What discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding events to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. [141563]

My right hon. Friend meets with the First Minister on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of matters. I do not think that I would be breaking confidentiality if I said that this particular issue has not figured in those discussions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), told me on 13 December that the Government would mark the bicentenary. Will it feature in any future discussions that the Secretary of State may have? How does the Minister plan to celebrate it, and does he agree that it will serve as a useful rehearsal for the real jamboree that will fall due in 2007, when we can jointly celebrate the huge achievements of the union of our nations?

In the year 2001, I hope that this Labour Government will continue to celebrate by deeds rather than jamborees. We shall do that by continuing the march towards social justice, which the hon. Gentleman will oppose. I have no immediate plans to celebrate the events of 1801. Some people in Ireland will celebrate them, some will not. The less we say to stir that up, the better.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been campaigning for the by-election at Falkirk, West on behalf of the excellent candidate Major Eric Joyce have had our commitment to social justice reinforced by the voters of that constituency? Will he reconfirm to the House that it is not events that will make the people of Scotland celebrate their status as members of the United Kingdom, but a UK Government who share their priorities? Chief among those priorities are the eradication of child and pensioner poverty and the attainment of full employment. That is in this country's grasp for the first time in more than a generation.

Like my hon. Friend, I am especially glad that youth unemployment in Scotland as a whole and in Falkirk in particular is down by 75 per cent. That is a reason not only to rejoice, but to vote Eric Joyce.

I understand the Minister's reluctance to celebrate 1801, but will not he accept that many people in Ireland have benefited from that Union? Some of them have found their nest here as a result of it. Does not he also accept that the anniversary provides an opportunity to restore the best values of our Christian tradition, as represented in the flag of the Kingdom, which combines the emblems of George, Andrew and Patrick?

I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Many people throughout these islands have benefited from the Union. Clearly, different views obtain in the island of Ireland about the events of 1801. However, I think that the spirit of Wolfe Tone, as well as that of some of the radicals in the north of Ireland, is something over which any people with liberal and progressive views can unite.

I am Scots-born but have much Irish and other blood in me, so may I invite my hon. Friend not to celebrate the anschluss of Ireland to England 200 years ago? It opened the way to a century's worth of conflict that in some ways still continues. Instead, will he celebrate the great contribution that Irish people have made to Scotland, England and Wales? We live in a multination, multicultural and multirace Great Britain. It is a great country to belong to, but we should not put one nation above another. That admonition applies especially to members of the Conservative party, who want to reduce us all to little Englanders and who are now waving the race card on police crime.

That was a characteristically eclectic question from my hon. Friend. I agree: we should not put one nation or race above the others, but we should celebrate the contributions that all people make to the human family. I want to build bridges and connections between Scotland and all parts of Ireland. I have tried to do my own little bit in that respect through something called the Columba initiative, which celebrates the cultural and linguistic connections between all parts of Ireland and Scotland, especially through the Gaelic language and culture. Historically, that language was as strong in northern Ireland, in the province of Ulster, as it was in the other three provinces of the island of Ireland.

I noted the article written by the Secretary of State in The Herald this week, celebrating the Labour Government's new constitutional settlement. In that context, does the Minister agree that if the new constitutional settlement is to work, it will require an element of forbearance and understanding between all parties? Does he also agree that it would be most undesirable if, for instance, Scottish Members of Parliament were to vote tomorrow on the Hunting Bill which concerns England and Wales alone?

I do not agree with that, and I think that we will come to this issue in a later question. It is important to assert that all Members of the House are equal and have equal voting rights. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will be here tomorrow night to vote on hunting, but I suspect that some might also be in Falkirk, hunting foxes of a different variety.

I find the Minister's answer disappointing. He appears to have missed the point that as a result of the constitutional settlement that we are trying to make work, the equality of Members of Parliament has already been breached through devolution. In those circumstances, is it not right that if that is his attitude, it will in due course be necessary to implement measures in this House to have English and Welsh votes on English and Welsh laws, as people in Scotland well understand when they are asked about it?

It comes ill from a Tory to seek that sort of absolutist solution to a relative problem. When legislation that was already devolved administratively was carried out in this House, I do not remember the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues thinking that it was a great constitutional outrage that the Tories ruthlessly used their majority to drive through Scottish legislation against the will of people in Scotland. There is now, by the will of this Parliament, a devolved responsibility to the Parliament in Scotland over certain areas, but that does not change the constitutional position of this House or Members of this House. As soon as one moves away, for populist political reasons, from the theology of devolution—that this House has given devolution freely and willingly to the Scottish Parliament—there is real constitutional trouble. I advise the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to go down that road.

If he will make a statement about trends in European Union regional aid for Scotland over the last five years. [141565]

In the period 1994–99, projects worth £2.4 billion were approved, involving £1 billion of structural funds money. The total funds available for the new round of programmes in Scotland will be £960 million—a reduction of approximately 5 per cent., reflecting a relative increase in Scotland's prosperity.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is not aware that over the past six years, for every £200 from the European structural funds that has gone to Scotsmen, only £60 has gone to west countrymen. Does he think it fair that in the next six years the Scotsman will receive 50 per cent. more per year than every west countryman? Bearing in mind that the west country is as deprived and poor as many parts of Scotland, does he not agree that it is wrong that there should be such a loading for Scotland against the west country?

I shall say two things to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the funds paid through the structural funds are based on an assessment of need, meeting an agreed criteria. If there is a greater need in Scotland after 20 years of Tory Government, perhaps he should reflect on that.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important role that European structural funds have played in the highlands and islands, not least in the new city of Inverness? On that note, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the students of Cauldeen primary school in my constituency, who fought for that bid? Does he agree that city status will provide a great boon for tourism and inward investment to the highlands and islands?

Yes, I agree on all those points. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are delighted about the millennium city status that has been conferred on Inverness, which won against stiff competition. Other areas, such as Ayr, Stirling and Paisley, where my hon. Friends also fought hard, will have another opportunity in 2002. My hon. Friend played a widely appreciated role, both before he came into Parliament and outside it. That has been a major contributory factor, along with the presentation work done by the children of Cauldeen primary school—most of whom I met yesterday—in achieving city status for Inverness. We are delighted. That shows what a Member of Parliament can do. Who knows, with Eric Joyce in Falkirk, perhaps it will be in for city status in the not too distant future.

Is there any scope for utilising European regional aid to deal with the problems of the beleaguered fishing industry, in particular the fact that the quota reductions that have been announced will affect the whole fleet, not least the village-based sector of the industry that is substantially represented in my constituency? Can the Minister say whether European regional aid might, for example, fund a proper decommissioning scheme to ensure that effort is reduced to a level at which it is equivalent to the resources available?

In terms of the general problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, of course we face some desperate problems with fish stocks in the North sea. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that. I am convinced that the fisheries talks in Brussels last Thursday secured the best possible deal for Scotland.

What about the Danes and the whiting?

We achieve more in the fisheries talks and in everything else that we negotiate in Europe from a position of strength in the United Kingdom than we would ever do if the Scottish National party was trundling along there, particularly as the matter is determined under qualified majority voting. We would have a much reduced power and share in that voting if we got a separate Scotland.

In view of my right hon. Friend's earlier answer, will he confirm that the effect of last week's summit in Nice was to increase considerably the number of votes that Britain enjoys in the European Union? Will he also confirm that the summit will further undermine the credibility of any party that argues that independence in Europe is a credible alternative to the strength of Britain's negotiating position?

Indeed, I happily agree. The vast majority of people in Scotland realise that too. The result of the talks in Nice and their implications are that the United Kingdom will maintain a major role under qualified majority voting and the new figures for an enlarged Europe. We would be much reduced in a separate Scotland—we would be left much less powerful and much more isolated. That leaves the independence strategy of the SNP in shreds.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament has suspended an inquiry into regional aid, because it cannot obtain the information that it requires from the Treasury in Westminster? Will the Secretary of State communicate with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor so that the information can be provided, or does he stick to his position that Westminster Ministers should not appear before Committees of the Scottish Parliament?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman starts his question from the wrong premise. It is not my position that Westminster Ministers should never appear at Holyrood; my position—and, incidentally, the position agreed between the two Parliaments and in the concordats that we have all agreed—is that the first responsibility of any Minister is obviously to their own Parliament. Of course, we will provide sufficient information to satisfy the Scottish Parliament and its Committees.

What estimate he has made of the number of young people who have benefited from the new deal since 1997. [141566]

The new deal has been a tremendous success in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "It says here."] It does not say that here—I can say it off the top of my head: 29,200 young people are off the dole and in work. That is 4,200 more than we pledged, three years ago, that we would get off the dole and into work. We have met that pledge—as well as many others.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that, before 1997, a third of a million young people languished on the dole for more than a year? At present, the figure is 6,000. Does he reject decisively the Opposition programme to abolish the new deal? Will he welcome the fact that 400 people in Falkirk, West have gone off the dole and into the new deal?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It will be remarked as one of the major achievements of the Labour Government that we have so attacked the waste of unemployment and the waste of young lives that we have cut by no less than 79 per cent. the number of young people who are unemployed in Scotland. That has been noticed; it is something for which our candidate, Eric Joyce, has been given considerable thanks by the people of Falkirk.

We appreciate that the Secretary of State has to go on and on about Falkirk today, but the new deal affects the whole of Scotland and the whole country. Is it not true that the new deal has achieved only what would have been achieved anyway because of the strong economy that the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government? The new deal is nothing more than an expensive soundbite. A huge amount of taxpayers' money has been spent on glossy brochures and a lot of bureaucrats' time has been wasted. That time, money and energy could have been put to far better use for the young people of Scotland than the new deal—which is only about talk and not about action.

I have only three things to say to the hon. Lady. First, the Tory party should improve its media monitoring because, unfortunately, about two hours ago the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—an independent body—issued a report on the new deal, which shows that long-term youth unemployment would be twice as high without the Government's new deal. So she is wrong on her first point. Secondly, I do not think that her remarks will be taken as anything other than slightly offensive—perhaps unintentionally—by the employment staff who have done so well in reducing unemployment. Thirdly, I wish her and all her relations in Inverurie a very merry Christmas.

If she will make a statement on the consequences of the Starrs judgment. [141587]

The judgment of the Court of Session in Starrs and Chalmers in November 1999 indicated that prosecution before a temporary sheriff in Scotland did not constitute a fair hearing under article 6 of the European convention on human rights because a temporary sheriff had insufficient security of tenure. Consequently, the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for the administration of justice in Scotland, stopped using temporary sheriffs and judges and promoted legislation—the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Act 2000—to provide for the appointment of part-time sheriffs who would have security of tenure. The first such sheriffs commenced work in October 2000.

I thank the Advocate-General for that answer. Is she aware and does she agree that, despite the further ramifications following the findings of the Court of Session, that case could have serious consequences for the administration of justice involving lay members and an irreparable effect in England and Wales? Does her advice extend to advising those in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland, as this is a major issue for justice in the United Kingdom?

I am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. A successful challenge was made under the ECHR in particular circumstances that applied only to Scotland. Of course there may be ramifications. As he will know, the Lord Chancellor took steps to enhance the security of tenure of part-time judges in England. On the long-term consequences, any challenge that is made will be considered in the particular circumstances of the case. I am sure that our jurisprudence is sufficiently flexible to take account of any change that may be made.

Does the Minister accept that that is an important issue, but far more important to my constituents and the people of Falkirk is the discussion that they are having in the pubs and clubs about how much better they are under the Labour Government? I was speaking to one of my in-laws yesterday, and Joyce said that we at e much better under the Labour Government than we were before. Does the Minister agree?

I am sure that Starrs and Chalmers is the talk of the pubs and clubs throughout Scotland, but I hope that there is at least some understanding in those conversations of the importance of the ECHR to Scotland and, indeed the United Kingdom.

What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Scottish law. [141588]

There is frequent contact between my office and the Home Department, both at official and ministerial level, about matters of common interest, including human rights.

I am grateful to the Advocate-General for that reply. Is the hon. and learned Lady aware that there was widespread disgust in the country at the initial Scottish Appeal Court ruling that an individual accused of drink driving should not be obliged to state whether he or she was the registered keeper or the driver at the material time and that the decision of the Law Lords to overturn that perverse ruling was widely welcomed by my constituents and those of other tight hon. and hon. Members? Will she accept that, in the light of the passage of the pernicious Euro-inspired Hun tan Rights Act 1998, it is essential that she should be able to offer us an assurance that there will be no repetition of such unjust, pernicious and untenable cases in Scotland in future?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, as Advocate-General, I argued that case before the Privy Council with some success. I argued it on the basis not of disgust, perniciousness or any other matters, but of logic and rationality. I am pleased to say that those arguments were upheld.

If she will make a statement about the future of the lay magistracy. [141591]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 November.

The report, "The judiciary in the magistrates' courts", to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers, in many ways contrasts and contradicts the Auld report, which has broadly recommended a professional magistracy. The judicial report finds overwhelmingly in favour of a continuing lay magistracy. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the Government have already accepted the essence of "Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts", which the Home Office commissioned?

I hesitate to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but Lord Justice Auld's report and its detailed conclusions have not yet been published. It would be premature to comment on his review before it has been completed. However, we have reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of lay magistrates should be preserved for cases carrying a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. It is important to note the research report's conclusion that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the community.

Could I persuade my hon. Friend that, if it is working, it should not be fixed? Does she agree that it is not good for the morale of voluntary magistrates, of whom there are many thousands throughout the country, for rumours about switching to stipendiaries constantly to emerge from London? Will she knock those rumours on the head, pay tribute to hard-working magistrates and kindly consider receiving from me in the not too distant future a deputation on those matters?

I am always willing to receive a deputation and representations from my right hon. Friend. I have sought to do my level best to allay the fears of lay magistrates, which are based on wrong and misleading press reports of the Government's intentions. In a recent speech to the Magistrates Association, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor said:

The promotion of volunteering is an objective of Government policy. Lay magistrates are volunteers par excellence. They represent local community involvement in the justice system.

The Minister, with her usual approach of sweet reasonableness, suggests that the Government are supporting lay magistrates, but I am sorry to have to put it to her that the facts directly contradict that.

As this is the season of good will, I shall not respond to the tone in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I do not seek to sugar a bitter pill. I am genuine when I extol the role that the lay magistracy plays in the administration of criminal justice. I do not expect magistrates courts closures to result directly from the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities for holding defendants in custody. It is essential that the magistrates courts committees carry out their part in making sure that the courts and services that they provide are modern and that the courts are fit for their purpose.

I have this morning tabled an early-day motion signed by 175 hon. Members who represent all parts of the political and geographical spectrum. It celebrates the work, commitment, dedication and expertise of the 30,000 lay magistrates who deliver justice in local communities. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that she and others will resist any Home Office attempt to subvert and subordinate the role of lay magistrates in a way that would lead to their control and supervision by retitled stipendiary magistrates? Such a move would be most vigorously opposed, not least by members of the Magistrates Association such as myself.

The role of stipendiary magistrates courts—or district judges (magistrates courts) as we now call them—is important. They play a vital role in supporting lay magistrates benches throughout the country. We could not manage without their important contribution to the work of the criminal courts.

What plans he has to finance the building of a new courthouse at Colchester. [141592]

I recently visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and saw the magistrates court at the town hall for myself. I accept that present conditions are unsatisfactory and require improvement. A bid has been made to my Department for improvements, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support it.

The closure of many magistrates courts was based on the argument that centralised courts would be provided with the most modern facilities. Although I welcome the Minister's answer, it does not tally with the information that I have received from the north Essex magistrates bench, which has received information from the Essex magistrates courts committee. Will the Minister therefore convene a meeting of the local magistrates, the Essex magistrates courts committee and Colchester borough council, so that we can flush out exactly what is going on? I hope that what the Minister said is correct. If it is, we can get on with building the new courthouse.

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman was not able to welcome the very substantial investment that we have made. He asked what was going on, so I inform him that the revenue allocation for magistrates courts in Essex is rising from £7.4 million this year to £8.5 million next year, which is an increase considerably above the rate of inflation. The bid that the magistrates courts committee has put in for new premises in Colchester is being assessed, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make an announcement about it before too long. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a little.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an issue that arises from the financing of court cases in Colchester and elsewhere is the recoverability of conditional fee insurance, which urgently needs to be dealt with by the insurance industry?

As always, I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity for linking issues. He is right. The Government's policy is that the premium paid for cover against the risk of having to pay legal costs should be recoverable from the losing opponent. That ensures that the damages paid to claimants are not unreasonably eroded. In our view, that is the effect of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Although the interpretation of individual agreements is a matter for the courts, the Government believe that recoverability includes premiums on policies taken out before proceedings are issued in any particular case.

The Minister has managed to find money to build a new courthouse in Colchester, but does he think that that helps in the administration of justice while we still have cases such as that of Stephen Downing, in which the Crown Prosecution Service last week said that it had not been notified of the case until 4.30 pm the day before? Will the Minister look into that and report back to the House?

I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised his constituent's case and has diligently pursued the matter over a considerable period. The case is a matter for the Attorney-General, and I understand that my noble and learned Friend has spoken to the hon. Gentleman and is looking into the serious questions that he raises. I am sure that he will get back to the hon. Gentleman before too long.

What measures she is taking to protect children from violent parents. [141593]

The Children Act sub-committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law has produced a report on parental contact in cases in which there is domestic violence. The Lord Chancellor and the president of the family division in the High Court are considering what further action may be necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a serious case in my constituency in which a woman was threatened with prison for contempt of court because she had refused her violent ex-husband access to her child? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation along the lines of the best practice guidelines set out by the Children Act sub-committee, first, so that the whole House can properly debate important issues of access and parents' roles in relation to their children and, secondly, to ensure that children throughout the country are given equal protection? Despite the best practice guidelines, no safety net was immediately available to my constituent.

I am aware of the representations that my hon. Friend has made and of the case to which she refers. I remind her that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is not persuaded at this time that legislation is necessary to protect children from domestic violence during contact with a non-resident parent. Those are extremely difficult matters and the enforcement of contact orders is particularly sensitive. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is, of course, a contempt of court and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment, but such punishment may not be appropriate, and the courts have to make extremely difficult decisions, taking into account all the circumstances of each case.

The Government have been widely condemned for refusing to impose legal constraints on child carers who smack children. When the consultation on that matter has been completed, will it be the subject of open debate and a free vote in the House, or will the Government continue simply to be guided by their own opinion polls?

The hon. Gentleman catches me slightly off guard on a policy issue that is not my responsibility. The consultation period has ended, and the Lord Chancellor is now directly consulting the president of the family division to determine what guidance and best advice to give to the courts for dealing with those difficult and extremely sensitive cases.

What guidelines have been issued to newly constituted magistrates courts committees on local magistrates court closures. [141594]

I have personally endorsed the revised good practice guide on courthouse closure issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. That should be issued to all magistrates courts committees shortly. The Government encourage courts committees to follow the practices and advice in that document.

I hope that the guidance will include a reference to the importance of local magistrates courts in rural areas. The effect of consolidating magistrates courts committees into large areas to conform with police authority areas is that those committees are now very remote from many of the rural areas that they serve. Will the Minister guarantee, for instance, that Frome magistrates court will still be open in five years?

It would be wrong of me to give any such guarantee. I may not be in my current position in five years' time—who knows? The guidance to which I referred includes the factors to be taken into consideration when reviewing accommodation needs. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government continue to believe that it is for local magistrates courts committees, which are drawn from magistrates who are local, who know the area and who are able to determine what is best for that area, to organise their resources and their courts.

What plans she has to bring forward proposals on electronic voting in the House. [141605]

If she will make a statement on her proposals for electronic voting in the House. [141610]

It will, of course, be for the House to decide whether it wishes to adopt electronic voting, but the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has received representations on the matter, and has decided to stage an exhibition on the means of electronic voting. [Laughter.] This will take place in the Upper Waiting Hall in the week beginning Monday 19 March.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Despite the raucous laughter of Opposition Members, I think that an exhibition might be a good means by which Members can educate themselves about the ways in which electronic voting could enable us to waste less time in this place. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do more than stage an exhibition and to ascertain whether she can take action?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that there are different means by which votes could be recorded electronically. As it was fairly clear from the reaction to the initial report from the Modernisation Committee that members had some doubts and reservations about the different possibilities available, I think that it is important for hon. Members to have the opportunity to take a look and to judge for themselves.

The exhibition sounds a truly ghastly prospect. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), does the right hon. Lady accept that the traditional method of voting in the Division Lobbies provides Members with invaluable opportunities informally to approach Ministers and shadow Ministers, to confer with their parliamentary colleagues, to rally support for their chosen causes and, on the extraordinarily rare occasions when he turns up in the House, perhaps even to buttonhole the Prime Minister? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, for those four reasons, she should stand for tradition and resist the Maoist revolutionaries on the Government Back Benches?

Let me gently remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is here for Prime Minister's Question Time more often than his predecessor as a result of the way in which it is now arranged. I have some sympathy with the basic point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the benefits of Members being able to mix in the Lobby when a Division is called. It is my understanding—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee at the time—that one of the things that caused problems when the House considered electronic voting initially was that some hon. Members were under the impression that it would not be possible to combine electronic means of registering votes with the opportunity to mix that takes place in the Lobby. That is not the case, and that is the premise on which the Committee has discussed the matter. None of that is affected by a study of the means of recording votes, which is what is proposed in the exhibition.

May I from the Labour Benches agree with every word uttered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)?

It is always open to one hon. Member to agree with another.

Do Labour Back Benchers not realise that by proposing electronic voting they are cutting their own throats? If they want to have so little contact with other parliamentarians that they do not even wish to go into the Division Lobbies to vote in person, why do they not do us all a favour and stop standing for election, to make way for people who want to do a job of work in the House?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is, of course, a serious parliamentarian, doing hits job does not seem to include having the capacity to listen. As I pointed out to the House, it is perfectly possible to introduce electronic means of recording votes, without losing the principle. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There is no reason why the two should not be combined. It was not the Government but the all-party Modernisation Committee that made the proposal in the first place, before I was a member of the Committee.

Although one should be very careful who one's allies are in this place, may I ask my right hon. Friend what is wrong with our present system of voting? Is she aware that although opinion on the Labour Benches is bound to be divided, many of us take the view that we should continue with the system that has been used for many years?

It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend's views. If a proposal to introduce an electronic method of voting is introduced, it will be for the House as a whole to take a view. It will be a House matter and there will be a free vote.

It is good to hear from old lags occasionally on such subjects.

Here is another.

And here is another. The disadvantage of electronic voting is that Ministers will be able to nip in, tap a button and nip out again. The advantage of the present system is that they have to shuffle through the Lobby for 10 or 15 minutes. I know that it is an awful bore for Ministers to have to listen to the peasantry—that is, Back Benchers—but occasionally the mandarins get it wrong and the peasants get it right.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said a few moments ago, the proposal did not come from Ministers or from the Government. It came from the peasantry.

To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress the Commission has made on the implementation of the Braithwaite report. [141606]

Considerable progress has been made since the debate in the House on 20 January 2000. The Commission thereafter appointed an implementation manager to carry forward the implementation of the report's principal recommendations on an agreed timetable. Two reports detailing the steps taken have been made to the Commission and both are posted on the parliamentary intranet.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware of the frustration felt by many hon. Members who speak to him privately about the progress being made by the Commission, post-Braithwaite? Will he consider alternative mechanisms that would facilitate the greater efficiency, transparency and accountability that Braithwaite was meant to bring to the work of the commissioners?

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest in the matter. I share her frustration and I understand that hon. Members in all parts of the House are perplexed about the way in which the place works. The Braithwaite Commission dealt more with strategic planning, effective management and financial control than anything else, but I detect a view in all parts of the House that some of the issues should be taken forward as soon as possible. Once we see the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which is expected in February, I shall be willing to meet informally—possibly it would be best to do so in concert with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is the Chairman of the Finance And Services Committee—with some of the hon. Lady's colleagues to find out the views of Back-Bench Members and help them to achieve their own ends.

Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to read the Information Committee report on computerisation for hon. Members? Has he noted that the rules of the House, which bind the Commission as well, prevent us from using efficiently the tens of millions of pounds that are being wasted on information technology in this place?

The issue is before the Commission, particularly the way in which the departments of the House are acquiring their own IT equipment. We shall consider that as part of the Audit Committee process in the near future. The Senior Salaries Review Body is examining Members' services. I counsel hon. Members to wait for the report in February before we take any further steps.

If she will make a statement on the proposals she plans to bring forward to the Modernisation Committee. [141607]

The Modernisation Committee has proposed radical changes in relation to programming and deferred Divisions, which it will want to evaluate in due course. I understand that the Committee is likely to consider matters such as the use of laptops in Committee Rooms in the near future.

I welcome the steps that have been taken so far towards the more efficient running of Parliament, which many of my constituents are looking to us to achieve.

One of the more important recommendations of the Modernisation Committee acknowledges that pre-legislative scrutiny can be helpful. It enables us to obtain responses from outside the House, and provides the opportunity for Select Committees to examine draft legislation. The Queen's Speech contained a number of draft Bills. I hope that we can all benefit from such scrutiny and become more efficient as a result of it.

I wish to follow up the answer that the Minister has just given on the scope of the work of the Select Committees. Can the Modernisation Committee look again at the remit of the Select Committees? Several are not linked to Departments, which means that they can be very effective in crossing the boundaries between departmental interests. We should not have to wait until Whitehall sorts itself out. Pre-legislative scrutiny, in a general sense, was carried out in the preparation of the rural White Paper. A holistic approach was taken in that case, and there should be a holistic Select Committee to scrutinise it.

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee, and pursues several of these matters vigorously. I make two points to him. The Select Committees have many powers, and are in a position to use them more widely. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that on some occasions Select Committees can meet jointly to examine issues, such as the rural and urban White Papers, that cross departmental boundaries.

Given the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister has just given about the use of laptops in Committee Rooms, would it be beneficial if the House set up one electronic Committee Room, with links to the parliamentary intranet? Such a Committee Room could also provide the means for electronic voting, which would allow us to see how it could operate on a wider basis.

My hon. Friend is an influential member of the Chairmen's Panel and has great knowledge of these matters. The Modernisation Committee has considered that issue, and I shall draw its attention to his remarks.

Can the hon. Gentleman understand what an affront it is that a Select Committee of the House dealing with matters relating to the Standing Orders and procedures of the House is chaired by—and questions such as those that we have heard this afternoon are answered by—a member of the Executive? Is it not an affront that last Session's sessional report on the Minutes of Proceedings of the Modernisation Committee—a riveting and very quick read for those looking for last-minute stocking fillers, at only £3.40—gives the dates of the Committee's sittings, the names of those who attended and then simply says, "The Committee deliberated"? The following month's minutes also state, "The Committee deliberated", as do the minutes for all the sittings.

I must say that I had hoped for something a little more exciting in my Christmas stocking.

If she will propose the establishment of a Select Committee to consider Britain's relationship with the British Indian Ocean Territories. [141608]

The matter is already within the remit of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Given the documents that were revealed under the 30 years rule at Kew—which I brought to the attention of my hon. Friend—as well as the court documents, is my hon. Friend at all shocked by the cynical lying to the House of Commons by the Governments of Harold Wilson and of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? Are we simply to shrug our shoulders and say that that does not matter very much? If there is not to be a Select Committee, how should the matter be pursued? Or should the House of Commons just accept cynical lying?

Of course it matters. My hon. Friend has pursued these matters vigorously since 1967; I believe that he was the first Member to bring them before the House. He mentioned the documents that were disclosed under the 30 years rule. The only factual and accurate sentence in those documents is the one that states:

Mr. Dalyell is not, however, giving up.—[Official Report, 12 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 478.]