If he will make a statement on his powers in relation to the holding of referendums in Scotland. [118126]

I have no powers in relation to the holding of referendums in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament lacks the benefit of a second Chamber to keep it in touch with popular opinion on contentious and difficult matters. Will the Secretary of State take the powers in a short Bill to make greater use of referendums to make good that omission? Will he earn the lasting thanks of parents throughout Scotland, see off his rivals in the dismal Scottish Executive and perhaps bring some relief to nervous colleagues sitting behind him by announcing today that the first such referendum will be on section 28?

I know from previous exchanges that the hon. Gentleman does not fully understand the idea of devolution. I remind him that the point is to pass powers to other institutions, and not to decide to run those other institutions by decisions made here. Section 28 is a matter for the Scottish Executive. I am not sure that it is productive or useful for the hon. Gentleman to make his views known. The last time he did so, his views were so intolerably extreme that they distressed even the Scottish Conservative party, which takes a bit of doing. Having agreed, after several years of debate, to give devolution to the Scottish Parliament and the Executive, we should allow them to get on with it.

Does the Secretary of State share my view that referendums are useful gauges of political opinion? If he were to hold a referendum among the business community in my constituency, it would be overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of assisted area status. Would the Secretary of State agree to meet me urgently to discuss that issue?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in managing to make a plea for Inverness. I am aware that he is a doughty fighter for the interests of his constituency and its business community. I would be glad to meet him to discuss these matters during the consultation period

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the great glories of our constitution is that nothing is irreversible? Will he keep an open mind on the possibility of arranging a further referendum in the future to give the people of Scotland the opportunity to say whether or not they regret their decision in the last referendum?

Our constitution has a number of great glories, one of which is the right hon. Member, who brings the House long hours and much amusement. Even the worst enemies of devolution would consider it a little premature to reverse in 10 months something it took 100 years to deliver.

The Secretary of State will recollect that, before the last general election, the then Labour Opposition were keen on local referendums—such as the unofficial Strathclyde water referendum—to influence Government. In terms of the right hon. Gentleman's own reserved matters, does he think that he might have a referendum on whether the contracts for the ships at Govan should be commercial or military? That would allow an opportunity to nail the calumny put out by the Government that the commercial status is due to the last Government, as it is entirely the responsibility of his Government that that has come about.

Any opinion poll, representative sample or referendum held by an elected body is up to that elected body. The contracts for the ro-ro ferries were classified as commercial contracts under the advertisements put out in the European Gazette in January 1997, which even those with the urge to have collective amnesia about the last Government can remember was during the period of that Government. Rather than political point-scoring over Govan—particularly when the hon. Gentleman inevitably will score own goals, as he has just done—we would all be better served by concentrating our minds on the real issue, which is how we maintain a competitive and productive shipbuilding industry in this country, including at Govan.

What steps he has taken to ensure that digital transmission is extended to the widest possible audience in Scotland before withdrawal of analogue transmission. [118127]

We will ensure that all those who currently receive the main free-to-air channels on analogue television can receive these channels digitally before analogue transmission ceases. The BBC and the Independent Television Commission, which are jointly responsible for the terrestrial television network, are now considering, in consultation with digital broadcasters, Government and others, how to develop the coverage of digital television across the UK.

My hon. Friend will be well aware that some parts of Scotland at present do not even receive terrestrial analogue television and that reception is very poor in other areas. Will he reassure me and the people who live in those areas that they will not be forgotten again and left out of the digital revolution?

I am very pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The objective must be to do better than is done at present in terms of coverage. The period of transition can be used to develop the technology, for instance using satellites, to take digital reception into the small pockets that do not at present receive terrestrial television. It is also important to make the point that digital is about more than television, because it will also be increasingly important in education and commerce. It would be a real disadvantage to any area if it did not have access to digital television, quite apart from the inability to receive television pictures. We must try very hard and we must not limit our ambitions to replicate what exists at present. We must do better and we must achieve our aims sooner than the planned period of transition.

Further to that reply, the Minister may be aware that some of my constituents can receive certain channels only from Northern Irish transmitters or from English transmitters, which may not be a problem during party political broadcasts but which certainly upsets people during football matches. Will he make representations to ensure that digital transmissions in Scotland come from Scottish transmitters?

I remember the days when people travelled to places such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency to see football matches when they were denied to the rest of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's point will be overtaken by technology, because digital will open up more choice. I hope that people in Scotland, and indeed in every part of the United Kingdom, will be able to see programmes that are generated from within Scotland as well as UK-generated programmes. In fact, that is the answer to dilemmas such as which version of "Newsnight" one wants to see. Perhaps I should get a plug in, and suggest that with digital it is possible—and some might say desirable—to see the UK version of the programme for all 45 minutes.

While I welcome some of the reassurances on the technical side, can the Minister assure the House that those who have to access digital transmissions by satellite will not face additional cost barriers? The Minister mentioned the greater diversity of digital television. Will he ensure that in any switch to digital television lessons are learned from the takeover of Grampian Television about the importance of regional diversity in the future of broadcasting and in its regulation?

Like many other people who are familiar with Grampian Television and who remember the great patriotic battle that was fought for the north and north-east of Scotland to keep a separate channel for those areas, I have looked with some cynicism and regret at what has been done since in terms of selling the Grampian franchise to the Scottish Media Group and the disappearance of much of the distinctive identity of Grampian, not to mention many of the jobs associated with Grampian in both English and Gaelic programming.

What assessment he has made of the operation of the ONE pilot project in Paisley; and if he will make a statement. [118128]

Early impressions are that the Clyde Coast and Renfrew ONE pilot is an effective way of helping people into work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the staff of the Employment Service and the Benefit Agency in Paisley and Johnstone are to be congratulated on that initiative? Would he concur with the view expressed by one of the personal advisers from the ONE initiative in Johnstone who told me last week that the initiative has been especially successful in assisting women returning to work in the area of the Clyde coast?

Yes, I am more than prepared to thank the staff my hon. Friend mentioned for the enormous amount of work that they have done. I know that he has given much encouragement to and taken great interest in the initiative.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that we need this excellent new initiative because new deal has totally failed to help the long-term unemployed. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the figures that show that the long-term unemployed are going through a revolving door? They are not—

Order. Do the figures refer to Paisley, which is the specific subject of the question? If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Paisley, the House would be grateful for the figures.

The figures for Paisley show exactly that there is a very large revolving door in Paisley.

Would the Secretary of State like to answer on the Paisley issue, please?

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your helpful ruling. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I explain to him that Paisley is a town quite near to, but distinct from, Glasgow. Such information is usually useful for Conservative Members.

What calculation he has made of the impact of the Budget on pensioners in Scotland. [118129]

Measures taken so far this Parliament mean that pensioner households will be on average £400 a year better off.

I very much welcome all the measures that have been taken, which include free television licences for the over 75s, and the heating allowance. However, one of the major steps forward attracted the least comment. That was the proposal for a consultation paper on granting tax credits for those pensioners who have been left out so far—the ones who have worked all their lives and have small occupational pensions. Does my right hon. Friend welcome that move by the Chancellor, which ensures that those people who have served this country well will be taken care of in the future?

Yes, I welcome that very much. As my hon. Friend points out, the most recent Budget builds step by step on what we have done for pensioners. We have increased the fuel allowance and extended the capital allowance threshold beyond which pensioners with small savings lose benefit, but we have also pledged to look at the group of pensioners who fall into the category that my hon. Friend described. They are the ones who have a little but lose a lot because they are just above the minimum income threshold for the loss of benefits.

Will the Secretary of State explain how the proposed tax credit for pensioners will work?

That is precisely what we are discussing in the consultation process.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Glasgow contains many of the poorest constituencies in Scotland, but is he also aware that about 100,000 pensioners in the city will benefit to the tune of around £10 million from winter fuel payments alone? Will he consider that measure—and all the others introduced by this Labour Government to benefit pensioners—and contrast and compare it with all the hardship and misery caused to pensioner by the Tories when they were in power?

Yes, indeed. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that senior citizens who have contributed so much to creating the wealth of this country should share in a reasonable proportion of that wealth in their old age. That is why the Government restored the free eye tests, which were so disgracefully abolished by the previous Government. It is why we introduced the guaranteed minimum pension for the poorest pensioners, the free television licence for the oldest ones, as well as providing a number of other benefits, including, of course, the £150 fuel allowance for every pensioner household every year. That is particularly beneficial, because giving that benefit in that form means that it is not taxed as it would be if it were paid out weekly. It also means that those in receipt of it are not penalised by losing benefits, as they might be in some cases if it was paid out weekly. That is another step in the Budget towards giving pensioners what they deserve and are due.

What about the abolition of the age-related married couples allowance, which takes £500 off the income of people coming into pensionable age? How does that square with the Secretary of State's comments? Will he also comment on the fact that £2 billion has been taken from pension funds, thereby driving a coach and horses through the promises that pensioners would be encouraged to save to supplement their state pension?

As I pointed out earlier, we have to consider all the measures that have been passed during this Parliament. I have not mentioned, for instance, the savings that pensioners will make because of the introduction of the new low 10p starting rate of income tax.

What assessment he has made of the impact in Scotland of the Electronic Communications Bill. [118130]

The Electronic Communications Bill will further improve opportunities for development of electronic business in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, to which the Government are heavily committed.

Can the Minister say what benefits are derived by Scotland from the joint ministerial meetings on the knowledge economy? Can he tell us who takes part in those meetings and, more importantly, whether they understand the importance of public access to information technology?

The Government recognise that an enormously important part of the economy, now and in the coming decades, is based on the e-commerce revolution. It is extremely important that there should be no barriers to that; it is important that we should benefit from everything going on throughout the United Kingdom, and it is also important that we should add Scottish dimensions to what we do. The joint group is concerned to ensure that the UK legislation is enhanced and value is added within Scotland.

If the Bill is as good as it is cracked up to be, how does the hon. Gentleman explain that—as in England and Wales, so in Scotland—the Federation of Small Businesses has been deeply critical of the enormous regulatory burden that will be imposed by that legislation?

When I see the hon. Gentleman, I think of the phrase "dot.com".

Was that a joke?

It was not a joke; it was to say simply that it is not unknown for the Federation of Small Businesses to be critical of legislation, whether Tory or Labour legislation. That is its job as a pressure group. Anything that allows electronic signatures to be admissible in court as evidence to prove authenticity of documents, smooths the way of e-commerce and adapts to current circumstances is good stuff when it comes to enhancing the technological revolution. Some small businesses will be in favour and others will have doubts. That has always been the way. We must communicate with them to persuade them why they should be in favour.

What recent requests she has received for her advice on devolved and reserved matters in relation to the European convention on human rights and European Union directives and regulations. [118151]

Both these issues raise a number of interesting and difficult problems that have been brought to my attention and about which I have given advice.

There is a great deal of confusion about convention obligations and European Union law. Has my hon. and learned Friend any plans to provide guidance to Members, Members of the Scottish Parliament, peers and journalists on the extension of the convention, its application to Scots law and the differences between convention obligations and obligations under EU law?

I am always delighted to assist any Member from any party who wishes to discuss such matters with me. It is my job to advise the Government, and it would not really be appropriate for me to send out advise to other parties.

The hon. and learned Lady seems to operate in an extremely mysterious way. It is the one characteristic that she shares with the Almighty. She has been especially coy with the House this afternoon, but as she has extended an invitation and as I am not a lawyer, may I see her and will she tell me what she really does do?

I would be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman a private appointment at any time to discuss these matters.

Will the hon. and learned Lady tell the House whether she has considered the provisions of European Union law in regard to its effect on contract for roll on/roll off ferries on the Clyde? In particular, does she understand the distinction between the terms of an advertisement and the terms of a contract when it is ultimately placed? Has she considered whether it is possible to create a contract that will allow the ferries to be built in the United Kingdom, that will meet the UK's military aspirations and at the same time will not be contradictory of our commitments under EU law?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware that as a Law Officer I would not normally, and certainly not in this case, advise him of what advice I have given. I can say that I am aware in general terms of the types of distinction to which he refers.

What role she plays in relation to the proof of irregular marriages in the context of inherited civil service pension rights. [118152]

The responsible Minister for civil service pensions is my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. However, I am able to advise that in general terms the solicitor to the Advocate-General for Scotland's office advises all the United Kingdom Departments, and that would include that Department.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I have provided notice of the Question as it relates to a constituent's case. Will she tell the House when my constituent, Mrs. Mavis MacDonald, can expect a reply to her request to inherit the pension rights of her deceased partner? Will it be before my correspondence file celebrates its second birthday?

I am well aware of the effort that my hon. Friend puts into constituency matters. I am much obliged to him for providing me with specific notice of the case to which he has referred. He will not wish me to discuss in public the details of the case, but I am more than happy to advise that documents are being considered and that the solicitors of my hon. Friend's constituent are being advised about the matter. If my hon. Friend wishes chapter and verse, I am more than happy to provide that to him in private.

Would the Advocate-General advise me whether the normal rules of common law marriages would apply in a case such as that raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)? Would same-sex marriages be recognised for the purposes of inherited civil service pension rights?

The case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) does not, so far as I am aware, raise any same-sex issues. The normal rules on cohabitation and repute are under consideration, which is part of the background to the difficulties experienced in my hon. Friend's case. The hon. Lady will know that the law in Scotland on marriage by cohabitation and repute is not always easy to interpret, and it may take some time before the proper documents are sorted out.

What representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of Gravesend magistrates court. [118157]

I have received 23 representations from Members, justices of the peace and other local interested parties, following Kent magistrates courts committee's determination to close Gravesend magistrates court.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Virtually all the responses to consultation opposed closure of Gravesend magistrates court. Among those who responded, Kent police has estimated that it will face additional costs of around £30,000 a year, not including prisoner conveyance. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking Elizabeth Brice, the former chairwoman of Gravesham's magistrates bench, for her 32 years of service, following her decision to stand down as a result of the decision to close? Can my hon. Friend assure my constituents that she, unlike Kent magistrates courts committee, will give careful consideration to the views expressed by the local community?

I am more than happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments on the retirement of the former chairwoman of the Gravesham bench. Kent magistrates courts committee is responsible under statute for the efficient and effective running of the courts in its area. The Lord Chancellor's responsibility is limited to that of an appellate court in any dispute between the MCC and its paying authority over a proposed court closure. I shall pay careful attention to all the representations made during the appeal, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his vigorous representations, although it is too early to say how successful he has been.

If he will make a statement on the future of rural magistrates courts. [118158]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 25 January 2000 at column 180W.

Shropshire's courts have been placed in an area coterminous with West Mercia police authority's area leading to real fears that the six petty session divisions in Shropshire may go the way of those in Hereford, where there is now only one. Going to court is traumatic enough, especially for elderly witnesses, without having to face extra costs and the difficulties of travelling long distances. Will the Minister guarantee that the Government have no covert policy to close magistrates courts in rural areas?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Shropshire magistrates courts committee has no proposals for courthouse closures or for any internal reorganisation.

To what extent have the changes been driven by public expenditure?

Changes to the boundaries of MCCs are not cost driven, but are designed to meet the improved efficiencies that will arise from the coterminous nature of the new committees in relation to police authorities and the probation services.

Last week it was announced that nine magistrates courts would close in Devon and Cornwall, which will deny many people justice. Does the Minister agree that possible small savings in her Department, which are far outweighed by additional costs for other departments including the police, social services and the probation service, will not lead to efficiency and will not save public money? Does she agree that she should produce guidance for MCCs on these matters, and that that guidance should be made available to the public?

The hon. Gentleman should draw breath for a moment and bear it in mind that any decisions on magistrates courts, their location and the services they provide are taken by local magistrates on magistrates courts committees, not by central Government. Such decisions are for local determination; any savings that might occur are for the local magistrates court committee to decide—as are the courts and their location. The central council of magistrates courts committees has produced a good practice guide for magistrates courts committees that are considering their accommodation. Both the Lord Chancellor's Department and Her Majesty's magistrates courts inspectorate endorse that guidance. There is no statutory duty to consult the public on, for example, proposed courthouse closures, but magistrates courts committees are encouraged to consult more widely than required by statute; in fact, they all do.

Is my hon. Friend absolutely sure that magistrates courts committees listen to the views of the grass roots? There is some doubt about that in north Wales. Is it right that the chairman of the magistrates courts committee in north Wales should also be the chairman of the North Wales police authority?

Again, those issues are for local determination. It is important that the House bear in mind the fact that proposals by magistrates courts committees generally reflect the aim and expectation that services and facilities offered to all court users are brought up to the standard that we expect and require in the 21st century. Often, older courthouses lack facilities that are in keeping with modern standards.

Does the Minister not recognise that, however disingenuously she reads out her ministerial brief, saying "It's nothing to do with us or the Government that courthouses are closing", local people in our constituencies want to keep their courts open? It would be far better and far closer to the interests of the people served by those courts for rural courts to stay open, even though their facilities might not be of the highest standard. Undoubtedly, all those closures are happening under her Government's guidelines, which, as we are all aware, are Treasury driven. Whatever she says, there is no way of hiding the real truth from those who are suffering from such court closures.

Whether or not I was disingenuous is for the House to decide—the hon. Gentleman is as gracious as ever. However, most of the magistrates courts that have closed so far have been courts that magistrates courts committees no longer felt able to justify—either because the replacement of substandard facilities was needed or because they might have been satellite courts. For example, they might have been sited in local council chambers that severely lacked the necessary facilities.

What steps have been taken to increase funding for mediation in family-related matters. [118159]

The Government are committed to encouraging the greater use of family mediation. The provision of public funding for family mediation will be fully implemented throughout England and Wales by the latter part of this year. That will provide a significant source of income for many mediation services. In 1999–2000, approximately £5 million was spent by the Legal Services Commission on publicly funded mediation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that magistrates courts in Middlesex—my area—have just withdrawn from a scheme providing mediation in disputes with children? I understand that that is not an isolated example. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that she and her Department have a strategy to tackle that problem?

I certainly hope to reassure the House on that point. Mediation services receive funding under the partnership arrangements that allow probation services to spend a proportion of their budgets in conjunction with voluntary organisations that are working to achieve similar objectives. The Middlesex probation service has reviewed its partnership funding arrangements to ensure that such funding is directed to those projects that contribute most to the service's objectives. Obviously, when those reviews take place, there are occasionally changes in the funding.

When the law is clear that it is for the parties to a marriage to bear the responsibility for saving that marriage, and when no children are involved in a divorce, why should public money be used for a mediation service to retrieve what is, in essence, a private relationship between two individuals?

The Government support the institution of marriage and believe that it is the best way for children to be raised. However, on the specifics of the question that the hon. Lady asks, very often mediation is funded through charities and we fund a national family mediation service through public funds. Local mediation services are not funded by central Government funding, but the fact that we fund the national service relieves the local services of some of those central costs.

What criteria the Lord Chancellor adopts in choosing to investigate complaints from members of the public against judges. [118160]

The Lord Chancellor can investigate complaints about the personal conduct of judges. He cannot consider complaints about judicial decisions. As a general rule he will investigate any complaint that a member of the judiciary has behaved in a way that falls short of the standards that both he and the public expect. This can include allegations of inappropriate behaviour, conflict of interest or rudeness.

Is there not scope for a fully independent and transparent system of complaints to deal with cases such as that of my constituent Mr. Darbar, who spent several years in jail for a crime that he did not commit because of a mistake made by a judge—subsequently picked up in the Court of Appeal but for which no redress was possible. Another constituent, a Mrs. Hood, lost her pension because of a confusion over dates on the part of a judge in an industrial tribunal—again, with no redress forthcoming. If doctors can be struck off following complaints, why cannot judges be subject to the same discipline?

I hear what the hon. Member says. The Lord Chancellor does consider complaints against judges extremely seriously, but it is important to keep this matter in perspective. Last year, there were about 412 complaints relating to the personal conduct of judges, arising from approximately 250,000 sitting days, so the allegation that judges routinely make mistakes must be seen in the context that most of our judges are extremely hard-working, dedicated and professional servants of the public.

Although I accept the Minister's comments, does he not accept that if there were truly independent evaluation and monitoring of judges, it would lead to greater transparency and far greater public confidence? When I raised the subject with my hon. Friend previously and suggested that he introduce Ofjudge, he said that was a novel idea. May I suggest to him that all good ideas start off by being novel? Will he reconsider?

I am always willing to listen to my hon. Friend's interesting, and perhaps novel, suggestions, but the independence of the judiciary from the Executive is a fundamental principle of our constitution and should be upheld, and any suggestion that the Executive should have a role in monitoring what judges do and the way that they do it would have to be very carefully considered to ensure that it did not infringe that very important principle of judicial independence.

There is a suspicion among my constituents that the inflexibility of judges' working hours leads to the postponement of an unnecessary number of cases to another day, involving increased numbers of witnesses having to travel extra days to attend court. Has the spokesman of the Lord Chancellor had any complaints in that respect? If not, will he examine that problem?

I am always willing to accept complaints concerning specific instances where such a postponement has happened. The Lord Chancellor has made it entirely clear that the courts, like other public bodies, are there to serve the interests of the consumer, not to support the institution or to work in a way that is convenient for the professionals working in the system. It is essential that the consumers—the parties to the dispute and, very importantly, the witnesses—have the services that they are entitled to expect.

What steps have been taken at a local level to distribute information on the community legal service in England and Wales. [118161]

The Lord Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) and I have attended local launches and seminars across the country to promote the community legal service and we have issued two CLS newsletters. After the local elections in May, cards giving information about the CLS will be delivered to every household in a partnership area in England and Wales. That will be supported by advertising campaigns in the local media.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I also thank him for recently visiting my constituency to talk and to see the actions of Cumbria county council. I understand that it was a very worthwhile visit, especially the video conference with the rural areas. Is my hon. Friend sure that his Department is making the best use of information technology to get the message of this new service across to the public?

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend asked that question. Since I went to Cumbria and saw the impressive work undertaken by the community legal service partnership there, including the innovative use of information technology, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has also launched a community legal service, including the legal information advice website known as "Just Ask". This will provide valuable legal information and advice online to millions of people. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that over 70,000 people have visited the website so far.

If she will make a statement on the cost to date of the Westminster Hall experiment. [118171]

It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the cost of Westminster Hall itself, because it is housed in a refurbished Grand Committee Room, and that refurbishment would have been done in any event. Similarly, some £71,000 was spent on professional fees, and that would have been incurred in any refurbishment. But my understanding is that expenditure of some £30,000 was incurred in furnishing the Grand Committee Room additionally for the experiment, and that the running costs are some £13,000 a month.

I think that that is a waste of money. I have attended debates in Westminster Hall which have been so poorly attended that there has been no atmosphere whatever, mainly because of the format. My main memories are of tourists in buses passing behind the Minister's head and bemused schoolchildren going out of the squeaky door. Could we not return to the familiar, traditional format of Committee Room 14, which would house all the Members who wished to attend the debates, a format that works and encourages rigorous debate?

The "traditional format" of Committee Room 14 has been used for a great many Committees. This is a separate feature. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have found the opportunity for some 200 extra debates over a year as a result of the Westminster Hall operations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that value for money should be judged in terms of using time in debate, or indeed the number of hon. Members who attend, he is setting rather a dangerous precedent.

Is it not very unfortunate that Conservative Members seem very widely to feel that the Westminster Hall experiment is a waste of time? Surely, as my right hon. Friend said, it cannot be judged by the money costs? Surely the important thing to judge it by is the way it gives many hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to take part in debates on a far better basis than if we were simply to restrict debates to this Chamber.

I have noticed that since the Westminster Hall experiment commenced we now have the opportunity to debate about four times as many Select Committee reports as in the past, which in theory is supposed to be to the advantage of the Opposition. Moreover, because our capacity to hold Adjournment debates has increased, the demand for such debates has doubled. Indeed, many Opposition Members, including some who did not vote for the Westminster Hall experiment, make use of it in that way.

May I endorse the last comment of the President of the Council? I have attended a number of debates in Westminster Hall—including debates initiated by Conservative Members—which have been excellent. May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the original recommendations of the Modernisation Committee in relation particularly to value for money in what we are doing in Westminster Hall, and remind her that the Law Commission said that it was desperate to have more opportunities for non-controversial legislation, tidying-up legislation, to be taken in a forum that would allow debate where a Division was not required? Has the right hon. Lady had any discussion with colleagues or with the other parties to see whether we could use this badly needed improvement to take some of our legislation in Westminster Hall?

I have not done so since the experiment began, although I am willing to do it as we review its working. One reason for not having done so is that, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, anxiety was expressed in some parts of the House—perfectly reasonably, I thought—that the Westminster Hall experiment would simply be another way for the Government to get through more legislation. So I gave an absolute assurance that the Government would not seek to use Westminster Hall as such a forum, certainly not during the experimental period. Obviously, we would look at that again only if the House so desired.

If she will make a statement on the number of bills produced in draft in (a) the 1997–98 session and (b) each subsequent session to date. [118172]

Three draft Bills or parts of Bills were produced in Session 1997–98, six in Session 1998–99, but none so far this Session. Some Departments have, however, consulted informally on Bills in preparation and some draft Bills are expected shortly.

I welcome my hon. Friend's declaration that more draft Bills are on the way. Does he recognise that the modernisation of our procedure is strongly backed by many inside and outside the House? Does he also agree that greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny gives greater scope for further modernisation of House procedures, including, perhaps, carrying over legislation, timetabling Bills and even introducing the concept of a voting hour?

My hon. Friend makes several important points. First, draft Bills have been welcomed widely across a number of communities. Secondly, Bills have been improved substantially by pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, he is right that pre-legislative scrutiny is part of a wider package of measures on which we need to make more progress.

The Opposition very much welcome the publication of Bills in draft. However, is it not unwise to assume that, just because a Bill has been first published in draft, it will then take less time to pass through the House of Commons and the upper House; and does not the fate of the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill disprove that assumption? To avoid over-programming the House's time with Government Bills, will the Government be more realistic about the time required by Bills that were first considered in draft when they come before the House?

Clearly, Bills can be improved by pre-legislative scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Freedom of Information Bill. Again, that was improved in draft, but there were major policy differences that could not be resolved. He also mentioned the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Of course, during its long preparation, the market itself changed; the stock market was demutualised and that had implications for the Bill. However, he is right to say that it would not be wise to assume that, just because a Bill is published in draft, it will have an easier passage. The converse may be true, because people have more time to think about it. Whatever body is asked to scrutinise a draft Bill must have time to do that. It involves a difficult balancing act, because programmed Bills will always need to take priority.

What progress she has made in identifying candidates suitable for appointment as chairman of the Appointments Commission. [118173]

Although my right hon. Friend is not responsible for appointing the Appointments Commission, I understand that the appointments process is making good progress. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to be in a position to make an announcement shortly

So am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister appoints the chair of the Appointments Commission which, in turn, appoints Members to the upper Chamber? Is that not a bizarre state of affairs, and is not appointment very much second best to election? As we move towards the next general election, we need the Labour party and the Labour Government to nail their colours to the mast and to argue vigorously for a small, directly elected second Chamber rather than the ridiculous melange that we have been invited to accept at the moment.

I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. He will have an opportunity to discuss those matters when we debate the Wakeham commission on, I believe, 4 May. The Appointments Commission will have seven members, three of whom will be appointed by the main political parties. The present Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to lose—or reduce—his powers of patronage as a result of a decision by the Appointments Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Opposition Members may scoff, but the Conservative party remains the major, dominant party in the House of Lords.

I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to more modest appointments. When the commission or the Privy Council makes an appointment, will the person responsible for doing that be entirely dependent on the clerk of the Privy Council trawling the relevant Departments, or will he put in a mechanism encouraging other institutions and voluntary bodies to submit the names of those whom they believe suitable for appointment?

The hon. Gentleman makes important points and I look forward to his contribution in the debate on the Wakeham report on 4 May. The Government intend that appointments should be made from a wider range and different groups of people. One of the Appointments Commission's tasks will be to ensure that a wider choice of names is available. The Government have made substantial progress on the number of people from the black and ethnic communities, as well as the number of women, who have been appointed.

How on earth can the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Prime Minister is self-effacing and abdicating when the right hon. Gentleman is the very fount and geyser of honours? When will the chairman of the Appointments Commission be appointed? The Prime Minister promised that the appointment would be made before Easter. Are we to take that to mean this week, before Orthodox Easter or next Easter? When will it happen?

The hon. Gentleman should not bluster so much. I accept that he is recovering from ill health, but he should listen to my answer, which is that the appointment will be made very soon.

There is a difference between a commission that appoints cross-party or independent peers, and the new development that the Parliamentary Secretary appears to be introducing by saying that the commission should make political appointments. Does he intend that the Prime Minister should give the commission that power?

I am sorry about that confusion. The Appointments Commission will look for, trawl and appoint Cross-Bench peers from many different groups. Party leaders will still submit their chosen names to the Appointments Commission, which will then make decisions about them.

If she will propose that the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons review the recommendations in its sixth report (1997–98, HC 779) on current voting methods. [118174]

The Modernisation Committee is currently reviewing that matter.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Modernisation Committee came up with a single recommendation for electronic voting that would allow right hon. and hon. Members to mingle in the voting Lobby and reduce the time spent on multiple votes?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, I am not in a position to respond because the Committee has not yet reconsidered whether there is any possibility of a single recommendation emerging. I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that a multiplicity of recommendations is less likely to lead to a clear decision.

When looking at new forms of voting, will the Leader of the House make absolutely certain that, whatever system is recommended, it ensures that Ministers come to vote regularly? From the voting lists, it appears that people such as the Prime Minister hardly ever come to the Chamber and cannot be lobbied by their own Members, let alone those belonging to other parties.

Of course, I cannot prejudge the Committee's views. However, I certainly believe it important to have a focus in the parliamentary day, during a vote, so that Ministers can attend and Members can mingle. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House recognise the value of that.

What recent representations she has received calling for reform of the judicial function of the Privy Council; and if she will make a statement. [118175]

Apart from questions from the hon. Gentleman, no representations about the Judicial Committee have been received.

I am pleased to be the first. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that we host, largely fund and appoint members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who can and still do preside over matters of life and death, and who have given the green light to executions in other jurisdictions around the world? That contravenes our obligations under the European convention on human rights. If the Minister says, "Ah, but they are dealing only with matters of law", I remind him that the House has decided that capital punishment is both unlawful and repugnant. It cannot therefore be right that we continue to host, appoint and fund the Judicial Committee under the present arrangements. Will the Minister reconsider the matter?

The hon. Gentleman described himself as first—for a moment, I thought that he would say "unique". He has his own style. He has asked questions about the matter, and he well knows the answer. The Judicial Committee acts on behalf of other states. It is up to the other states to decide whether they want to change the way in which they deal with these matters.