What representations he has received from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding Scottish higher education students studying in England and Wales. [109584]

My right hon. Friends have discussions from time to time on a range of matters.

I thank the Minister for that illuminating reply. Does he agree that the compromise that has been reached with the Scottish Executive is confusing, because students in Scotland will have to repay some of their tuition fees at the end of their courses if they study in Scotland, whereas if they study in England they will have to pay all the fees up front? English students will be discouraged from going to Scottish universities because, unlike their Scottish counterparts, they will have to pay all their fees up front if they study in Scotland, and they will be even further discouraged because Scottish universities have four-year rather than three-year courses. Does the Minister agree with Mr. Brian Monteith, the Scottish Tory education spokesman, that the whole system is chaotic and causes discrimination?

It is not within my power to dictate what confuses the hon. Gentleman and what does not. What clearly confused him was finding the name of the Tory education spokesman in Scotland. For future reference, it is Monteith with an "o".

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Conservative party opposed devolution in Scotland and continues to oppose the settled will of the Scottish people? Does he further agree that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are free to make decisions on behalf of their constituents without the interference of Conservative Members of this House?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive decide to make additional or different arrangements that incur greater costs, they have the right to pay for that from the block grant. That is what devolution is about. I repeat that we have two objectives: to get more money into higher education, and we are doing that to the tune of £58 million this year, which is a 10 per cent. increase; and to get more people from less well-off backgrounds into higher education—40 per cent. of those from Scotland going into higher education do not pay a penny in tuition fees, no matter where they go. Those are the objectives that we shall continue to pursue.

Has the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland made any representations to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and to the Treasury about addressing the consequences of abolishing tuition fees for Scottish students at English and Welsh institutions? If so, have Ministers in the Scotland Office been privy to the legal opinion obtained by the Scottish Executive that sets out the legal position on this matter?

As I said, we have wide-ranging discussions, and all aspects of funding are part of the continuing discussions between the Secretary of State and his colleagues and myself and my colleagues. We also have access to all legal opinions offered to the Scottish Executive on such matters, which clearly have reserved implications.

The Minister talks about the settled will of the Scottish people, but I am sure that he has seen the poll in today's edition of The Scotsman, which shows a decline in support for devolution and a rise in support for those who wish to get rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether and for those who want independence. Is not the reason for such a decline in support for devolution the fact that people are mystified by the confusion that has crept in precisely in areas such as education?

The hon. Gentleman sets an interesting psephological puzzle. If, as he claims, support for his party's position on these issues is on the increase in Scotland, it is truly remarkable that support for his party continues to be on the decrease in Scotland to the point of statistical insignificance.

What discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. [109607]

I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues relating to Scotland.

Does not this policy prove to parents throughout Scotland and, indeed, throughout the kingdom that the evangelist Pat Robertson may have been right after all? If Scotland is becoming a dark land, the right hon. Gentleman's policy is responsible. Is he aware of the fate of the cities of the plain?

I do not think that I could have done better than the hon. Gentleman in illustrating why we needed to look again at section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. His views, and those of Mr. Robertson, gave rise to this, under the Thatcher Government.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the cynical way in which the leader of the Scottish National party, having voted for the repeal of section 2A in the Scottish Parliament recently, now appears to be trying to gather support from those who oppose the repeal in the Ayr by-election? Is that not just another example of the SNP leader's apparent belief that any means justifies the end that he is trying to achieve?

I do not want to make any personal remarks. The personalisation of politics seems to be the hallmark of the Scottish National party, and I prefer to leave it that way.

I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to take a great deal of notice of Mr. Robertson. Does he accept, however, that he really ought to take notice of Cardinal Winning? Has not Cardinal Winning spoken for many people, not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole, in voicing his real concerns?

Let me answer the first part of the question by saying that I have a profound respect for, and indeed friendship with, Cardinal Winning. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I was the first Secretary of State to honour the cardinal with a ceremony and a lunch here in his official capacity. He speaks for a great many people, and we take his views very seriously.

If he will make a statement about the impact of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [109608]

The national minimum wage has brought substantial benefits to a large number of people throughout the UK, including Scotland, with no adverse effects on the economy. It is estimated that about 150,000 people in Scotland will benefit from the national minimum wage.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. On behalf of those 150,000 low-paid people in Scotland, may I welcome the recent announcement of the increase in the national minimum wage, which will improve the quality of life of many families in Scotland? I urge him to be tough on two groups who oppose the national minimum wage: first, the small number of Scottish businesses that continue to evade the procedures and legislation. Will he work with others to close those loopholes? Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, will he reserve no effort and no energy in being tough on the Conservative party, which continually opposes the national minimum wage in Scotland and which would have ensured that those 150,000 Scottish families had no national minimum wage whatever?

My hon. Friend is correct. The national minimum wage, which is one of the most radical and beneficial changes brought about by the Government, was carried through in the teeth of opposition from the Tory party, with the Scottish National party standing aside, as usual, betraying the low paid in Scotland by refusing to turn up even to vote on the matter. We will be tough on those employers who refuse to implement the national minimum wage. It is of enormous benefit to people not only in his constituency, as he knows, but in a place—I just pluck somewhere out of the air—such as Ayr, where almost 1,000 low paid workers have had an increase. It is not something that they are sneering at, unlike the SNP.

The Secretary of State is right to say that the introduction of the minimum wage has had many beneficial effects, but will he concede that some groups of workers cannot take advantage of it over a year? I think of people such as school dinner staff, who, because of the way in which contracts are configured, are laid off for the long summer recesses.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but, he will appreciate—in fact, he mentioned it—that the matter is sub judice. Court proceedings are taking place on the matter. As he will know, there have been several court decisions, not all entirely consistent, so we have to wait until the legal position is resolved. I would not want to say anything more than that while the legal proceedings continue.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that the action of national minimum wage enforcement officers has ensured that women employed at Chicony Electronics in Greenock now receive the national minimum wage and not the pitiful 96p an hour that they previously received? Does he agree that Scottish employers now have a duty to their employees to pay that minimum rate?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The national minimum wage is one example of how people's lives are being made better. Politics is not about charts on accountants' walls or graphs published in official statistics, but about ordinary people gaining benefit from their Government. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned is an example of that. The increase that he mentioned amounts to almost £3 an hour, which is £24 a day or £100 a week. With the other social justice measures that we are introducing—such as the working families tax credit, increase in child benefit, restoration of free eye tests to pensioners and the Christmas bonus—we are the first Government not only to pledge ourselves to combating and eradicating poverty, but to put our pledges on those matters into practice.

Given that the minimum wage has been introduced without detriment to the economy, is there not an unanswerable case to give a commitment to upgrade it annually in line with inflation or, preferably, with average earnings? Will the Secretary of State lobby his colleagues to give that commitment?

Given the hon. Gentleman's absolute passion and commitment on the national minimum wage, I am rather surprised that he could not be bothered even to turn up and vote for it. When we were up all night fighting the Tories in the House on the minimum wage, he was absent. Therefore, I do not particularly want to take lessons from him on the matter. All I would say is that 150,000 people in Scotland will be substantially better off as a result of a measure passed by the Labour Government in the teeth of Tory opposition—when, once again, we looked around and found that the Tories' allies in failing to support the minimum wage were the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Scottish National party.

What assistance he has given in establishing the Strategic Rail Authority; and what its impact will be in Scotland. [109610]

The establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority is an important step forward in ensuring a co-ordinated oversight of railway services across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the Strategic Rail Authority will administer all passenger rail franchises, including the making of franchise payments to the relevant train operating companies.

Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that new rail franchises stipulate the maintenance and improvement of direct through train links between Aberdeen and London, and particularly the progressive upgrading of passenger and freight services on the neglected stretch between Aberdeen and Edinburgh?

I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Labour colleagues in the north-east on their pursuit of that issue. I well remember, during opposition to privatisation, going to Aberdeen to make it clear that if privatisation and fragmentation proceeded, there would not be the same commercial incentive for the upgrading of the link between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. We shall have a Strategic Rail Authority that is able to intervene in those circumstances.

Does the Minister agree that one of the important functions of the Strategic Rail Authority will be to promote and re-introduce rail services through rural parts of Scotland? Does he welcome with me last week's report highlighting the fact that there is the possibility of a viable railway through the borders, connecting Edinburgh with England and the west coast main line? Will he work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in promoting that railway and in working with the SRA to ensure that that railway is one of its top priorities?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from my visits to the borders, I am very interested in, and attracted to, the proposition of restoring that link. He will also know that the Scottish Executive have been examining the matter and have expressed positive interest in the proposals. It is a very important project for the borders.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, despite recent improvements in the infrastructure, the rolling stock and the timetabling of rail services in Scotland, it is still not possible to travel from Ayr on the west coast to Edinburgh on the east coast in any time that rivals a direct road journey. In his discussions with the Scottish Executive, the strategic rail authority and Railtrack, will he stress the importance to the economy of the areas west and south of Glasgow of better east-west links and better access to the national rail network?

The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is cheering with particular enthusiasm as he wants a direct link between Ayr and Tynecastle. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) makes is exactly right. It is important that once again we are getting back to the concept of a united national rail network and a strategic framework for the development of the railways. The Scottish Executive has an important role in promoting rail services and working with the strategic rail authority to make exactly the improvements that we would like. My hon. Friend mentioned Ayr, so we should remember the important role of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, working hand in hand with other authorities to achieve what Labour wants—an integrated public transport system.

How many Bills introduced in the Scottish Parliament she has considered; and on how many occasions she has advised that such Bills are not within the Parliament's competence. [109632]

Thus far, two Bills have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and I have not considered it necessary to refer either to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They are now the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000.

Although the hon. and learned Lady of course considers such matters in an entirely independent way, given the fact that, so far, she has not considered any Bills to be outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament and given the political composition of that Parliament, does she agree that one would not have to be a tremendous cynic to think it unlikely that any future Bills will be challenged in that way and that there is very little point to what she is doing?

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's cynicism. He will remember that, in my position as Advocate-General, I have legal functions to exercise. As an advocate, I have been exercising legal functions for many years and I intend to continue using my independent legal judgment when I act as Advocate-General. We shall wait and see what happens when Bills are introduced.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's comments and they are not very illuminating. She mentions her other roles. She will be aware that she has a constitutional right to intervene in cases which might have a constitutional dimension north and south of the border. Why, for instance, did she not intervene in the cases of Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal and Clancy v. Caird, which have direct constitutional relevance to the United Kingdom because they concern the rights of temporary sheriffs to sit, which could have a knock-on effect south of the border? Did she not see it as part of her role to take a part in that, in view of its profound constitutional implications?

The legal advice that I give as Advocate-General is confidential. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great respect for precedent in the House and for legal precedent, so I quote from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) the former Attorney-General in the previous Conservative Administration, who said, on 7 November 1996:

"By convention, the fact of whether the Law Officers have advised on a given issue is not disclosed, nor is the substance of any advice which may have been given."—[Official Report, 7 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 610W.]

What representations she has received on the application of the European convention on human rights to the conditions in which trials in third countries take place. [109633]

I have received no such representations.

Assuming that the trial at Zeist ever gets under way, do Ministers think that it should be televised?

That is a matter entirely for the Scottish Executive, and in particular, the Lord Advocate in his role as independent prosecutor and the decisions that he makes in relation to that. The matter is also before the courts and is sub judice.

What systems there are for assessing the views of circuit judges on proposals to change the operation of Crown courts. [109637]

Whenever changes to the operation of the Crown courts are proposed, the views of the judiciary are sought through consultation, including the views of the Council of Circuit Judges.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the Council of Circuit Judges has an important role to play in trying to ensure the smooth running of the court system and trying to minimise costs. Why then is it that the impression that one derives is that the council considers that on issues such as court layout, new court building and information technology, their representations to the Lord Chancellor's Department appear to be disregarded? Is it simply because the council is meant to be a mere focus group sounding board to be disregarded at will, or is it because the Government do not like the suggestions that it makes?

I cannot be held responsible for any impressions that the hon. Gentleman may form. The views of the Council of Circuit Judges, which is the body that represents the circuit bench, are taken very seriously. It is consulted by the Lord Chancellor and the Court Service on all proposed policy and operational changes relating to the courts.

I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. When the various proposals for the change in the operation of the Crown courts are considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department, will the Department take into account the change in format and procedure that will arise directly from the incorporation of the European convention on human rights on 2 October and ensure that the judges sitting in the Crown courts have been well tutored in the complex nature of the proposals and the various precedents and other cases that have been decided in the European courts, which will of course affect the running of our courts?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and great efforts are being made to ensure that the judiciary and those responsible for administering the Court Service are well briefed on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. Important as that legislation is in establishing the rights of individuals in this country, it does have major implications for all public agencies, including the Court Service.

The Parliamentary Secretary must sometimes be embarrassed to defend the actions and attitudes of the Lord Chancellor. I wish to follow up the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Does she accept that it is a matter of profound concern if the Lord Chancellor gives the impression that he goes through the motions of receiving delegations from the judiciary, but that the judiciary feels that its views are simply being ignored and that all that is happening is a face-saving exercise? Increasingly, as one talks to people at all levels of the legal profession, the impression left by the Lord Chancellor is that he is contemptuous and dismissive of any representations that are made to him.

It is difficult to respond to generalised complaints such as those made by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). All I can say is that, for example, in the consultation on the transforming the Crown court project, more than 62 judges responded individually and six circuits responded collectively. Those responses will be considered along with the conclusions of various groups that have been organised to discuss that project, including the judicial focus group, the think tank and the case management working group. The recommendations of those groups and the individuals who responded will be brought together and a way forward approved by the trials issues group, the senior presiding judge and the Court Service. The views of the judiciary are sought in a range of ways, and those views are taken very seriously indeed by the Lord Chancellor.

If he will make a statement on the closure of county courts in England. [109640]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I provided to a similar question from him on 12 January. The Court Service is committed to ensuring that it achieves value for money from its assets and properties and provides good services to its customers. It constantly reviews its estates in the light of work load trends, the state of the available facilities and local county court users' needs.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. She is aware that I have raised this subject from time to time. In her written answer to me of 25 January, she listed a number of county courts that are proposed for closure. I was pleased that the courts at Altrincham, Leigh and Tameside were not on that list. Can I take it from that that the Government have seen sense and decided not to proceed with the planned closure of those county courts? Do the Government now understand the vital service that those courts perform for the community?

A preliminary court-user survey has been conducted in the Manchester area, which includes the Altrincham, Leigh and Tameside county courts. Such surveys play a very important role in informing the decisions of the Court Service, and they are often a precursor to seeking the Lord Chancellor's approval for formal consultation on possible closures. However, at present there are no plans to take the matter forward.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister remain her normal, totally impartial self and simply ensure that under no circumstances will Crewe lose its county court?

I shall take my hon. Friend's comments on board.

How many times the Lord Chancellor has sat in a judicial capacity in the last 12 months. [109641]

The Lord Chancellor has sat in a judicial capacity four times in the past 12 months.

That is four times too many. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will not agree that it is simply indefensible for the Lord Chancellor to sit as a judge while he is a member of both the legislature and the Executive. Does she share my disappointment that the report of the royal commission on the House of Lords recommended that the status quo be retained? That is a complete anachronism. Will not the Government be forced by the European Court of Human Rights in the Guernsey case to revisit the matter, and to make it clear that a Minister cannot serve as a judge at the same time?

I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more profoundly, although he makes his point forcibly, as he has done for some time. The decision in the case to which he referred—the case of McGonnell—is confined to the special position of the Bailiff of Guernsey and his role in that case. In addition, if the Lord Chancellor were not a judge, he could not have the necessary close relationship with the senior judiciary. The relationship between the Executive and the judiciary could therefore deteriorate, with damaging consequences and consequential risks to the judiciary's independence.

I declare an interest as a member of the Bar.

Lord Chancellors in the past sat judicially for most of their working day, but that practice ceased after the second world war. Although Lord Chancellors since then have not sat as judges to the same extent, there are no particular restrictions on the cases for which they may choose to sit. However, the Lord Chancellor would never sit on any case that involved legislation in whose passage through the House he had been directly involved, nor in any case in which the Executive's interests were directly engaged.

What assessment he has made of the progress made by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in dealing with complaints against solicitors. [109642]

There are fewer outstanding cases, and the last month has also seen an improvement in the turnaround of complaints. However, there are still areas of serious concern, particularly in relation to the quality of adjudication of complaints. My colleague as Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), will be visiting the OSS on 20 March to discuss these concerns. In the meantime, we will continue closely to monitor the progress made at the OSS.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that it is the responsibility of every solicitor to take seriously complaints about poor legal services? Will she ensure that every solicitor understands the message that if complaints are not dealt with responsibly by the profession, the Lord Chancellor will have to use his reserve powers provided in the Access to Justice Act 1999 and impose a statutory system for dealing with complaints?

My hon. Friend is right. We have those reserve powers. However, we believe that it would be better if the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors met the targets that we have set. We wish to give the OSS every opportunity to meet those targets. We must bear in mind that anxieties about the quality of casework, real though they are, must be balanced against the practical difficulties experienced by the OSS in turning things around, especially while new staff are being recruited and trained.

The hon. Lady may know that Mr. Tony Walden-Biles, one of the leading lights in the organisation Complaints Against Solicitors-action for Independent Adjudication—CASIA—is one of my constituents. I have on a number of occasions taken him to see two Conservative Ministers and now three lots of Labour Ministers. They all promised that as the supervision of solicitors was not really going according to plan and that as it was a last chance, the Government would probably start to impose supervision of solicitors from outside. Why do Ministers constantly say at the Dispatch Box that they are still not happy with the OSS while doing nothing about it? When my constituents have a serious complaint about solicitors, they are not satisfied with simply having their bills reduced and having a maximum compensation limit of £1,000.

It is not true that no action is being taken. It was precisely because we had concerns about the operations of the OSS that the reserve powers are provided in the 1999 Act. However, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), we wish the OSS to make every effort to meet the targets that have been set in improving its service to those who complain about the service that they have received from solicitors. We are determined that improvements be made, and we have powers in reserve to use, should it prove necessary.

How the Council of Circuit Judges' views are taken into account in respect of proposed changes in the work of the courts. [109644]

The Council of Circuit Judges, as I have said, is, like other interested groups, consulted on proposed changes to the operation of the Crown and county courts. Their views are taken into account with the other responses that are received, and they receive the same careful consideration as those of other consultees. Consultation is carried out in various ways—for example, by sending copies of consultation papers for comment, or by inviting circuit judges to sit on project boards.

Why does the hon. Lady believe that there is such concern among circuit judges that their views are not being taken into account?

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made a series of representations on this subject. Such a concern has not previously been expressed to me. We will take on board the comments that have been made—we take them seriously, as they purport to be representative of circuit judges. I will make every effort to reassure circuit judges on the serious way in which their concerns are taken on board by the Department.

If he will publish a referrals handbook for the community legal service which includes details of all national advisory services. [109648]

The community legal service partnerships will create local referral networks which will be supported by regional directories. The directories, to be published at the start of April 2000, will list details of local information and advice providers, and will also include details of relevant national organisations and telephone helplines.

I am very aware of that because we have an excellent community legal service partnership growing in Slough. Our concern is that to get effective referrals, we need a national database of advice centres. We do not want to have to invent our own. We were hoping that the Lord Chancellor's Department would provide a national one that we and those in other areas could plug into so that we can get a better community legal service.

I, too, have that ambition for the community legal service. The directory will be available on the service's website, which is being designed and built so that it is accessible to the majority of the community. The website directory will be updated daily.

How many times Ministers have come to the House to deliver statements since May 1997. [109652]

On how many occasions Ministers have made statements to the House since May 1997. [109659]

As of Monday 21 February, 24 times.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows, impressively, how this Government are committed to parliamentary democracy. Does my right hon. Friend have comparative statistics on the number of occasions on which we had such statements from the Conservatives when they were in government, so that we can see who are the true friends of democracy?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Obviously, those statistics were for this Session, but they compare favourably with the record of the Conservative party in the equivalent period in the 1992–97 Parliament—105 statements were made under this Government compared with 96 under the Conservative Government in a comparable period. Similarly, in the previous Session, 80 statements were made compared with 77 in a comparable period. That overall picture is also reflected in the statistics for individual Ministers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has an impressive record for appearances when compared with his predecessor, who in 1993–94 made only seven appearances, while our right hon. Friend in 1998–99 made 12, which is more than twice the number?

My hon. Friend is correct, and that record is not a flash in the pan. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made statements on no less than 25 occasions compared with 19 by his predecessor in a similar two-year period. That exact picture is reflected in their dealings with questions, where again my right hon. Friend has answered more than his predecessor.

Will the Leader of the House assure the House that, when Ministers make statements which refer to reports in which hon. Members have been mentioned, the Government will make every effort to ensure that those hon. Members see the report before the statement is made, so that they can comment properly?

Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Colleagues usually endeavour to do that, although there may be occasions when there is a difficulty. In general, we hope and expect that that would be the norm. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case and concern in mind, I should be grateful if he would draw it to my attention.

Surely, the real question is not how many statements have been made to the House, but how often they have conveyed new information. Will the right hon. Lady put in the Library a list of those statements that have not been trailed either by a press leak from No. 10 or on the "Today" programme in the morning? Is it not deplorable that we all have a clear idea of what we are to be told in the statement that is to be made in about 12 minutes' time, when in fact that information should be given new, fresh-minted to the House?

First, although the hon. Gentleman says that it is not a question of how many statements have been made or questions answered, because the facts do not suit the Opposition's case, the Opposition normally claim that this Government are in the House less and that that is a sign of our disrespect for Parliament. Clearly, neither of those contentions stands.

What representation she has received on the method of appointing Members to the House of Commons Commission. [109653]/

I have received no formal representations on that matter.

But has the President of the Council read the debate on the matter, held in the House on 2 February? Is she aware of the unease among Back Benchers about the unaccountability of the House of Commons Commission and the way in which it deals with some of the issues before it? Will she consider finding ways to give the views expressed in that debate some resonance in the Commission?

Yes, I have read the debate, and I recognise the concerns that were expressed—not least by my hon. Friend. Like the whole House, I also recognise that one unsatisfactory aspect of the development of the Commission's work is that it is not easy for Members to find out how they can raise issues and have them dealt with. My hon. Friend will be aware that, recently, there was a report on how the Commission could improve its working, so that there are better links and a better flow of information from Members. We hope to make progress on that in the near future.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever the methods of reviewing the means by which Members of the House of Commons Commission are appointed, it is a source of joy to Members on both sides of the House and, no doubt, to a large number of people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, that last night my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was wisely appointed to the Commission, without a Division? Does she agree that it augurs well for the future that a man of such wisdom, judgment and legendary discernment should make his talents and experience available to that august Commission?

Without any disrespect to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I do not think "joy" is quite the word I would have chosen. However, I am sure that he will make a distinguished contribution.

If she will institute a review of the purpose and effectiveness of the Privy Council; and if she will make a statement. [109654]

No, the Privy Council is a long-established and effective example of joined-up government, which continues to play a useful role in a variety of policy matters.

I am again disappointed. Does the House share my astonishment that some Orders in Council are never seen in the Houses of Parliament—for example, orders on new coinage? The pound in our pocket—its shape, what it looks or feels like—is not debated either by peers or Members of this place. The matter is decided by the Privy Council using prerogative powers. Given that we have such a tremendously modernising Government—they want to modernise everything out of sight—surely some parts of our ancient, creaking constitution should be visited. Is not the Privy Council one of those?

Much has already been done to modernise our procedures and more will be done. Later this year, the Privy Council will have its own website—a real example of new technology and forward thinking.

If she will make a statement on the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in relation to the use of timetabling for dealing with legislation. [109657]

The Modernisation Committee considered the use of timetabling and programme motions in its first report of the 1997–98 Session—on the legislative process—and recommended that, for a trial period, some Bills should be programmed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the conclusions of a cross-party Select Committee report have been flouted by the Conservatives, whose antics in this place have been nothing short of scandalous? Will he ask the Committee to review progress on that important matter? Does he agree that the Conservatives are a bunch of sad people? Even if they have no life outside this place, we do. That is why we are in touch with reality and they have completely lost it.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government are keen on further programme motions. There is a record of working with the Opposition on such matters but, unfortunately, the number of Bills introduced under programme motions has declined. I think that that is the fault not of the official Opposition, but of the unofficial Opposition that sometimes lies behind the official Opposition. I do not want to comment on hon. Members' sad lives, but wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on his Channel 4 award. I note that he was not here for his Defence question yesterday. One fears that his reputation does not give us joy, but is slipping.

Will the Minister examine carefully the effect of timetable motions? I am serving on the Standing Committee considering the Utilities Bill and am having great difficulty finding out what Labour Back Benchers have to say about it. I am also concerned that we are hearing rumours that the Bill is supposedly being blocked in Committee. That is not the case; we are making rapid progress. However, Labour Whips keep ending our sittings early, and I hope that the Minister and the President of the Council will take note of that. I suspect that the Government will suddenly decide that it wants the Committee to make more rapid progress, will pretend that it has not been doing that and will table a programme or guillotine motion for the Bill's Committee stage.

My right hon. Friend and I always take note of what hon. Members tell us. Labour Members on the Committee considering the Utilities Bill clearly think that it is an important piece of legislation that has consumers at its heart. I suspect that they are content with proceedings.

If the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has considered the facilities available to members of the Lobby. [109658]

The Modernisation Committee has received numerous representations on the matter, some of which it still has under consideration. However, we have already obtained agreement from the Administration Committee and from Madam Speaker to some relaxation in the use of recording equipment, which had long been sought by the Press Gallery.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that it is about time that the filming procedures in Members' offices were updated, especially considering that Portcullis house now means that all Members will have an office? Will the Modernisation Committee please address that issue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, tape recorders have been permitted in the Press Gallery since January. We have had further discussions with the Administration Committee and, with the agreement of Madam Speaker, a further extension to taping to cover the proceedings of Westminster Hall has been permitted since about a week ago. As from yesterday, filming in Members' offices will be allowed. I know that the lack of facilities for the sensible making available of Members' views to the news media has been a source of irritation to them in the past. I hope that the easement will be welcomed.

What representations he has received on proposals to reform the Commission to make it more accountable to the House. [109660]

We have received one formal representation directly on the matter from the Finance and Services Committee, together with a cogently argued letter from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). These views, as well as those expressed by the hon. Members who took part in the debates on 22 January and 2 February, are all being taken into account by the Commission in deciding how to move forward with improvements to the House's domestic administration and the provision of services to Members.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of the earlier exchanges, can he undertake that he and his colleagues in the Commission will examine one important issue in the context of the Braithwaite report—namely, the way in which the Commission itself is appointed and its accountability to the House?

The way that the Commission is appointed is determined by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Section 1(2)(d) says that the Commission shall include

"three other members of the House of Commons appointed by the House".