What plans his Department has to maintain and strengthen links between the armed forces and civil society. [49574]

The armed forces already maintain strong links with the civilian community in a number and variety of ways, including the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. We wish, of course, to encourage and build on these links.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern, in all parts of the House and outside it, that the activities of the three cadet forces, and of the scouts, the guides and other community groups that use Territorial Army facilities, may be affected by plans to close and sell up to 170 TA centres? I trust that the hon. Gentleman is aware of and has anticipated that concern. Will he please tell the House today exactly what help will be available to ensure that those groups can continue their work as effectively as they have undertaken it in the past?

Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the concern and support—which he expressed—on both sides of the House for the cadets is shared by the Government. That is one reason why we shall give detailed scrutiny to any changes in the Territorial Army and its premises. We wish to ensure that the subject of cadets and their access to appropriate facilities is included with the other considerations that have been agreed between the Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations and the Regular Army. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not only one of our wide considerations but one of our primary considerations. That is precisely why we have made it plain that, although there is to be a reduction in Territorial Army numbers, we do not desire a reduction in cadet numbers. Indeed, we are increasing the resources to cadets.

As a former Army cadet, I congratulate the Government on strengthening the role of cadets in the strategic defence review. May I have a commitment from my hon. Friend that, when the Government examine the future pattern of TA centres throughout the country, they will ensure that the need for the TA to back up the cadets is fully taken into account?

Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are well aware of the valuable contribution that the cadet movement makes, not only to individuals but to society. Many young men and women are given opportunities that they could find in no other field of youth activity. I have personally witnessed young men and women in the cadets develop their character, ethos, discipline and initiative, and increasing opportunities are extended to them. It was for that reason that, during the strategic defence review, the Government decided that we would put more money into the cadets than previously.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said. However, to put this matter into perspective and to show its relationship with the decisions concerning the TA and the armed forces, can the hon. Gentleman say that the intention to provide new equipment and better standards and to give the TA more relevance will bring forth new money, which will bring about a real increase in resources for the TA? Or is the money to be found out of the savings resulting from the abolition of those units that will be scrapped?

The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say that while we are reducing the numbers of the infantry, yeomanry and other regiments in the Territorial Army, we are increasing the global sum. I can assure him, first, that our intention at this stage, subject to detailed scrutiny—the final decision on units will not come out until the autumn—is that at least a proportionate amount will be spent on the TA. Secondly, the TA will have access to a number of specialisms in the Regular Army for which training was not previously available to the TA—for example, Challenger, the AS 90 and several other areas. The Territorial Army will not only remain a valuable element of our defence forces, but will be more relevant and usable in future than it has been over the past 50 years.

If he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Persian gulf. [49575]

The recent revelation that Iraq had, contrary to earlier claims, weaponised the VX nerve agent shows that it has continued to lie about its weapons of mass destruction. We will keep the pressure on Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Following the revelation about the deadly VX nerve agent, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will maintain all pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with relevant UN resolutions?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Words cannot adequately describe the deadliness of the VX nerve agent. One single droplet of VX is capable of killing an individual. The aerosol version of VX can kill countless thousands of people. The fact that it is now proven that Saddam Hussein had weaponised the VX agent is a salutary warning not just of his deceit, but of the threat that he represents to his neighbours and to stability in one of the most volatile parts of the world.

The Government have been steadfast in their relations with Iraq, and I congratulate them on that. Has the strategic defence review announced last week made more difficult any response that we might wish to make—God forbid—against any further action by Iraq? In particular, has the reduction in fighters and ships made our response less likely, if one were needed?

No; on the contrary. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his praise of the Government's robust stance in relation to Iraq's challenge to the authority of the United Nations. He speaks well on that account, and the House is united in its determination to make sure that Saddam complies with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Do we yet know who sold the VX agent to Iraq, or who sold Iraq the facilities to make it? Will the Secretary of State have a word with the German chemical companies Hoechst and Bayer, who might have known a great deal better?

A lot of people bear responsibility for providing at an earlier stage some of the facilities that Saddam Hussein has used to create his capabilities. However, many of the nerve agents and chemical weapons were produced by him. I am concerned, not about raking over the past, but about making sure that in future Saddam Hussein is not able to produce such weapons of mass destruction, and that he keeps to the assurances that he has given that he has destroyed all those capabilities. He has not yet persuaded ambassador Richard Butler, the chairman of UNSCOM, that he has disposed of all those capabilities. Until he has given evidence of that, the sanctions regime stays in place.

If he will list each major new weapons project begun since May 1997. [49577]

Since May 1997, we have taken a range of important procurement decisions to ensure that the armed forces will have the equipment that they need. These decisions include the approval of major new projects for the replacement rocket for the guided multiple launch rocket system, the Hawk life extension programme, the successor identification friend or foe system and a new tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling.

Arising out of the overall defence spending reductions in the strategic defence review, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what is the nature of the cuts that are planned in defence equipment spending over the lifetime of this Parliament?

The actual nature of spending on equipment is identified in the review. It covers a range of equipment areas, some of which have been maintained, some of which have been increased and some of which, as the hon. Lady knows, have been reduced. That is the pattern of the equipment programme as we look to reshaping the armed forces and their equipment for the new roles that have been identified for Britain in the world.

In looking at new important projects, especially that for the two new aircraft carriers, does the Minister agree that security from attack, in this case from the Treasury, would be greatly enhanced if we had a firm starting date?

The strategic defence review gives a very clear, firm base for the future equipment programme. That fact is recognised, not only widely in the House but by the armed forces and, equally importantly, by industry, which has confirmed that point very strongly. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have also announced an in-service date for the new carriers, which has been welcomed by the Royal Navy.

Ministers have told us that they want more armed personnel in the services and more equipment—some small and some big. How will they pay for that? The strategic defence review gives the figure of £685 million in the first year, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last week, in table A3 of his comprehensive spending review, that the real cumulative cut in the defence budget over the lifetime of this Parliament is £4.6 billion. Can the Minister confirm whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an unequivocal commitment to the construction of the two aircraft carriers?

We are looking at 3 per cent. in three years. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that we are actually talking about an accelerated programme of estates disposal arising out of the freeing-up of resources. In the longer-term equipment programme, we are talking about the impact of smart procurement, which we have negotiated in consultation and in partnership with industry—something which the previous Government singularly failed to do. As a result, we shall use best practice in industry to ensure that we achieve better value for money for the taxpayer.

Pursuant to the strategic defence review, if he will make a statement on the strategic and tactical roles of fleet submarines. [49579]

Royal Navy submarines will continue to play a vital role both strategically, in support of the deterrent, and tactically as part of any deployed maritime force. The introduction of the Tomahawk land attack missile later this year will provide a powerful additional capability.

Following the decision in the strategic defence review to cut the number of attack submarines from 12 to 10, can the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in the number of submarines? Will he also take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will commission all five new Astute class submarines?

The purpose of the strategic defence review was to create a period of stability and to give some degree of direction to our armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman reads the review carefully, he will see that we intend to do precisely that.

May I warmly welcome the Government's decision to order an additional two Astute class strategic submarines nuclear? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that this will be welcome news in my constituency, where the first three of those new submarines will be built. Those are very modern, capable and effective ships, which I am sure will add considerably to the operational capability of our SSN fleet. However, can my right hon. Friend be more specific about when he expects the contracts for these further two additional Astute submarines to be placed?

The shipyard in my hon. Friend's constituency has a proud record in this regard. I am glad that the orders for the three Astute class submarines that have been underlined by the strategic defence review will be carried forward in the spirit of the smart procurement initiative, which we have designed for our future equipment.

Does the Secretary of State agree the reduction in the number of submarines in the fleet places a premium on the effective utilisation of the existing fleet, and in particular requires careful programming of refit schedules? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to confirm the strategic importance of both Rosyth and Devonport as centres of excellence, both now and in the future, for the refitting of submarines? Will he also take the opportunity, given the fact that the Scottish National party's views on submarines have been splashed all over the Scottish newspapers both today and yesterday, to give his estimate of how many submarines will be available to Rosyth in the event that the SNP achieves its will and creates an independent Scottish navy?

I confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question about the importance of the two dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth in dealing with the refitting of our nuclear submarine fleet at the present moment. The decommissioning of HMS Spartan in 2006 will dovetail with the entry into service of the first of the Astute class submarines. HMS Spartan's refit formed a major element of the dockyard refit programme announced by my predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo. Its cancellation would have incurred substantial compensation payments, for which the Ministry of Defence would have received no benefit. We carefully programme our refits to make sure that we maintain military capability at the maximum possible level.

Putting the Scottish National party to one side, perhaps to where it belongs, may I say to my right hon. Friend that nuclear submarines are a familiar sight in the Firth of Clyde? May I also say to him that the code of practice on the passage of these submarines in and out of the Firth of Clyde is reasonably satisfactory? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has no plans to berth these vessels in Holy Loch? Will he tell me how far the cleaning programme has proceeded in that loch and whether the Pentagon will pick up some of the bill?

I am glad to join my hon. Friend in setting aside the SNP, which I am sure the Scottish people will do as well. I was on Holy Loch on Saturday and, should anyone get the wrong impression, I was on a car ferry at the time. I am well aware of the issue of the cleaning of the loch and I can confirm that there is no intention by the Government of basing any of our submarines there, rather than at Faslane. The clean-up of Holy Loch is essential, and the majority of local opinion was in favour of it, but that is a responsibility of the Government, not of any foreign Government.

Can the Secretary of State say why he has decided to cancel the planned refit of HMS Splendid and go ahead with the planned refit of HMS Spartan? Could it have anything to do with the fact that HMS Spartan is to be refitted at Rosyth in Scotland and HMS Splendid was to have been refitted at Devonport in England?

No, it had nothing to do with that. The trend away from large-scale open-ocean warfare means that we believe that we can reduce the SSN fleet over the next few years from 12 to 10. It therefore made sense to decommission HMS Spartan in 2006, following a refit, to allow that to dovetail with the entry into service of the first Astute class submarine. In doing that, I shall have maintained the capability of the fleet, with the Astute class submarines coming into service; avoided the waste that would have been represented by the compensation that would have been due to fall to Rosyth dockyard had we cancelled that refit; and been allowed to keep to a commitment made by Mr. Michael Portillo at the Scottish Grand Committee in Cupar, Fife, to put the refit of HMS Spartan into Rosyth as its last nuclear refit.

But Mr. Michael Portillo was not going to decommission HMS Spartan in 2006. The Secretary of State says that the decision makes sense, but the purpose of these refits is to give the submarines an additional 10 years of life. We are surely spending £150 million to give that submarine an additional four years of life at the most, because he has already announced its decommissioning in 2005–06. Is not the real reason for the decision the Government's problems in Scotland? The taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill for £150 million of election expenditure by the Labour party in Scotland and to protect jobs in the Chancellor's constituency.

The hon. Gentleman's great mistake is judging all other political parties by the low standards of the Conservative party and, especially, of the previous Government. There were perfectly good financial, economic and military grounds, as well as social and industrial grounds, for going ahead with the refit of HMS Spartan. We have kept to the commitments made by the previous Government and will maintain in service until 2006, when the first Astute class submarine comes into service, the capability that is offered by the SSN class submarine.

What steps his Department is taking to help Falkland war veterans. [49580]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 July, as part of the strategic defence review, our plans to set up a veterans' advice unit within the Ministry of Defence which will help to address the needs of all veterans, including those who served in the Falklands campaign. When the veterans' unit becomes operational later this year, it will help to make it much easier for all veterans to receive the best help available.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be of assistance to all veterans. Falklands veterans in particular are aggrieved on two issues, which were dismantled by the previous Government—stress management and the opportunity to revisit the Falkland islands. He will be aware of my constituent, David Brown, who still suffers from the traumas of the Falkland islands. Will my hon. Friend ask the unit to consider those two issues?

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we are to establish a veterans' unit, which is not only part of showing the commitment that we feel to men and woman who have served their country, but a long-standing demand of the British Legion and other interested parties. I commend them for the role that they have played.

Although a veterans' unit within the Department is to be welcomed, would not Falklands veterans who are still serving, and those who did not serve in the Falklands war but have learnt its lessons, say that sufficient helicopters are crucial for amphibious operations? Would not they be concerned by her Majesty's Government's decision not to implement the proposed purchase of a second tranche of Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters? Will the Merlin still be a contender for the replacement of the HC4 Commando Sea King helicopters of the Royal Marines—[Interruption.]

Order. That question does not relate at all to the original question. Perhaps the Minister will reply to a little of it, but certainly not to the parts that are not relevant.

How could I defy your instructions, Madam Speaker, when they were so charmingly put?

What is his current estimate of the cost of the Trident nuclear fleet. [49582]

The total acquisition cost for Trident is currently estimated to be £12.52 billion, 90 per cent. of which was already committed before this Government took office.

Does the Secretary of State regret that the strategic defence review did not include a discussion about the future relevance of a nuclear force? Does he recognise that the massive cost of running and decommissioning Trident could be better spent on other things, and that we would stand in better stead in opposing the development of nuclear weapons around the world if we got rid of our own nuclear weapons?

I cannot regret not doing something in the strategic defence review when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I were elected on a platform of keeping the Trident system. My hon. Friend and I were both returned to the House on exactly those grounds. I direct my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to the section of the strategic defence review on the deterrent and to the supporting papers in which we have published unprecedentedly open and new information about the nature of our deterrent. I also direct his attention to the substantial reductions that will now take place in our nuclear capability as a result of the defence review. We shall have half as many available weapons, with 30 per cent. of the explosive power that we had at the end of the cold war. That maintains the deterrent at a credible minimum level, but makes a sizeable contribution towards disarmament, of which we are all in favour.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the reduction in the number of nuclear warheads on the Trident submarine fleet. As a mere woman, I still cannot see what earthly use we have for 200 nuclear warheads, let alone 300, but the reduction is welcomed anyway.

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, but we welcome diverse views on all these issues. We want to move towards the reductions for which there is general welcome throughout the House. I hope that people will make more of that than of the opposite point of view. I remind the hon. Lady that when the Government came to power, they immediately ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty, and that this country was among the first of the nuclear powers to do so. As part of the strategic defence review, we are making a contribution to the fissile material cut-off treaty, which is a substantial move forward. The changes that we have made in the configuration of our nuclear deterrent in the new strategic circumstances will, I hope, act as an example to other countries in the world—especially to the Russian Parliament, which has so far failed to ratify the START 2 treaty. If we had ratification of that treaty, we could make sizeable steps in the overall reduction of strategic warheads that we all want.

We intrude at our peril in the private internal disagreements among Labour and Liberal Democrat Members over our nuclear deterrent. The Conservative party has always believed in a robust nuclear deterrent, and has been prepared, over many years, to put money into that. The costs of Trident are bound up in the comprehensive spending review. I should like the Secretary of State to return to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). The cut in the overall defence budget of £685 million will, according to the Government's paper on the comprehensive spending review, in fact be £1.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. Can the Secretary of State explain that, or is there once again a Scottish connection?

It is difficult to comprehend why the Opposition cannot understand that there will be a real-terms reduction in our defence budget of 3 per cent. in the next three years, which is an average of 1 per cent. a year. The Conservative party was responsible for cuts in the defence budget of 23 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. In cash terms, the defence budget will go up by £1.4 billion in the period covered by the comprehensive spending review. I understand why the Opposition are sensitive about this issue, especially as the Conservative party spokesman seems to be suggesting that we should spend more money on defence, whereas the shadow Chancellor regularly pops up at the Dispatch Box and argues that public expenditure should be reduced. Is the Conservative party in favour of massive increases in the defence budget?

If he will make a statement on the role of the UK reserve forces. [49583]

Members of the reserve forces contribute a great deal to this country in many ways, but their principal role is to reinforce the armed forces on operations. They do that as individuals and as formed units, and they will continue to play a key role in the future.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he pay tribute to soldiers of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment in my constituency, who are currently on duty in South Armagh, together with the 1st Battalion of the RGBW? Will he confirm that, under the strategic defence review and the 17,000 reduction in the Territorial Army, there will be no abolition of cap badges? If that is to be his pledge, will he confirm that he will not achieve it by reducing battalions such as the 2nd RGBW to a company strength?

Yes, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's local TA regiment and to all members of the Territorial Army for the valuable service which they have given us in the past and which individuals are giving us at present in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere. Part of the principles agreed between the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and the Regular Army is that the footprint throughout the country will have recourse, so far as is possible within the overall numbers, to a geographical spread of the TA and to the ethos and traditions of the individual units of the TA, which includes cap badges.

Does the Minister agree that modernisation of the reserves is long overdue, and that one of the main reasons why it has not been undertaken before now is that the last Government—now the Opposition—made decisions on political rather than military grounds? Does the Minister also agree that an Opposition whose main contribution to today's exchanges has concerned cap badges display an appalling lack of knowledge and thoughtfulness?

I certainly agree that the armed forces were let down by, among other things, the fact that financial—and often political—considerations were the starting point from which earlier Governments embarked on their so-called defence reviews. As most people know, those reviews were written on the back of an envelope, including a figure upfront that Ministers wanted to achieve.

The largest regiment in the Army, which comprises mainly part-time volunteers, was not mentioned in a recent strategic defence review. When can we hear a statement on the future role and strength of the Royal Irish Regiment?

Consideration of the Royal Irish Regiment was not omitted. Indeed, it is one of the few regiments that I visited personally, in order to have discussions with both full-timers and part-timers in Northern Ireland. During my visit, I had fruitful discussions with both officers and men.

If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for defence diversification. [49584]

We received some 80 responses to our consultative Green Paper on defence diversification. We plan to publish our response, and announce our decisions on the way ahead, in a White Paper in the autumn.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that we have a history of failing to capitalise fully on the fruits and benefits of defence research? If we are to realise such opportunities in the market across the world, should we not get defence diversification up and running as soon as possible? Jobs rely on it. I am particularly concerned about my constituents who work at GEC in Rochester. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of when the agency will be set up?

We expect the agency to be set up not too long after the publication of the White Paper in the autumn. We are working very hard on the mechanics of it.

Does the Minister agree that premises are a major issue in defence diversification? Earlier answers given by his colleagues today have referred to an accelerated programme of defence disposals, and to the importance that he and other Ministers ascribe to social factors. Does he recognise that there is enormous concern in my constituency about his ministerial colleagues' continuing and repeated failure to answer questions about the future of staff college Camberley?

As someone who raised that issue a number of times with the previous Government when we were in opposition, I can only say that the phrase "brass neck" comes to mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocation of the staff colleges is a complicated issue. We inherited a major problem and, as the hon. Gentleman also knows, under the previous Administration, some decisions were changed within six weeks or so. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is working hard to try to get a satisfactory solution. Representations from the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members with people from the staff colleges in their constituencies will be welcome.

What proposals the Government have for reducing overstretch in the Army. [49587]

We are firmly committed to reducing overstretch in the Army. The strategic defence review contains both organisational changes and establishment increases of 3,300 Regular Army personnel to address overstretch. It is a difficult task, but we have made it a priority and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, as of today, there are 1,500 more soldiers in the British Army than there were when we took office on 1 May last year.

Can my hon. Friend assure us that some of the extra manpower will be put towards the support services, which were so badly hollowed out by the previous Government?

I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be done, both in the Regular Army and in the context of the role that we envisage for the Territorial Army. We want to do that in all three services, and that includes attending to the gapping in the Royal Navy, in which I know my hon. Friend also has a particular interest. I do not underestimate the problems that we inherited from the previous Government, but it is Government's first duty when young men and women join our armed forces to make sure that the manpower is suitable for the task. The Government are committed to doing that, and that is why I am pleased to announce that there are 1,500 more places in the Army than when we came into government.

The Minister's answer related to peace-time overstretch, which is extremely important. My question is about overstretch in terms of our involvement in a war that turns out to need more forces than are currently available. How quickly could we regenerate reserve combat units complete with company commanders, squadron sergeant-majors and so on?

The hon. Gentleman is the darling—sometimes the Captain Darling—of the Territorial Army. I know that he is discomfited by the reduction in numbers, but we envisage a better, more valuable, more relevant, usable role for the TA as part of our force for the future. We do not envisage putting a heavy division in the field without the TA being called up. We are prepared to show the political willingness to involve it in our planning assumptions, and will call up the Territorial Army at a lower threshold than any Government have done for 50 years. We will pass to the TA training and skills on some of the equipment that has previously been monopolisedo by the Regular Army. Of course, we have a range of readiness to meet modern threats rather than the threats of the cold war. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that readiness consideration was a central part of our strategic defence review and that we are satisfied that it can be met in the regular and in the reserve forces.

What plans his Department has to improve the extent of accredited training in the armed forces. [49588]

We announced as part of the strategic defence review our new learning forces initiative, which will further improve education and training provisions in the armed services and help service people to gain recognised qualifications.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving education and training will not only make the armed forces a more attractive career proposition but help to ease people's transition back into civilian life? In the next few weeks, thousands of young people will receive their GCSE and NVQ results and will be thinking about their options, so will he say exactly what vocational qualifications the Ministry is considering?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The services offer a rewarding and excellent career to many school leavers, and we want to ensure that as many as possible of those young people and their advisers have the relevant information. The fact that people can gain transferable, portable qualifications is not only an important recruiting commodity: it adds to the quality of our trained manpower and womanpower. The learning forces initiative will add a new ingredient to the package that is already on offer; people will be able to build up learning credits while they are in the forces, which will allow and encourage them to go into higher and further education when they leave. We believe that the package will be attractive not only to those who are in the services, but, perhaps more important, to the high-quality young people whom we want to come into the forces in the future.

How many letters he has received from the public about the future of defence establishments in Shoeburyness. [49589]

Since May 1997, the Ministry of Defence has received seven letters from members of the public about the future of defence establishments in Shoeburyness.

As there is real concern in Shoeburyness, which is an area of high unemployment, that a change of policy by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will cause even more unemployment, is the Minister or one of his colleagues willing to come to Shoeburyness to discuss with the trade unions and management the future of the ranges, particularly as decisions seem to have been delayed time and again?

I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has discussed this subject with the hon. Gentleman and that he has received representations from Members of Parliament and from the trade unions at all three of the ranges—Eskmeals, Pendine and Shoeburyness. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the final considerations are being made. Demand has lessened and there must be a balance between the various ranges, but I assure him that the representations that have been made by Members of Parliament, the community, local councils and the trade unions have been given serious and weighty consideration.

What plans she has to review the modus operandi of the Privy Council. [49610]

I have no plans to do so.

That surprises me, as the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will obviously change, as it will have to determine the vires of Acts of the new Scottish Parliament. What is the point of the secrecy of the oath that is sworn by Privy Councillors, and how does such secrecy square with the Government's commitment to freedom of information? Is it not about time that we shone a light into this secret corner of the constitution?

If my hon. Friend tabled a question asking for the text of the oath, I should be happy to answer it.

If she will take steps to improve liaison between officers of the House and officers of the European Parliament. [49611]

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recently reported on the scrutiny of European business. One of its recommendations was for a national Parliament office in Brussels, the practicalities of which are being examined.

What knowledge of languages do our officers have to operate such an office? What will their duties be? Will they monitor and scrutinise legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament?

Such issues were considered in the discussions held by the Modernisation Committee and the Select Committee on European Legislation. It was thought that it would be helpful if hon. Members had a representative in Brussels to be the eyes and ears of this House to give early warning of matters that might arise. It is early days in terms of considering the practicalities of such an approach, but the idea seems promising and therefore worthy of further examination.

Should we not be our own eyes and ears? Sending functionaries from here and accepting functionaries from Strasbourg is one way forward, but it sounds like a new set of jollies for the boys. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extraordinary number of delegations of Members from other national Parliaments who come to the House, so interested and enthusiastic are they to learn about new Labour, the third way and what we are up to? Is not the real answer to empower more of our own Members of Parliament to go to Bonn, Paris or Rome to build contacts between the national Parliaments and, when Switzerland joins the European Union, to Berne as well? Should not hon. Members be making contacts with other national parliamentarians to increase oversight of what happens in Europe?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in such matters, that he endeavours to enlighten conferences in other countries about the workings of this Parliament, and that he is very keen to improve the relationship between hon. Members here and Members of other domestic Parliaments in Europe. It assists the House if we use all our ideas as to how we can keep in touch with Brussels. I agree that we need to examine the way in which hon. Members can keep in touch. My hon. Friend has made interesting suggestions to the Modernisation Committee and others.

Will the right hon. Lady reject the negative and insular views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and encourage the greatest possible communication between this Parliament, which is very efficient, and the European Parliament, as that might be a way to persuade the European Parliament to stop the scandalous abuses of public money involved in its organisation? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the organisational expenditure of the European Parliament is an insult to democracy?

The hon. Gentleman's question goes rather wide, but, on principle, it is important that we all have as much information as possible.

What representations she has received on her proposals for modernising the parliamentary calendar. [49612]

I know that the Modernisation Committee will be grateful to all hon. Members who have responded to the invitation to comment on the proposals for modernising the parliamentary calendar. I know that the Committee will welcome any further representations from hon. Members who have not replied up to now. So far, I have received more than 40 letters from hon. Members and several letters from members of the public. They are generally supportive of the proposals contained in the Government's memorandum, although some are opposed and others argue for far more radical steps to be taken.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals that she has put to the Modernisation Committee are greatly welcomed by many hon. Members? Will she further confirm that not one moment of parliamentary time will be lost by the proposals, but that the time will simply be reorganised so that many hon. Members who, like me, represent constituencies 225 miles from the House can get home at midnight on Thursdays rather than at 3 am on Fridays?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that no parliamentary time would be lost by the proposed changes. The idea behind the proposals is to allow Members of Parliament to adopt a more balanced approach to the very many competing demands on their time, and being in their constituencies on Friday is a priority for many hon. Members.

Many hon. Members will have seen the Mail on Sunday yesterday in which the right hon. Lady set out her philosophy on modernising the House of Commons. Will she confirm that it is her intention to make progress on the same basis as the Jopling Committee, namely by co-operation and consent?

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee, knows that it has attempted to reach consensus on the way forward. He will also know that, like most Committee members and Ministers, I think that it would be best for us to adopt such proposals on an experimental basis, so that all hon. Members can judge whether they are an improvement on current arrangements.

Is my right hon. Friend intending to consult all the Departments of the House before she goes ahead with the changes? It would be unhelpful if the House were seen to be the type of employer that does not consult before changes are made with all the Departments that would be directly affected.

I have already written to the Chairmen of all the relevant Committees, who supervise the Departments of the House. We are waiting for their responses.

Is the President of the Council aware that the letter from you, Madam Speaker, in response to the Modernisation Committee's ill-thought-out proposals has been an inspiration to many hon. Members, and that it has the whole-hearted support of many who rather think that the House's traditions far outweigh any scramble to implement poorly thought-out reforms?

All hon. Members are entitled to ensure that their views are known by the Modernisation Committee. I hope that many hon. Members will follow the right hon. Gentleman's example and ensure that the Modernisation Committee is aware of their views.