What steps are being taken to assist Scottish pensioners with their winter fuel bills; and if a helpline has been set up for them. [104927]

This winter about £70 million has been paid in winter fuel payments to more than 900,000 Scottish pensioners. As in previous years, a national helpline has been set up to deal with inquiries about the winter fuel payments scheme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish pensioners will be grateful not only for the £100 payment, but for the reduction in VAT—which was imposed by the previous Tory Government—from 17.5 to 5 per cent? Does he also agree that fuel payments are not only necessary, but that 169,000 pensioners in Scotland are entitled to income support? I know that his Department has set up a hotline, but will he speak to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and tell him to set up a hotline to help the 63,000 pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Step by step, the Government are delivering on their manifesto commitments to pensioners. That is a matter of right and also of respect to the senior members of our community. Step by step, we shall continue to do that until all our commitments are met.

The Minister is absolutely right and so is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray): the winter fuel payment is good because everyone receives it. The Minister was also right to say that Ministers need to do much more work to get take-up properly promoted. The Government have said for some time that pilot schemes—one is in the west coast of Scotland—are trying to find out why men over 65 and women over 60 do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. What will be done about that, and when will we start to see some results?

The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on these matters and he knows the problem of uptake. There is a complex pattern of reasons for that. Sometimes, older people simply do not want to claim everything that is due to them. I would strongly discourage that attitude. People who have given their life's work and commitment to this society are entitled to every penny that the law allows them to take.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems facing pensioners in the highlands and islands, in particular, is the high fuel prices that they have to pay for domestic heating? Will he therefore undertake to talk to the Office of Fair Trading to make sure that its current inquiry into petrol prices also considers the important problem of high fuel prices for domestic heating?

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. I am aware that, in some places, the cost of domestic heating oil has doubled. I do not think that that is justifiable in terms of the market in oil, and I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's comments to the Office of Fair Trading. We are doing many things to attack the general problem of exceptionally high fuel prices in the remoter areas of the country.

I welcome what has been done to help pensioners. However, has the Minister been assured that staff in pensions offices and in post offices are aware of the situation? What steps have been taken to deal with men of over-60, who are on pensions but who are not pensioners in the state sense, so that they can receive their entitlement? How far have we gone down the road to rectifying that problem and protecting those who were in respite care on about 20 September and who have been disqualified from the winter fuel allowance at a time when they need it?

On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I am sure that he knows of the legal action that was raised. As a result of that, 190,000 pensioners in Scotland will be eligible for backdated payments and 150,000 will be eligible for future payments. As he will recognise, the Government have quickly accepted that judgment.

What steps the Government are taking to publicise the working families tax credit in Scotland. [104928]

We have launched a major press and media campaign to inform those who will benefit from the working families tax credit of their right to assistance. As a result, the helpline has received more than 45,000 inquiries in Scotland alone.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and on behalf of 2,089 families in my constituency I want to express gratitude for the introduction of the working families tax credit—which will make those families, on average, £1,250 better-off this year than last. Will my right hon. Friend give the House a commitment that the Government will continue to do all they can to publicise the working families tax credit, so as to ensure maximum take-up?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. We are proud of the fact that this Labour Government are the first ever to have committed themselves to the abolition of poverty. The working families tax credit plays a major part in that effort, as do the minimum wage and our assistance to pensioners. It is significant that, every time the great issue of tackling poverty is raised in the House, there is a complete lack of response from Opposition Members. Today, not one Conservative or Scottish National party Member has attempted to participate in discussion of poverty or the working families tax credit.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best thing—

Order. I am calling question 3.

How many people in Scotland have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [104929]

Thank you. I like the House to make progress, but not quite that speedily.

I agree with both what my hon. Friend tried to say and what he is about to say. We anticipate that as many as 145,000 employees in Scotland might benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage.

Does my right hon. Friend recall all those siren voices that told us that, if the national minimum wage were introduced, economic disaster would result and jobs would be lost in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom? Is he aware that since the general election, unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 30 per cent.? That is something of which the Government should be proud. Does he agree that, if a national minimum wage of £3.60 is good, a national minimum wage of even more in the current year would be even better?

On the first part of his second statement, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The scare stories put around about the detrimental effects of introducing a national minimum wage have been proved false. For example, far from falling, staff levels in small firms have risen by 11 per cent. in the past year. As my hon. Friend will be aware, unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level for almost a quarter of a century, and many jobs have been created. It is important to set the minimum wage at a level that assists hundreds of thousands of people, but is not so high that it affects employment. We have succeeded in doing that.

What discussions he has had with the Chancellor regarding the implications for the block grant of the Scottish independent inquiry into student finance. [104930]

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that not entirely informative reply. Tonight is Burns night and, like Scots around the world, the Secretary of State and his Ministers will be praising Robert Burns for his poetic eloquence and adherence to the cause of equality. However, as usual, the Government say one thing and do another. Their shabby deal with the Liberal Democrats to share power in the Scottish Executive has meant that they have taken steps on tuition fees in Scotland that shatter completely any idea of equality of opportunity in education throughout the United Kingdom. I appreciate that the Secretary of State—

Order. The hon. Lady is losing the ear of the House; she is almost losing my ear, too. I must have a question from her. She has made enough statements.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank the hon. Lady for her informative question. I was not aware that Burns had spoken of any deal apart from the one that went away with the excise man in his literature. However, I bow to her greater knowledge on this subject.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bard, on this Burns day, may have given the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) a simpler answer? He wrote:

"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us."

Yes.

I am reluctant to get drawn into any more analogies with Burns. I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that spending decisions by the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that Parliament. Therefore, does he welcome the fact that any decision by the Scottish Executive to abolish tuition fees will be a decision of the Executive to recognise the wishes of the Scottish electorate as implemented through the Scottish Parliament?

It is in the nature of devolution that the power and the right to make these decisions goes to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. It is therefore inherent that they must say and explain where the money is coming from and to remove that money from some other area of spending within the block grant. That will mean tough decisions for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unacceptable to expect constituents in Exeter—indeed, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—to pay for a system for which they have not voted and from which they cannot benefit? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the costs of the new student finance arrangements for Scotland will be met by Scottish taxpayers, through the council tax if necessary?

There will be no extra costs above the block grant. My hon. Friend may not understand that, so I shall explain it. Money that is allocated to any new scheme for student fees, or any other aspect of education, will have to be taken from some other item in the block grant which has already been agreed. No additional expense will arise from any of the decisions. The First Minister in the Scottish Executive will have to make tough decisions about the source of the money. That is the nature of Government and of making prudent choices. It applies in the House, and it will apply in the Scottish Parliament.

As the Government and the Executive have ducked and wriggled to try to keep their coalition together and to fulfil European law, they have created anomalies for English students in Scotland and now for Scottish students in England. Does not the Secretary of State fear that such decisions, together with the separate but related issue of research selectivity—which operates differently in Scotland—may threaten the integrity and unity of the British higher education system?

If Conservative Members can attack Europe and the idea of joining others in the same question, they will do so. The majority of people in this country want the Union that is the United Kingdom to be modernised. They are at ease with the fact that some decisions may be passed to the Scottish Parliament, with the proviso that power is accompanied by the responsibility for finding the money from its existing budgets, even if that means hard choices. The Government, like the majority of people, are at ease with that. It will enrich the United Kingdom.

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and I agree that one of the consequences of devolution is that we have to accept that the Scottish Parliament and Executive may decide to do things differently from this place and the Government. However, in those circumstances, would not it be iniquitous if, after the Scottish Executive decided to defer payments for Scottish students tuition fees, the Government blocked their ability to do that for students who attend universities south of the border? That is completely contrary to the spirit of devolution, a fetter on the Scottish Parliament's discretion and, if it happens, a complete disgrace.

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman was calling for or how much he was prepared to spend. I can assure him that some people behind me will be tabulating the public expenditure cost to which he has committed the Conservative party. [Interruption.] We should not make decisions and promises unless we are prepared to pay for effecting them. The Government will not do that. I note that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that his party is committed to abolishing fees in English universities.

The Secretary of State has completely contradicted himself. Earlier he said that this matter is for the Scottish Executive to determine out of the block grant. We are talking therefore about an exclusively Scottish matter. It appears that the Scottish Executive's desire to extend those concessions to Scottish students—paying for it out of the block grant—at English universities has been stopped by the Government. What is the justification?

It is nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. In reality, the proposals being discussed by the Scottish Executive, the details of which will be announced in the near future, must of course be subject to the laws of Europe as well as of this country. If that is a novelty to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that he starts reading briefs again. It is an elementary fact that we have to abide by our treaties and treaty obligations. The decisions on this have been made by the Scottish Executive and will be announced later today. I am making the point that along with the power to make those decisions goes the responsibility to explain them and to find the money to finance them.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I cannot take points of order until later.

What advice she has given to the Government about devolution issues since her appointment. [104951]

There is a long-standing convention, followed by successive Governments, that neither the substance of Law Officers' advice nor the fact that they have been consulted is disclosed outside Government. I see no reason for departing from that convention.

I thank the Advocate-General for that reply, which was spectacularly uninformative even by the standards of the Government. Has the hon. and learned Lady advised the Government on the impact of European Union law on the Cubie report—specifically in so far as it relates to Scottish students studying at English universities? If the answer is that she has proffered advice to her right hon. and hon. Friends, can she explain to the House the basis in law for the UK Government's assertion that the leaked proposals of the Scottish Executive for the reform of tuition fees cannot apply to Scottish students studying at English universities?

I regret that I obviously did not make my last answer plain. The words "tim'rous beastie" leap to mind. All this Scots stuff! The existence and substance of Law Officer advice is not, by long-standing parliamentary convention adopted by all parts of the House, disclosed outside Government. The Advocate-General is here not as an adviser to Opposition Members but to the UK Government. I see no reason to depart from that long-standing convention.

I will try to be helpful to my hon. and learned Friend. Is it not the case that what characterises the devolution settlement is the partnership between the two Parliaments? Can she confirm that she is in regular contact with her colleagues in the Scottish Executive?

I am, of course, in regular contact with my Law Officers from the Scottish Executive. I regret to say that, as is normal, I cannot advise hon. Members of the substance.

Then what is the point of questions?

If I may, with your permission, Madam Speaker, take that sedentary intervention, the point of my being here is to answer questions that are properly phrased. If I get any properly phrased questions, I shall be delighted to answer them.

I have never thought of the hon. and learned Lady as a "wee … tim'rous beastie", but may I make a simple inquiry? She will be aware of this afternoon's exchanges on European law, which is presumably within her remit in respect of advising the Government. Can we take it, therefore, that we shall hear from them shortly as to what European law issues would prevent the Scottish Executive, if they so wished, from funding Scottish students under the Scottish funding system at English universities?

Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that under the Scotland Act 1998 I have certain statutory duties to consider Bills introduced by the Scottish Parliament and to advise on whether they are within its legislative competence. There is no Bill of any kind on that subject for me to consider. When there is I shall consider it, as I consider any other Bills that are introduced.

How many contracts for the new Community Legal Service have been awarded in Rotherham to (a) solicitors' firms and (b) voluntary advice agencies. [104958]

Sixteen contracts, which started on 1 January 2000, to do civil advice and assistance and representation in family and immigration cases have been let to solicitors working in the Rotherham area. A further 11 have been let to solicitors in the Dearne valley area. A contract has been let to Mexborough citizens advice bureau for a full-time debt case worker and support costs.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but is he aware that there is a lack of contracted provision in some legal categories? Can he explain what steps he taking to close that gap and confirm whether there is scope for fresh bids from other firms for that work?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that matter. There is a deficit in the Rotherham area of firms that are available to do social welfare law and there remains scope for additional contracts to be let to solicitors' firms there, although naturally—in accordance with the contracting scheme that the Government are operating—any firm would have to show competence to get a contract by passing the preliminary audit of the Legal Aid Board's franchise requirements.

If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of access to courts within Sussex. [104959]

Government policy is that the administration of magistrates courts is best conducted locally. Decisions concerning the location and number of magistrates courts in its area are for the relevant courts committee to determine. With regard to Crown and county courts, the Court Service is required to monitor and review the viability of its court network. There are no current changes planned in respect of accessibility to the Crown or county court network in Sussex.

Does the Minister agree that in terms of justice courts have to be local and accessible? In the light of the proposed merger of magistrates court functions in east and west sussex, can she guarantee that she will be unwilling to agree to any closure of magistrates courts there as a consequence of bringing the administration together?

It is for the new merged magistrates courts committee to decide how best to deploy its resources, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall always support changes that lead to the provision of a better and more efficient service for court users.

Has the Minister given a full and honest answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker)? She said that decisions in respect of magistrates courts should be taken locally, but is she not incorrect? That decision has been influenced by the amount of money available and that money is advanced by the Government through the Lord Chancellor's Department. The problems of Sussex are reflected in many other parts of the country—not least Cheshire, and Macclesfield in particular.

The hon. Gentleman knows that magistrates courts committees have to manage their budgets within the resources available to them. Those committees are made up of local magistrates drawn from local magistrates benches. Most of the magistrates courts that have closed so far have been ones that the committees no longer felt able to justify, either because substandard facilities would have to be replaced or because they were satellite courts—local council chambers that were severely lacking in necessary facilities, for example.

The Minister has now widened the question somewhat. Mr. Burnett, I will allow you to put a question in that case.

I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker.

I am aware of the proposals announced last week. I am also aware of the local response to them. All such decisions when considered by magistrates courts committees locally will be subject to the right of appeal. Those appeals, if they are lodged in the cases of the courts to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will come to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. At that point it will be appropriate for me to comment on the detail.

In Sussex, just as in Cheshire, I suspect, there is no geographical representation on the magistrates courts committees that are apparently charged with these decisions. That means that those of us who feel very strongly that local justice is best available locally are in some difficulty when we are told that a non-elected committee is taking major decisions that affect the location of courts. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

We do listen very carefully in the Department to the case that is presented when appeals come forward. All the points that are made by local representation, by the paying authority and by hon. Members, are listened to very carefully, and consideration is given in the greatest detail to the case that is made.

What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding changes to the status of McKenzie Friends. [104960]

Since my previous reply on 14 December to the hon. Member, my fellow Parliamentary Secretary has had a useful and constructive meeting with representatives from Families Need Fathers. I and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor have received no further representations.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But I should like to ask him again whether he understands that many litigants in person with no legal representation in family court cases find the legal proceedings very worrying; they are very disturbed by them and the proceedings can often be traumatic. For that reason they need a friend or assistant in court with them—that is, they need a McKenzie friend. Given the abolition of the right to a McKenzie friend in chambers or in court, can the Minister give me more detail as to what specific steps his Department will take to reinstate that important right?

The Government have no plans at present to place the role of McKenzie friends on a statutory footing, though we recognise the important role they play in some cases. The judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court, and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that fairness and justice, or the confidential nature of the information that will be disclosed in the court case—which is why the proceedings may be in Chambers in the first place—do not make it appropriate for a party to be assisted by a McKenzie friend.

Would more McKenzie friends mean fewer lawyers and fewer QCs? That would save us an absolute fortune. Has my hon. Friend seen the article in The Times today, headed

"It's time for barristers to fight back",

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that article to the attention of the House. I must say that the Government consider that sums paid from taxpayers' funds to barristers may—and we are considering this at the moment—be related to the sums that we pay other very important public service workers, such as teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers. I do not think there are many nurses—despite the generosity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the recent announcement of nurses' pay awards—who are collecting half a million pounds a year.

What plans she has to ensure that information is made available to victims in a timely and sensitive way about forthcoming appeals on sentence by criminals convicted of serious crimes. [104961]

Arrangements have been in place at the Court of Appeal criminal division for some time to inform the victims or their families of appeals in cases involving death and serious sexual offences. Preparations are in hand to extend notification to all cases.

I think my hon. Friend will know of the case of my constituent Mrs. Joan Kiely, who last October learned from a journalist that the sentence of the perpetrator of a vicious attack on her had been shortened from 10 to eight years. My hon. Friend said that arrangements were in hand to extend notification. Can she say when she expects that to happen; and will she work with the Attorney-General's Department and the Home Office to ensure that it happens as quickly as possible?

I agree that it was not acceptable for Mrs. Kiely to find out what had happened from a local journalist. Preparations are in hand to extend notification to all victims or families, regardless of the nature of the offence, when the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal against conviction or a sentence. There would also be provision for the Crown Prosecution Service to notify the criminal appeal office of cases in which the victims needed to be kept informed. The record would be noted accordingly, and notification would be sent at all stages.

The Minister will recognise that members of all parties have consistently backed the important work of the victim support organisation. I hope she will be able to confirm that the Government plan to continue that backing; but what about the interests of the victims of those who, although acknowledged to have committed serious crimes, have cheated the courts by no longer being around?

I am not aware of the claims that the hon. Gentleman has made—[Interruption.] I shall look for the report that he mentioned.

What provision will be made within the community legal service to ensure that people with learning difficulties and mental health problems attain proper access to legal services. [104962]

The quality assurance standard developed for community legal service providers requires proper access for all clients, including people with learning difficulties and mental health problems. All providers will also have to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, on a number of occasions, the Northampton branch of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship have raised the problems that people experience in gaining access to legal services if they have recurring mental health problems? Does his answer—which I welcome—mean that such people will have easy access to services, and will also be able to obtain the detailed help that they may need because their problems have made their cases more complicated?

My hon. Friend has been diligent in raising issues affecting an important section of the community in her constituency—people with mental health problems—who need legal advice. There are now two firms of solicitors in the Northampton area with mental health contracts—quality-assured lawyers, who can provide services for such people.

What assessment she has made of the occupations of magistrates. [104963]

As part of achieving social balance on Benches, each local advisory committee is required to ensure that no more than 15 per cent. of the Bench is drawn from a particular occupational group. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each Bench.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but an individual's occupation and position within that occupation have a direct impact on the individual's ability to have time off work and therefore to serve as a magistrate. Will my right hon. Friend—I am promoting her early—look carefully at the matter and give advice to employers to encourage their employees to take up the role of magistrate, giving them time off work to do so?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Working magistrates are drawn from a wide range of occupations. If that is to continue, it will be important for employers to allow staff time off work to sit as magistrates. It is important, too, that work colleagues understand that time spent away from the workplace is not a skive, but a valuable service to the community. I pay tribute to the many employers who play their part in the criminal justice system by allowing staff to take time to sit as magistrates.

What assessment she has made of the value for money obtained by expenditure on millennium compliance. [104973]

The expenditure finally incurred was slightly less than originally expected. It was met from existing agreed spending plans, not by extra subvention. It successfully addressed the substantial problems incurred during the programme, which, if ignored, would have led to material disruption to public services. All that suggests that it was good value for money.

Madam Speaker, after your advice yesterday: what bug?

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am afraid that he shows his ignorance by that question. There are hundreds of examples of problems. The Benefits Agency has made it plain that it would not have been able to continue to pay benefits. Organisations such as Sainsbury and Tesco have made it plain that their operations would have collapsed if they had not undertaken the work that was required.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that British industry as well as Government have gained two considerable benefits from the exercise? First, a whole breed of managers running British industry now realises how critical information technology in their companies is to their future. Secondly, we have probably had one of the biggest upgrades in IT, which will be beneficial to our world trade.

My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I have just had a conversation with an expert on management issues who has attempted to assess the impact of the work and has made exactly those points about the value to British business of cleaning up much of their IT, of investing in IT and, most of all, of recognising the need for management of IT, which is not always done.

If she will make a statement on (a) the changes made in the House as a result of the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and (b) their impact on (i) hon. Members and (ii) staff of the House and of hon. Members. [104974]

Forty-seven of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation have already been implemented. They include more Bills scrutinised in draft and experiments with earlier sittings on Thursday and with sittings in Westminster Hall. Together they have provided more time for debates, better structured debates and better use of time for Members and staff.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are pleased to see progress, but bearing in mind the fact that the remit of the Modernisation Committee is to look at efficient and effective use of time in the House of Commons, does she agree that the recent antics by the Conservative party call for greater timetabling of legislation? Would that not be a matter for the Modernisation Committee to consider?

As my hon. Friend may know, it is one of the issues that, on an all-party basis, the Modernisation Committee considered at the outset of the Parliament. It recommended that we should make greater use of programming, so that we can be confident that the most important issues in legislation that comes before the House are adequately covered and that time is not wasted on things that are not important. However, I fear that the understanding and agreement across the House in the earliest days of this Parliament seem to be waning. My hon. Friend is right to identify that, if we continue to have exceptional problems, that will cause further difficulties which the Government and the House will have to consider.

The Modernisation Committee's first report mentioned use of Joint Committees with the Upper House as a useful way of making progress on pre-legislative scrutiny. In order to deal with reports that the Government are planning to drag their feet on stage 2 of House of Lords reform, will the right hon. Lady tell the House when she proposes to establish the promised Joint Committee to take forward the Wakeham report?

As the right hon. Gentleman is already well aware, the Government have not made a decision on the timetable for that Joint Committee. He will also know that, of the half dozen draft Bills that have been considered in Committees of the House or of both Houses, two—the draft Local Government Bill and Financial Services and Markets Bill—were considered in Joint Committees.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that democracy is indeed a messy and expensive business; that the timetabling of all Bills would lead irrevocably to Back Benchers of all parties having fewer and fewer rights in this place; and that the fact that Front Benchers may agree on a particular measure is not—if she will forgive my saying so, with the greatest respect—any guarantee that it is in the interests either of the House of Commons or of the electorate?

I completely understand the basic point that my hon. Friend is making. First, however, I should remind her that the Modernisation Committee is not composed only of Front Benchers—only two Front Benchers serve on it—but contains mostly Back Benchers, from both sides of the House.

What action she proposes to take to deal with the difficulties experienced by hon. Members in obtaining access to the Palace of Westminster during demonstrations immediately outside the precinct of the House. [104975]

The House approves the Sessional Order at the start of each Session, as it is a matter of constitutional importance that access be maintained. The Order is communicated to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis by the Serjeant at Arms. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or any other hon. Member experiences difficulties, he or she should inform the Serjeant at Arms, so that the matter can be taken up with the Commissioner.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Some years ago, I took part in a demonstration of textile workers and clothing workers marching from Hyde park. The nearest we were allowed to the House of Commons was the Tate gallery, because it was stated that it would be inappropriate that hon. Members should risk being intimidated or hustled as they sought to gain easy and ready access to the precincts of the House of Commons.

I am fascinated by the notion of a demonstration, even a textile demonstration, being led by the hon. Gentleman. It is no wonder it was stopped at the Tate gallery, as he has a reputation for intimidating people. More seriously, however, demonstrations seem to have been allowed to come closer to the House, and that may raise issues. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Serjeant at Arms is in contact with police on the matter, and we shall have to consider possible solutions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the on-going demonstration to extradite Senator Pinochet—who is no more a senator than I am—is being held across the road and that it could in no way be an obstruction to hon. Members seeking to enter the House? Will you, Madam Speaker, also tell the shop steward on the Tory Benches that, last night, I took the opportunity of going along and congratulating the demonstrators who want Pinochet tried and brought to justice? I told them that they were doing a wonderful job.

My hon. Friend will know that the demonstrators play some wonderful music and chant some wonderful chants, which have extended my own repertoire quite a lot. However, he is right that the demonstration is on the other side of the road. As far as I and the Serjeant at Arms are aware, no problems have been caused by either side involved in it.

What assessment she has made of the effect of the millennium bug internationally over the millennium date change. [104976]

First, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend, when he was in government, to tackling the millennium bug. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been following closely the international year 2000 scene for the past two years. A special unit was set up over the date-change period to monitor events as they happened. There were no reports of any significant disruptions to infrastructure systems around the world. The minor problems that did crop up were dealt with quickly and posed no real threat to essential services.

Will my hon. Friend continue to reiterate the point that the millennium bug did not cause international chaos for the simple reason that careful planning, precise preparation and pre-emptive remedial action had been put in hand to make sure that that did not happen? Were not the Government in the vanguard in that respect? Will he give the House some examples of breakdowns overseas—perhaps in the United States—that were rectified in time but which otherwise would have caused considerable difficulties?

My right hon. Friend is right. There were problems both here and overseas, and the United States had difficulties with its satellite systems. However, he makes the more important point that things do not go well without careful preparation and planning. I am delighted that the Government and the private sector in this country were in the vanguard in that matter, as my right hon. Friend says, and that we were able to share our knowledge and information with others.

What assessment she has made of the impact of her Department's proposals for changing practice and procedure in the House; and if she will make a statement. [104978]

I believe that proposals for change in the House have been well received and are generally positive, but they are being kept under review through the Modernisation Committee.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I especially welcome the Modernisation Committee's decision to publish more Bills in draft form, which allows more interested parties and concerned groups to contribute to debate, both in the House and outside it. It also allows more pressure groups and constituents to put forward their views on the Government's legislative proposals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that publishing draft Bills has led to better informed debate, in Parliament and across the country?

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend and all hon. Members will know from their Standing Committee experience over the years that outside organisations—which often have useful information, or a different point of view or slant on legislation—frequently only realise the effect that proposals might have on them when the closing stages of legislative debate are under way. Sometimes that realisation only comes when a Bill has already passed on to the statute book. That cannot be good for good governance or for the balance of good legislation. Anything that improves the situation can only be welcome.

If she will bring forward proposals to reform the system of parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. [104979]

The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the scrutiny of delegated legislation, and I shall study its report with interest.

May I suggest that it would be sensible to look at the way in which statutory instruments are dealt with? At present, the Committees that scrutinise statutory instruments are required either to reject them in total, or to approve them. Sometimes that means that innocuous changes that are agreed on all sides to be important and valid cannot be made. In those instances, the requirement that the Committee either accept or reject a proposal renders it a sledgehammer used to crack a nut, and causes measures that are faulty to be passed. If the Committees were allowed to amend such instruments, would not that help the Government and the legislative process in this House?

As I said, the Procedure Committee is considering the matter. The Wakeham report also contains some interesting proposals. Statutory instruments that go before a Committee reflect the Government's considered view. Given that, it is a question of whether the Committee supports or rejects them in total.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the method of decision making used by the Deregulation Committee, where Government proposals may be changed, should be used as the norm for allowing a debate if the Euro-Committees make a different decision from the one originally put before them?

The Deregulation Committee has certainly been useful and I believe that in time its role will be expanded. My hon. Friend will know that the Deregulation Committee already looks at statutory instruments, and that the Government take note of its concerns.