could get away with more by confrontation. Last week, I had a long discussion with Ambassador Butler, the executive chairman of UNSCOM, on that subject. I assure my hon. Friend that the fate of the sanctions against Iraq and of Saddam himself lie in his own hands—all he has to do is comply and provide evidence of it; then the world position would rightly be different.

We welcome the deployment of forces that the Secretary of State has announced. Will he say more about the progress that has been made since the agreement between Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein? How many visits have been made, what banned materials were unearthed, and how much of those materials have been destroyed? Is continued progress being made to broaden support for the alliance in the Gulf, which is led by the United Kingdom and the United States?

The right hon. Gentleman will know of the support for the posture that we rightly and properly took from the beginning in putting in place the force that made diplomacy work in the agreement signed with the Secretary-General. The right hon. Gentleman gave his support at that time, but since then the Secretary-General has clearly underlined the fact that, although diplomacy can achieve a lot, it can achieve a lot more if it is backed by firmness and by force. That is why we joined the Americans in the Gulf, and why a large number of our allies then gave logistical and physical support.

I agree with my right hon. Friend's assessment of the situation in Iraq. There has been a lot of support from Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers for the campaign to indict Saddam as a war criminal for crimes against humanity and for crimes of genocide. It would take only one country to indict him. Why do we not take the lead?

There is no forum yet established in which we could indict Saddam Hussein for war crimes. The proposed international criminal court, the establishment of which the Government firmly support, would have a remit only over the countries that agreed to abide by it. Sadly, I am pretty sure that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is unlikely to be a signatory, but we shall continue to support the Indict campaign.

What plans the Government have to commemorate in the UK the 80th anniversary of the Royal Air Force and the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift.[36266]

I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force and to all those who support it. A number of events are planned to mark the 80th anniversary of its foundation and the 50th anniversary of the Berlin airlift.

I am delighted to hear that the Government plan to recognise these events. Do the Government realise the intensity of pride that the British people take in such anniversaries? Will the Minister be a little more specific about the events that he has in mind? Events to mark these anniversaries have been carried out and are planned in my constituency. It would be a shame if more was taking place in one constituency than in the whole of Whitehall.

I cannot accept that. I have had discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, which, as the sponsoring Department, is discussing this matter with the Post Office. The Berlin airlift, which was authorised and instigated by that great Labour Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin and of which we should rightly be proud, should be properly marked. A number of veterans will be going to Berlin, as will the Secretary of State. The 80th anniversary of the RAF is being marked, and both that anniversary and the airlift will be celebrated at the Fairford flying display in July. We tend to mark such anniversaries in blocks of 25 years, so although we shall have a number of events, they will not be on such a scale as for the 75th or the 100th anniversary.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the RAF museum in my constituency recently celebrated its 25th anniversary? The museum has been working closely with the British Berlin Airlift Association and intends to mount exhibitions at Hendon and at its outstation at RAF Cosford to mark the anniversary of the Berlin airlift. Madam Speaker, you and any hon. Member who can find time in busy schedules to visit the museum to see what is planned will be more than welcome.

Given my hon. Friend's remarks, I am sure that he will find that it pays to advertise. Those of us who recently visited the museum were impressed by the work that it is undertaking. We were pleased to support its lottery bid, and we believe that it has a great future in representing the proud and noble tradition of the Royal Air Force.

What assessment he has made of the operational effectiveness of the Army if the Territorial Army's manpower were reduced to 40,000 personnel.[36267]

The strategic defence review is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, looking at a range of options to improve the operational effectiveness of the Army, covering both the regular and reserve forces. No decisions have yet been taken.

I am sure that the Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the role of the Territorial Army volunteer reserves is of fundamental importance not only for its link with society, but for the active support that it gives to the regular Army. Discussions are taking place within the Ministry of Defence on savings from the Territorial Army through manpower cuts because the regular Army is under such pressure. Does the Minister accept that, if the formed infantry and armoured regiments of the Territorial Army are reduced, perhaps to the level of merely a pool of infantry and armour, recruitment will be drastically affected, and the effectiveness of our regular Army will suffer as a consequence?

I fully recognise not only the operational capability that the TA gives the British armed forces, but the regeneration, the assistance of cadets and the military-civil link.

Does the Minister agree that, in the light of changed world circumstances, it is right to re-examine the role of the TA? As I have a large TA presence in my constituency, I should like the Minister to at least consider giving the TA a more heavyweight role.

I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. She is absolutely right. We should consider giving the Territorial Army a more useable, more relevant and, as she says, a more heavyweight role in that context. She is also right to say that the starting point should be the shaping of force structures according to our defence needs. She starts from the point of view of a strategic analysis, and that starting point is shared by all Labour Members and, I hope, many Opposition Members, but apparently not universally.

rose—

Order. I am sorry: time is up. Time waits for no man or woman.

What evidence the Government have submitted to the Modernisation Committee in its examination of the working hours of the House. [36291]

The Government plan to submit a memorandum on the parliamentary calendar to the Modernisation Committee shortly after the Easter adjournment.

I thank the President of the Council for that reply and assure her that she will get support from virtually all quarters of the House in her efforts to modernise the House and its working hours. The recent all-night sittings may or may not be wondrous examples of antediluvian, macho, arm-wrestling exercises, but they certainly do not provide high-class parliamentary legislative scrutiny.

I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for his remarks. I think that there is a great deal of support for the idea of improving House hours, but when it comes to working out the detail of the changes, there is not yet complete agreement.

When the right hon. Lady submits evidence, will she give some idea of what the Government think is a proper allocation of time for Ministers to spend in the House? Is she aware that there is considerable concern in the House and outside about the rare appearances by the Prime Minister other than on Wednesdays and about the fact that he has voted in about 12 Divisions—5 per cent. of the Divisions that have been held since May of last year? He has treated the House with scant regard and has attended it far less than any of his predecessors this century. What does she intend to do about that?

I have no intention whatever of including such items in my memorandum, and I do not recognise the concerns that the hon. Gentleman says exist outside or, indeed, inside the House about the attendance of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman asked about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would realise that he is leading a Government who are making important decisions. At this time when many Ministers are involved in reaching settlements on delicate situations, such as the one in Northern Ireland, it is quite right that the Prime Minister should spend his time on such a matter.

I do not remember many Tory Prime Ministers attending the House much over the past 18 years. Does my right hon. Friend find it understandable that people outside cannot understand why we spend many hours in the evening and sometimes during the night, yet break up for a long period, sometimes for as much as three months or more during the summer? Would it not make much more sense to have a working arrangement under which the summer break was six weeks at most? Under such an arrangement, it would not be so necessary sometimes to work through the night.

I am not sure that the relationship between the length of the recess and the length of our individual sittings is quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. To perform our responsibilities of scrutiny, it is important that we strike a balance between sitting days, sitting weeks and the passage of legislation. We could examine recess dates, which I should like to make more family-friendly. I think that all hon. Members realise that, as soon as we consider changing the hours or weeks that the House sits, there will be knock-on consequences throughout the legislative process. We have to be aware of those consequences.

What representations she has received on the conclusions of the report on conduct in the Chamber of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HC 600). [36292]

A number of people, within and outside the House, have commented favourably on the report.

Although I broadly welcome the report on conduct in the Chamber—particularly its reaffirmation that the Chamber should be the bedrock of our democracy—does the right hon. Lady share my concern that dress rehearsals seem to be occurring before Question Time? That was clearly demonstrated last Monday, when I myself was invited to such a dress rehearsal for Home Office questions. Does she also share my concern that many commentators are saying that—since 1 May, in the cause of modernisation—the Chamber seems to be slowly dying, as more is now reported first outside the House than to the House?

When their party is in government, hon. Members on both sides of the House attempt to get information before Question Time, to make their questions more relevant. There is nothing new in that. No, I do not think that the Chamber is dying. Presence in the Chamber is an important part of hon. Members' day, but it is not the whole of their commitment—not least because we now have more Committees, probably, than ever before. Hon. Members have to balance their time between the House, Committees and their constituencies.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be useful for the House to debate that report, which I think—without bias, as a member of the Committee—is a good one? Does she also agree that, although the report is specifically aimed at conduct in the Chamber, many of its comments are equally important and relevant to behaviour and procedures in Committee?

My hon. Friend is right. He is well aware—not least because of his significant contributions to the Committee—of the wider ramifications of some of the points in the report. I am still hoping that it will be possible, between our return from the Easter recess and the Whitsun recess, to debate the Committee's more recent reports. I hope that that will be possible.

What representations she has received on the conclusions of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in respect of oral questions (HC 600). [36293]

Although I have received a number of favourable comments on the report generally, I have not received any comments specifically on oral questions.

Perhaps I can ask the President of the Council one now. As she knows, Opposition Members are all great fans of the Minister without Portfolio, and are delighted to have pushed up his Question Time from nothing, to five minutes, and then to 10 minutes. However, there is no slot in which to ask oral questions on his wider responsibilities. Is she aware that, in the previous Parliament, the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), had a slot to answer oral questions on his responsibilities for co-ordinating and presenting Government policy? Should not that model be followed by the Minister without Portfolio?

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on several occasions that the Minister without Portfolio answers questions on topics for which he is the lead Minister. He is not the lead Minister on other topics; therefore, other Ministers are accountable to the House for those subjects. Current arrangements are working quite well.

The right hon. Lady will know that I wrote to her to congratulate her on some of the measures that she has taken already in reforming the House. Does she agree that it is important that new Members should perhaps spend some time in the Chamber and in the House generally before they pass too many comments on how we should conduct our affairs in future?

I think that we not only have experience to impart to new Members but something to learn from them. We have found on the Modernisation Committee that, if we take a balance of views between new Members and more experienced Members, it is not always a matter of one group against another. We need a variety of experience, but also the freshness of thought that sometimes comes from new Members.

What is her policy regarding electronic voting in divisions.[36294]

The Modernisation Committee has recently agreed to circulate a questionnaire to hon. Members seeking their views on the current voting system and a variety of possible alternatives.

Did not a lot of the pressure to change the voting system come from new Members who were elected last year and imagined that they were coming into a cosy nine-to-five job, but discovered that they were expected to work rather harder? They were bemused to discover how hard they had to work. Have they not now discovered that, in the Division Lobby, they can catch the ear of Ministers—although not, of course, the ear of the Prime Minister, because he is never there—or, in our case, the ear of shadow Ministers, sadly, learn something and get the chance to lobby Ministers? Therefore, will the right hon. Lady please ensure that time-hallowed and extremely valued practices are not ditched just for the convenience of people who do not really understand?

I think that the hon. Gentleman's early comments were downright insulting to new Members, who did not come here with any illusions about having a cosy nine-to-five existence. If we can improve our voting procedures, we would be foolish not to look to do so, but he will be aware—because he will have read, I am sure, our earlier reports and comments—that Modernisation Committee members think that we should retain the principle of voting in or around the existing Division Lobby, even if we go towards some form of electronic voting. Having the ability to make contact with other hon. Members, be they Ministers or Back Benchers, is important. That is one element that I personally would like to see retained, as would most members of the Committee, but if we can improve the position by using some form of modern technology, that would benefit everyone.