When she last met representatives of business and trade unions to discuss the implications of the Budget for Scotland. [155169]

I have regular meeting with members of the business community and trade unions in Scotland to discuss a wide range of issues, including the positive impact that this Budget has had in Scotland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, immediately after the Budget, in my local newspaper, the Kilmarnock Standard, local business men welcomed the measures announced in the Budget for the regeneration of areas of high deprivation? What consultations has she had with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the implementation of those measures in Scotland? As they are to be applied from a £1 billion budget on a ward-by-ward basis, will she tell us what criteria will be applied to determine which wards will receive funds from this substantial investment?

As my hon. Friend is aware, I recently visited his constituency and was much impressed by the job action teams and the incentives that exist to target help towards specific areas. These matters have been discussed with the Chancellor, and in relation to the targeting, we will take as our example much of the useful work being done in East Ayrshire and in my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall also consult widely.

In the Secretary of State's discussions with businesses and the trade unions, does she explain to the businesses why the Chancellor insists on making the tax system more complex every year, adding more burdens on the businesses that have to try to administer it? At the same time, does she have an explanation for them as to why vital spending on public services such as hospitals and education was cut in the first two years of her Government? Even by their third year, the block grant was still some £200 million less in real terms than that left for spending in Scotland by the outgoing Conservative Government.

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we said before we were elected that, for the first two years, we would stick with Tory spending limits so that we could correct the mess that the economy was in. As a result of the economic policies pursued by this Government, we have been able to secure £3.4 billion extra in public spending in Scotland, and in his recent Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to put an additional £200 million to good use in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that corporation tax in this country is now at an historically low level and if we take all employer taxation in the United Kingdom together and compare it with that of our European partners, we have a lower rate even than Germany or France. Sound economic policies on the part of the Government mean that we are moving away from the boom and bust of the previous Administration and avoiding the fantasy economics of some other parties that serve in this House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow nautical college is now recruiting more than 1,000 cadets a year for training as officer cadets in the Merchant Navy? That is in large part due to the incentives provided by the Government in successive Budgets. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that big increase in recruitment and in encouraging young people all over Scotland to look to the British Merchant Navy for a worthwhile living?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know how important it is for his constituency that there should be so many new recruits to the Merchant Navy, and, indeed, to the Royal Navy. It is a sign of the well-rounded nature of our policies that we can point to successes in every part of the economy. I am sure that there will be great rejoicing in my hon. Friend's constituency that the merchant fleet is now expanding.

In the Secretary of State's discussions, were the badly designed climate change levy and the ill-conceived aggregates tax mentioned? Will she attempt to quantify the job losses in manufacturing and quarrying resulting from those taxes? As the aggregates tax is designed to be a flat-rate UK tax, and Scottish quarrying products tend to be of lower value than those elsewhere, is it not, in effect, a poll tax on Scottish quarrying?

It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. It must be that time of year again. We shall be expecting to see the Loch Ness monster soon. The only difference is that the Loch Ness monster is around rather more frequently than the hon. Gentleman.

I have watched with interest recent statements on the environment from the hon. Gentleman's party. The Scottish National party seems to be turning its back on the environment—indeed, there seems to be an international trend in that direction. The Government's economic policies strike a balance that takes into account the needs of the environment, as was shown in my right hon. Friend's Budget a month ago. The hon. Gentleman's party cannot have its cake and eat it. It cannot say that it wishes to reduce fuel taxes, for example, while claiming to be the friend of the environment.

Notwithstanding the excellent Budget and its importance to all in Scotland, my right hon. Friend will agree that there are grave concerns about the tourism industry in Scotland because of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak. Will she repeat the Government's message that Scotland is very much open for business and a safe travel destination, as that is vital to the tourism industry? Will she confirm that we are considering initiatives in Scotland, Europe and north America in particular to promote tourism in Scotland?

My hon. Friend makes an important point: we must say again and again that Scotland is open for business. Those of us who were in Scotland yesterday know that it is looking particularly beautiful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), the First Minister, is in the United States promoting the Scottish tourism industry and we have worked with the Scottish Executive who have put together a package to assist the tourism industry, especially in Dumfries and Galloway.

I call on all hon. Members who are looking forward to the Easter recess to bear it in mind that Scotland has a great deal to offer and is open for business. We support the "Come back to the countryside" campaign and it is important for the health and well-being of our tourism industry that we have a good season. All hon. Members can do their bit to help.

The Secretary of State's complacency is both unwarranted and stomach turning. Why does not she simply own up to the fact that nothing in the 2001 Budget remotely atones for the facts that the Government introduced no fewer than 3,865 regulations in 2000, adversely impacting on Scottish business; that small business owners are, on average, spending an extra six hours a week complying with red tape; and that the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce concludes that the Government are dramatically increasing the regulatory burdens that threaten small business?

We have a Tory getting to his feet in the House at Scottish questions to talk about atonement. The Conservative party was responsible for the rape of our industrial heartlands, but the hon. Gentleman comes to the House to talk about atonement. I regularly meet Scottish businesses and I know the extent to which they recognise what the Government have achieved for Scotland in terms of stability after the boom and bust of the Conservative party and our competence in the face of the incompetence of the Conservative party.

The hon. Gentleman should use his Easter recess to come to Scotland where he will see the lowest levels of unemployment, the highest levels of employment and a business community that works in partnership with the Government and the Scottish Executive to build a Scotland for the 21st century and to get over the disgrace of the policies of the previous Administration.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that pensioners in my constituency are happy with the results of the Budget: a free TV licence and a £200 winter fuel allowance? When does she intend to discuss with the Scottish Conservative party its plans to abolish those much-needed gains?

That is a good point. My constituency is adjacent to my hon. Friend's and the £200 winter fuel allowance was greatly welcomed by my constituents. It is interesting that the Scottish National party was talking about a cold weather allowance in 1997—one of £9.20. The £200 that has gone to many pensioners in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend is probably the biggest sum that many of them have had in their hand at any one time. It is safe under this Government; it certainly would not be safe under the Opposition in either guise, be it Conservative or Scottish nationalist.

Talking of budgets, which represent the season of the year that brings the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) to the House, and the block grant, which is spent in Scotland after a vote by the House, when will the Government publish the guidelines for the coming general election in respect of how the Scottish Executive and other devolved bodies will deal with announcements about local expenditure during the campaign? We understand that such guidance is being prepared. When will it be produced?

My initial response is to ask what the hon. Gentleman is frightened of. I have the impression that he is frightened of the competence of the Scottish Executive, working in partnership with the Government here at Westminster.

We have shown the strength of partnership, and its value to the whole Scottish economy. At any forthcoming general election—and we have from now until May 2002 to prepare for one that may come at any time—I shall be happy to put before the Scottish people this Government's record of improving economic conditions in Scotland, and bringing social justice to Scotland. I should be more than happy to contrast that with the social division represented by the hon. Gentleman's policies.

That answer was profoundly unsatisfactory. The question was very simple. When elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, guidelines were issued about how the Government here should react and how the civil service should conduct itself. When shall we see such guidelines for the general election—or are we to assume that the current attitude is not what we would expect of a Government and a civil service, but what we would expect of a Maxwell corporation?

This is a serious issue. I ask the right hon. Lady to assure the House that the guidelines will be issued, and issued in sufficient time for the matter to be properly considered.

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that we have until 2002 before a general election need be called in Scotland. We are getting on with the business of building a better Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the late Robert Maxwell. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends will tell the House about the role played by prominent Conservatives such as the late Michael Havers, whose desk I inherited when I went to try and sort out the mess, and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who could have done much to help the Maxwell pensioners but whose heels we could not see for dust.

Labour has delivered for pensioners. Indeed, 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will benefit directly as a consequence of the Chancellor's Budget.

What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the collapse of Chester Street Holdings and its implications for sufferers from asbestos-related diseases in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [155170]

I am well aware of the difficulties relating to Chester Street. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and also with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We well understand the concerns of those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases, and we are working very hard across government and with the insurance industry to alleviate those concerns as far as we possibly can.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her active involvement. Her record on pensions mis-selling gives great credibility to her efforts.

As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that our first duty is to the sick and dying: they must be paid full compensation, and not lose out because of Chester Street. Is it not appalling, however, that Mr. Robert Hardy, chief executive of both Iron Trades and Chester Street, should have sold Iron Trades to QBE for less than its book price, then joined it as chief executive and taken £1 million out of his various firms? Is that not disgraceful, and does it not demonstrate that we need a full independent inquiry into this sorry matter?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he has waged on behalf of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases for so many years. The last thing anyone needed was the scandal of the collapse of Chester Street, and I share his anxiety about some of the activities that went on.

The provisional liquidator is examining the state of Chester Street. It will be for the provisional liquidator, in the first instance, to investigate what went on in Chester Street. If he turns up anything that gives rise to further inquiries, the Government will not hesitate to pursue them.

I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to sort out the appalling situation involving Chester Street.

May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a recent letter from a constituent? She is a widow living alone, whose husband died in 1997 from an asbestos-related disease. Her claim has still not been dealt with. Will the Secretary of State ensure to the best of her ability that any necessary inquiry or investigation will not delay or stand in the way of those who have suffered and should be receiving compensation?

The hon. Lady is right. We all have a great desire to find out what happened in relation to Chester Street and who was responsible for it happening, but we must have a twin-track approach. We must not only find out what happened, but protect the sufferers.

I am very concerned that the provisional liquidator has been able to find only 5p in the pound to meet the claims; I find that very disturbing. I am also concerned about people whose cases relate to before 1972 because they are not covered by any of the existing schemes. We are working hard across government to find routes to assist those people. It is not an easy matter. I have spoken to senior people in the insurance industry, too. They are as appalled as we are at what has happened. We will not rest until we find a way forward. It will not be easy, but the hon. Lady has my commitment that we will do everything possible to help her constituent and others who are affected.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his excellent work following the Chester Street collapse. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and I were impressed by his speech at the rally on Saturday. He did an excellent job for the people. Sufferers in Anniesland would like to thank him personally for that. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the insurance industry meets its responsibilities in respect of pre-1972 claimants?

Some of the issues involved relate to whether individuals are covered by any other insurance company. Where an individual was with an employer who was insured only through Chester Street, there is a significant difficulty. If, however, the individual's employer was insured with another company as well as Chester Street, the other company will meet the liability.

I know my hon. Friend's constituency. Many of his constituents will have worked for British Shipbuilders. That company will acknowledge all liability in relation to victims of asbestosis, but all of us recognise that not everyone is covered. We must find out the full information and find the best way in which to help them.

What representations she has received from the First Minister concerning borrowings under section 66 of the Scotland Act 1998. [155171]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations from the First Minister concerning borrowings under section 66 of the Scotland Act 1998.

If the rest of the public sector in Scotland were to follow the example of teachers in receiving higher pay awards than their counterparts in England, beyond the tolerance of the Barnett formula, would the Minister expect that difference to be financed by the use of tax-raising powers before any recourse to borrowing?

The question is a pretence because it is nothing to do with section 66, which relates to meeting a temporary excess of sums paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund or providing a working balance for the fund, and which is repaid. A lot of nonsense is spoken about teachers' salaries north and south of the border, not least by the hon. Gentleman. Let me give some facts. New Scottish teachers appointed at the beginning of the 2001–02 school year will start at a salary of £16,005. Newly qualified teachers in England and Wales start at £17,001. Experienced teachers in Scotland at the top of the main scale will be paid £25,644 from April 2001 and in England and Wales the sum will be £24,965. There is a different structure. There are swings and roundabouts. The hon. Gentleman has never been in favour of devolution. He is now trying to undermine it. He will not succeed.

Does the Minister agree that the Barnett formula is a transparent, fair and stable way of financing Scotland that has served both the United Kingdom and Scotland well for almost three decades? Does he further agree that those who seek its scrapping do so not in the best interests of Scotland, but in the hope of stirring up trouble between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive? Will he therefore confirm that the Government have no plans to scrap the Barnett formula?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not have said it better myself. The Barnett formula is transparent, fair and stable. It allows the Scottish Parliament to decide its own priorities within a finite budget. That is the important thing. Opposition Members in different parties are mischievous and are working together in a common cause to try to undermine devolution. As I have said, they will not succeed. The Barnett formula is working successfully and we have no plans to change it.

If she will make a statement on her role in devolution issue cases to be heard before the Privy Council. [155194]

My role in cases in which I intervene is to present arguments from the perspective of the United Kingdom Government. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest domestic court for devolution issue cases. Such cases may raise issues involving human rights, European law or legal aspects of the devolution settlement under the Scotland Act 1998 that are of importance to the whole United Kingdom.

I am often asked by my constituents as I go round my constituency whether it is necessary for the Advocate-General to appear before the Privy Council, and, if so, whether that takes up much of her time. What should I tell them?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend's constituents take such an interest in my interventions. Personal appearance by the Advocate-General in cases in the Privy Council is not a legal requirement under the 1998 Act, but it is certainly useful, and, I hope, helpful to the court, to have a responsible Law Officer available to present legal arguments in that new and developing sphere of law. It does take a lot of time. As some of my hon. Friends will know, a great deal of preparation time is required for legal research, and there are both conferences and days in court. I have therefore limited my personal appearances to cases that are more complex or involve interesting or novel points. However, if any of my hon. Friend's constituents wish to speak to me personally about the matter, I would be delighted to do so.

Could the hon. and learned Lady give the House some indication of the annual cost to the taxpayer of investigating and resolving devolution issues both in the Privy Council and in other places?

The cost of the Advocate-General's appearances are subsumed in the general budget, and we have not done a case-by-case analysis. However, I assure the hon. Lady that it is probably cheaper to have me appearing as Advocate-General than it would be to instruct me as counsel.

If she will make a statement about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for fixed fees in legal aid. [155195]

My hon. Friend may be aware that a case on the subject of legal aid is due to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 25 and 26 April. The case concerns fixed payment levels under the criminal legal aid regulations in Scotland, and it is argued that such a system is incompatible with article 6 on the right to a fair trial. I have intervened in the case so far to make written submissions to the Judicial Committee.

As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, in the longer term, it is intended to address issues of exceptional cases in legal aid by the mechanism of regulations made under the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill which is currently before the Scottish Parliament. As she invariable ends up arguing the difficult cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what discussions have there been between her as Advocate-General and the Scottish Executive on the shape of those regulations?

The merits of the case to which I have just referred have still to be determined. However, on the general issue raised by my hon. Friend, I am pleased to say that there is a great deal of discussion on policy matters of common interest between policy officials and Ministers in United Kingdom Departments and those in Scotland. As Advocate-General, I have also encouraged my lawyers to have discussions on relevant legal issues as soon as possible to try to sort out any specific difficulties.

What recent advice she has given on the implications of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement. [155196]

When requested, I give advice as a UK Law Officer on various matters, which include issues related which include issues related to the human rights convention.

The hon. and learned Lady will recall the advice that she gave on a recent road traffic case involving the right to remain silent under the Human Rights Act 1998. Does she share my concern that whereas road traffic cases were previously dealt with uniformly under Scots and English law, there may now be a difference of interpretation across the border?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's interest in the matter, but I am not sure that I agree with her. The whole point of taking a matter to the Privy Council is to have it determined by the highest court. Regard will be given to the Privy Council's rulings in English courts as well as those in Scotland.

In what proportion of the devolution issue cases referred to her she has intervened to date. [155197]

Of the 1,237 devolution issues cases intimated up to 22 March of this year, I have intervened in 19, or approximately 1.5 per cent. Many cases involving devolution issues raise similar points and are dealt with satisfactorily by the lower courts. Generally, I intervene at appeal or Privy Council level where the case raises important issues for the UK as a whole. I examine every devolution issue intimated to me before determining whether or not to intervene.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that illustrates that the relationship between the Scottish Executive and Westminster is working, and that it confounds the critics of all parties who are sceptical and do not want the arrangement to work? Does she also agree that their criticism has been thrown back in their faces, and that the relationship is healthy, vibrant and dynamic?

I am pleased to confirm that there is a high level of discussion and co-operation in the legal offices, as there is across the board, in relation to policy matters. The devolution settlement is working, and I hope that I will be able to play a small part in helping it to continue to work.

If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for reforming the funding of the courts' guardians ad litem. [155198]

We plan to increase the funding for self-employed guardians' fees by 3.8 per cent. this year. We have proposed new contracts incorporating graduated fees to distribute this increased funding in a way that preserves self-employed status for those guardians who want it.

The profession of guardian is a very important one and it is crucial for some of the most vulnerable people in society—the 10,000 children who appear in court during care and adoption proceedings. Is the Minister aware that the profession is incensed at the way in which the Department's accountants, prompted by the Inland Revenue, have introduced a fixed-fee system that is completely insensitive to the necessity that guardians adapt their work to the needs of the individual case? Will she agree to retract the proposal and consult the profession, whose members have not yet been consulted? Will she introduce a more effective scheme to protect both children and members of the profession?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the current circumstances. The new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has offered a six-week delay to allow for further consultation. It has offered enhanced graduated fees in the most difficult cases, as well as an independent review both of the banding criteria and of the quality of service delivered to children after six and 12 months under the new system.

I do not accept that the only way, in the interests of children, to remunerate guardians is according to an hourly rate, which is the case advanced by the guardians. I do not accept either that the quality of services delivered necessarily increases with the number of hours worked. Time spent and quality delivered are not the same thing. Fair graduated fees will co-exist with quality standards. I am confident that, when they have had time to consider the proposals further, the guardians will see that they are fair.

One hazard with what my hon. Friend has just said is that the guardians are absolutely essential, and are self-employed. They are very worried about the proposed scheme, which was supposed to have been introduced at the beginning of this month. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is essential that the Department reconsider the proposals carefully, as it would be bizarre to lose the services of a great many skilled people who are desperately needed just because of a rather absurd decision that cannot be defended by reference to any consultation?

My hon. Friend is mistaken. In fact, 111 of the guardians are not self-employed, but are employed directly by the panel. We inherited 57 different rates and allowances applicable to self-employed guardians, and that was one of the key problems identified by the Inland Revenue. The ways in which those rates and allowances apply in the guardian service are incompatible with self-employed tax status. The Department brought forward the proposals for a graduated fee structure to ensure the continued availability of self-employment as an employment status. It is a fair structure, and there is no diminution of the funding available for these services. I am confident that once the guardians have seen the details of the proposals they will accept what is on offer.

If he will make a statement on the family graduated fees scheme. [155199]

The family graduated fees scheme and the rates to be paid have now been settled. The scheme will pay barristers set fees for different functions within a case, which will vary according to the category of family work. The fees can be increased to reflect complexity.

The regulations to bring the scheme into force were laid before Parliament on 20 March. The scheme will be implemented from 1 May.

I welcome the changes and improvements to the original scheme, but family law barristers still have concerns about the current scheme. First, they are paid on a different basis from solicitors—who are still paid hourly—and wish to see an integrated scheme. Secondly, there is real concern that the longer, more complex cases will not be adequately rewarded and that those arguably most in need will not receive the representation that they deserve. I share the concern that those most in need will not receive representation. Will the Minister undertake to review the scheme in 18 months' time to see how it is working and to ensure that there has been no reduction in the services available to those most in need?

I agree in principle that counsel and solicitors should be paid the same rate for the same type of work. However, solicitor-advocates may not always play the same role as banisters in family work, and that needs to be considered. We want to achieve a level playing field. We are confident that the rates we have set are more than adequate and appropriate for the job. We are confident that there is a proper supply of well-qualified barristers to do the work that the hon. Lady has identified, and we will, of course, keep the matter under review.

What mechanism is the Minister putting in place to ensure that, following this part of the reform of the funding of the legal system, there is an audit comparing past and current provision of proper access to justice for all, as it is suggested that, as a result of the changes, some of the poorest in our society will be denied access to justice?

I find that quite astonishing. I have just been able to announce that legal help is now available for a further 5 million people as a result of the reforms and controls that this Government have introduced. That contrasts sharply with the way in which legal aid expenditure was treated under the previous Government. They cut millions of people out of receiving legal aid, instantly denying them access to justice.

What her policy is on maintaining the lay magistracy.[155200]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on 6 March 2001, Official Report, column 210W.

Hardly. After all the closures of magistrates courts that we have witnessed up and down the land, including my own—which had lasted for 600 years until this Government came into power—what assurance can the Minister give lay magistrates that they will not be replaced by stipendiary magistrates?

I simply offer the same assurance that I have given on many occasions in the House. The Government recognise the valuable role and service that the lay magistracy offers to society. Their civic responsibilities are very wide. We admire the work that they do and we are confident that they will continue to do that work long after the hon. Gentleman has retired.

As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am delighted to hear the Minister again spell out her robust support for the lay magistracy. Nevertheless, there remain concerns which I hope she will be able to lay to rest about the delays in the publication of the Auld report. Are those delays linked to the views of the Home Office, which is thought to be less charitable and positive about the lay magistracy? It is thought that the Home Office may have a secret agenda to do what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has articulated.

I would seek to reassure my hon. Friend by saying that Lord Justice Auld is currently drafting his final report, which will be published as soon as it is available. It would be premature to comment on the review before it has been completed, but Lord Justice Auld published a resumé of his early findings last year in which he foresaw a continuing role for the lay magistracy.

As a result of court closures in Devon and Cornwall, there have unfortunately been a number of resignations from the lay magistracy. I hope that the Minister agrees that we need a representative lay magistracy. It is much to be regretted that a young mother in my constituency has had to resign as a lay magistrate because she is unable to afford three hours per day travelling to the court in Plymouth. Are any steps being taken by the Government to assist magistrates, witnesses and other court users to get to the large city courts, now that the Government have closed so many magistrates courts in our local rural towns?

There are more than 30,000 magistrates across England and Wales. I am sorry to hear of the resignation of the lady whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as it is always to be regretted when a magistrate feels that they cannot continue their service. However, the recruitment of lay magistrates is a matter for the local lay magistrates to determine and they review their recruitment requirements regularly. Clearly they will follow carefully the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made and I will look into the case that he has mentioned.

Following the closure of two magistrates courts in my area, lay magistrates have told me of the difficulty that they will have travelling one hour to court and one hour from court. Will the Minister make an assessment of the Government's policies on maintaining the lay magistracy? Will she review the assessment of those policies if they can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on the reach, accountability and scope of magistrates?

Obviously I will give that undertaking and I will continue to keep the recruitment and retention of magistrates under review. I was pleased to see the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues at our meeting on 19 March to discuss the local proposals that the magistrates courts committee is considering. All representations have been carefully noted and the committee locally will continue to consider responses to the consultation exercise as it proceeds. The committee will be responsible for maintaining recruitment and retention of benches locally.

Having heard today of the closure of courts in the west country, in Staffordshire—from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—and in Wales, does the Minister recognise that although she comes to the Dispatch Box month after month, smiling sweetly and talking fine words about keeping the magistrates going, there is friendly fire from her hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who has mentioned the Home Office's not very well hidden agenda to undermine the lay magistracy? Are not the Government imposing huge costs—as we warned—as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998? The Act states that prisoners cannot be seen handcuffed because that is somehow inhumane and somehow equates to torture. Is not that undermining magistrates courts and causing them to close? The Minister's fine words are incapable of being believed.

My fine words and sweet smile, as the hon. Gentleman describes them, contrast with the fine rant that he brings to the Chamber. The Government's policy is that the magistrates courts are best managed locally by the magistrates courts committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

If he will make a statement on the planned closure of county courts in England. [155201]

The court service operates 220 county courts at present. We anticipate that the consultation process as a result of the managing the civil courts programme will result in a substantial increase in the number of locations at which county courts can serve their local communities.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and I am encouraged by its the content. Can he assure the House that in assessing responses to the consultation paper on modernising the civil courts, he will make it clear that the local delivery of justice and not cost will be the overriding objective?

I have just explained that we are planning to deliver county court services in an increased number of locations. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, on the principle of full cost recovery, it is the court users who pay for the cost of running the system. It would not be fair to those users to operate courts in locations where there is not sufficient demand. We will take every care to meet local demand as we expand the number of hearing centres where county courts are able to sit, but finance will have to be a consideration.

If she will make a statement on her role in respect of the jurisdiction of visitor in respect of certain universities. [155215]

I act, on the Queen's behalf, as visitor of 17 universities and colleges. I receive petitions mainly from students and former students with complaints or grievances who have exhausted the institutions' complaint or appeal procedures.

The right hon. Lady says that she has responsibility for inspection, regulation and dispute settlement in respect of no fewer than 17 universities, which thankfully is five more than come under the aegis of the accident-prone Lord Chancellor. How many has she visited, how many have sought her agreement to changes in their constitutions and how many disputes has she been asked to settle? In respect of that last question, where conciliation is required, may I offer a helping hand?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off hand how many of the institutions I have visited. I doubt whether it is all that many. I cannot tell him from memory how many have sought changes to their constitutions, as there are frequent changes, but I can certainly write to him about that.

Last year, we dealt with 21 disputes. So far this year, there have been about a dozen.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of mediation. I strongly support alternative dispute resolution methods. We are authorising cases under the pilot mediation scheme and are hopeful that some students will take that course rather than going straight to the formality of the present procedures.

If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve hon. Members' access to the PDVN system. [155217]

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is indeed keeping the use of information technology by hon. Members under review. The Information Committee also has an important role in that respect.

Does the Minister accept that it is important in the 21st century for Members of Parliament to be able to access their e-mails and the internet not only within the Parliamentary Estate but remotely, from their homes and constituencies? I congratulate members of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate on the work that they do, but does the Minister accept that people trying to access the House of Commons facilities remotely are finding it difficult because of the limits of the technical resources that are available? Many people feel that that is because of a restricted budget. What can the hon. Gentleman do to ensure that we have a 21st-century internet and e-mail system for a 21st-century Parliament?

I agree that the employees of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate work hard and do an excellent job. I also agree that it is important that all Members of Parliament, whether at Westminster, at home or in their constituency, should have equality of access, which is not the case at present. Budget is an issue, but so is change management. I hope that steps will be taken in the not too distant future to make changes that will be for the benefit of all hon. Members and, more particularly, their constituents.

May I, on this rare occasion, endorse the words of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—especially in relation to the staff of PCD, who do a tremendous job? My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman may be addressed if the House adopts the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body report. Will he put on his other hat, and find time for an urgent debate on that before Easter?

My hon. Friend is quite right that the SSRB report makes very interesting reading. It puts great weight on the consideration of information technology. I will put on my other hat and remind my hon. Friend that this matter is for the House to decide, but I also point out that there are a great many demands on time in the House. I am conscious of the fact that the issue is real and pressing; I note what he says.

The hon. Gentleman has surely noticed that the programme to which we were working—with a general election to be held on 3 May—has changed. We have a whole extra month to fill up, so the excuse that we could not find enough time to deal with the SSRB report has disappeared. Will the hon. Gentleman please agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that we now have time? When are we going to get this done?

I am grateful for the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in such matters. He has pursued the issue hard both in the Chamber and outside. I do not dispute the need for change.

I know nothing about timetables for general elections—3 May or any other date—but I know that a great deal of business has to come before the House. This is one issue; I hope that we shall be able to address it in the not too distant future.

What further proposals she plans to bring before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on parliamentary reform; and if she will make a statement. [155218]

The Committee has initiated several important experiments in the way the House works—Westminster Hall sittings, the hours of Thursday sittings, programming and deferred voting. The Committee will look at other matters such as the use of IT, but the priority must be to keep those experiments under review.

I am pleased that we are to look at other matters. May I invite the Leader of the House—albeit out of season—to consider the long summer parliamentary recess during which there is no scrutiny and no accountability by this place? Often, disasters occur which would normally mean statements at the Dispatch Box. We commit our armed forces to combat situations about which there would normally be statements at the Dispatch Box. There is summitry about which there would normally also be statements at the Dispatch Box. After each summer recess, may we have a written report from each Minister of his or her stewardship during the closed period and a statement from the Prime Minister, when Parliament reconvenes, about what has passed during those long summer weeks of recess?

With respect to my hon. Friend, we do not commit our armed forces every, summer recess, although I appreciate that it has happened occasionally. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The Government take steps to keep the House and the country informed. As to the precise mechanism that my hon. Friend suggests for so doing, I do not undertake to agree to it, but I certainly undertake to give it consideration.

Will the right hon. Lady find an opportunity for the House to review the trial arrangements for programme motions in the Chamber and in Committee? She will be aware that her Committee published a new report on the issue yesterday. I think that she will acknowledge that the report owes its genesis to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, during this Parliament and previous Parliaments, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, has been anxious to improve the way in which the House scrutinises legislation. It was very much on his initiative that the new report was produced.

The right hon. Lady is also aware that there is cross-party agreement on that admirably brief— one-page—report, although the Committee was not unanimous. As the unexpected weeks available for good business in the House give us an opportunity to do so, can the House itself now debate the issue, to ensure that, if and when there is an election, the new Standing or Sessional Orders in the new Parliament can take account of the Committee's advice?

Certainly, I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is entirely right that the recent, brief report received cross-party support. One might almost say all-party support, although he is right, too, to point out that the report was not unanimous. He is also right to pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, down the years, has certainly made a substantial contribution to the House—not least, perhaps, during these past days in making the report.

I have noticed that during the past couple of days a whole raft of issues has been raised for which it is confidently predicted that it will be easy for the Government to find time. As ever, I shall give what favourable consideration I can to those matters, but the purpose of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was indeed to encourage reconsideration of the trial. The need for new Sessional Orders will in any case make that necessary.

May I suggest one parliamentary reform, namely to try to stop the practice whereby, from time to time, a Government Whip comes marching in with a stick? At one time he would have walked backwards. Is it really necessary? I have written to my right hon. Friend on the subject. Does she not agree that just as Black Rod no longer interrupts our proceedings when it is necessary to state that an Act has become law, messages from Her Majesty could be read out by the Speaker? Why on earth do we have this pantomime performance in the 21st century? Wakey, wakey!

My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that he has written to me on the matter, and I am compelled to tell him that it is more a matter for the Procedure Committee than for me. I understand his point, but he will know that there are different views on the matter throughout the House.

Mercifully, there will probably be only one more meeting of the ghastly Modernisation Committee before the general election. Following the right hon. Lady's comments, I should perhaps put it on record that although the report published yesterday had the support of two of my colleagues, it certainly does not have the support of the official Opposition.

Returning to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has the right hon. Lady considered the inappropriateness of a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the House at that, chairing a Committee that changes and proposes amendments to the Standing Orders of the House which affect Back Benchers on both sides of the House? In her reflections on the so-called wonderful experiment that we have had to endure for the past four years, has she considered giving the chairmanship to a representative from the Back Benches rather than herself?

The hon. Lady is her usual gracious self. She is right to place on record the fact that the report to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred did not attract the support of the official Opposition, but it is also right to place on record the fact that it did attract the support of two of the most senior and experienced Conservative Members. With regard to the hon. Lady's remarks about inappropriateness, she will know that it was this party's manifesto proposal that there should be a Select Committee on modernisation of the House and that it should be chaired by the Leader of the House. As I have pointed out to her before, it is not unprecedented for a Select Committee to be so chaired. [Interruption.]

In light of the comment made by the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, I shall make only one other enlightening remark on the subject. I have never before thought it necessary or desirable to do what I am about to do, and I am not sure that it is the right thing to do now, but in view of the words of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I should perhaps tell the House of a resolution carried at the end of the Committee's deliberations last week. I accept that the hon. Lady had left the room at that point—perhaps she would have tried to prevent the resolution being carried. The Committee resolved:

"That the Committee pay tribute to the Chairman for the exemplary manner in which she has presided over the Committee's deliberations."

I fear that that was moved by a Conservative Member.

What assessment she has made of the experiment with deferred Divisions; and when it will be reviewed. [155219]

Deferred Divisions appear to be working well in allowing debate after the moment of interruption without forcing the majority of the House to remain until late into the night to deal with matters of minority interest. There had been 33 deferred Divisions as at 28 March, which is a potential eight and a quarter hours of voting time; in only eight were more than 100 votes recorded in the No Lobby, and in 21, fewer than 20 Members voted in the No Lobby.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the system will continue in the next Session? Does he agree that the official Opposition do not want serious debate in the Chamber and are intent only on wasting time?

What I can confirm is that the system is an experiment, and it is a matter for the House to decide. I can say candidly to my hon. Friend that I support it. It saves time and is in the best interests of the House. Of course, there is an argument that if some Opposition Members—I stress the word "some"—had not been keen to devote so much time to certain subjects of so little interest, it might not have been necessary for the House collectively to assert its right to protect itself.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) meant to refer to the next Parliament, rather than the next Session of Parliament, when she asked her supplementary question.

Will the Minister not accept that deferred Divisions may well undermine and negate the influence of Back-Bench opinion on both sides of the House because the influence of Beck Benchers' speeches will have been forgotten by the time the Divisions take place, and that good government results from Back-Bench opinion on both sides of the House being properly expressed?

Of course good government depends on exchanging ideas and opinions, and I have spent many happy hours late at night in the Chamber, listening to the debates. Those Members who wish to take part in the debate can, and they frequently do so at length, but I do not think that deferred Divisions have changed the weight of opinion or the importance of Back-Bench opinion.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors; to authorise local authorities to require people subject to community service orders to undertake the removal of graffiti; and for connected purposes.

This Bill follows a debate that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) a year ago, when he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). There is tremendous concern about the amount of graffiti in our constituencies; the problem is causing great distress. Graffiti is a form of vandalism to public and private property and it gives the streets an air of desolation and threat, which is frightening, in particular, to the older people who frequently write to us about the problem. The younger people who perpetrate the crime endanger themselves on many occasions by going into railway stations and on to live railway lines in the middle of the night. People have been seriously injured as a result.

Some people argue that graffiti is an art form, and I would accept that some graffiti is. I am well aware that people carry out university dissertations on the subject and, in secret parts of my constituency that only young people can reach, there are some brilliant examples of graffiti art. They are much admired and even photographed.

Most graffiti, however, is just a messy scribble that bears as much relation to art—[Interruption.]

Order. May we have some order in the Chamber? The hon. Lady is entitled to speak to her motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sort of graffiti that I have described bears as much relation to art as a sheep pickled in formaldehyde. There are scribbles all over our cities—likewise the so-called tags. Tags are the signatures of graffiti artists who go round their neighbourhoods marking out their property rather in the way that dogs pee against lamp-posts. It is a disgusting habit.

In Richmond upon Thames alone, £150,000 was spent in the past year on trying to remove graffiti, but we all know that it is a losing battle. London local authorities combined have spent £10 million in the past year removing graffiti from public places and many private homes—and what a waste of public money that is. How many better classrooms, how many teachers and how much care for the elderly could £10 million provide?

Some 20 per cent. of criminal damage against property each year is graffiti damage, and 900,000 offences in 1999 in the London area were graffiti offences. An officer working in my borough, Inspector Mark Jones, does undercover work to try to catch graffiti artists, and there has been a lot of success recently. Two weeks ago, six graffiti artists were caught red handed—although I do not know what colour the paint was. Inspector Jones has told me that the police would like greater powers to apprehend and search the young people involved. The police know perfectly well where they are going and what they are going to do, but young people just walk away laughing because they know that the police have no powers.

Community service orders in Richmond upon Thames require graffiti merchants to clean graffiti off walls and buildings. That is an eminently sensible punishment. The problems of the health and safety regulations which used to stand in the way have been overcome. The Bill requires people who are subject to community service orders for graffiti offences to undertake the removal of graffiti in their area. The punishment must fit the crime. However, the whole process is a waste of money for local authorities that are strapped for cash, and a waste of police time for a police force short on personnel. We are attempting to stop the problem at source and have pressed the Government for some time by calling for a ban on the sale of spray paints to minors.

In response to parliamentary questions, the Government insist:

"There are no plans at present to restrict the sale of spray paints to juveniles; this would penalise young people who have a legitimate reason for their purchase."—[Official Report, 16 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 206W.]

What legitimate reason might a young person of 15 or 16 have? If he requires spray paint for art at school, surely that can be purchased with a note from the lecturer or teacher, or his parents can get it. Would it limit young people's freedom so much if they were unable to buy it? Supermarkets and do-it-yourself outlets in my area sell spray paint and I have been told that it is sometimes possible to buy five or six cans for a pound. That is ridiculous. In addition, spray paint does not have to be bought: it is easily stolen. It is often on low shelves and can be scooped into a rucksack before the young person goes off on that night's activities.

The Government also refer to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 which makes it an offence to sell a substance to a minor knowing that it or its fumes are likely to be inhaled for intoxication. There is evidence that the fumes of spray paint are intoxicating and that young people get a high from them. Why are there no prosecutions under the 1985 Act? Why are there no test cases? We never hear of anyone being taken to court for selling those substances to young people. Preventing or trying to prevent the sale of spray paint to minors is a practical step that we can take.

I implore the Government to take our Bill seriously so that we try to stop the vandalism and waste of public funds that are expended on it. I urge them to support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Jenny Tonge, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. Tom Brake.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We will shortly debate a motion tabled by the Leader of the House on the business of the House, but before we can sensibly do that we need to have an idea of the terms of the timetable motion. I have just been to the Vote Office. It does not yet have the timetable motion, so we do not know its terms. That is a peculiar state of affairs, not least because the Leader of the House announced the timetable motion yesterday. May I suggest that it would be best for us to adjourn our debate until the timetable motion is in the Vote Office?

No.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy of the Elections Bill, which has just been delivered an hour late to the Vote Office. The opening paragraph relates to explanatory notes, which will be prepared by the Home Office and published "as Bill 80—EN." We have been to the Vote Office, and although we shall debate the Bill shortly, no explanatory notes are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "We'll discuss it tomorrow."] Hold on; I believe that, since the Bill has been published today, it is important to publish the explanatory notes, too. Could you advise the House on that, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill was presented only today. The explanatory notes are a matter for the Minister, not the Chai.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on what appears to be a growing phenomenon of parliamentary truancy whereby hon. Members—I am sorry to say that, they are principally Labour Members—bunk off rather than turn up to ask the questions that they have tabled. Given that that is discourteous to the House, I ask you, in the words of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, with which I am sure you are familiar—

Order. That is not a proper point of order. I am here, and so is the hon. Gentleman. That is all he has to worry about.

I beg to move,

That, in respect of the Elections Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

The motion simply provides for amendments to be tabled in advance of Second Reading. The Bill needs to receive Royal Assent quickly: certainly before the Easter recess. We believe that all those involved in local elections—candidates, parties and electoral administrators—need certainty. Local authorities are obliged to incur wasted expenditure in anticipation of elections on 3 May, for example, through printing ballot papers and sending out postal vote papers, until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I therefore propose that all its stages be taken tomorrow. To be helpful to the Opposition and, indeed, all hon. Members, we propose that hon. Members can table amendments straight away rather than having to wait till the end of Second Reading.

We made draft copies of the Bill available to principal Opposition spokespeople yesterday evening to give them extra time to consider its provisions. I hope that hon. Members will perceive the motion as a common-sense measure and endorse it.

As the Minister knows, I have raised a point of order on the explanatory notes. Does he not accept that they would be helpful to hon. Members? Can he suggest when they will be available? If amendments are to be tabled before Second Reading, the explanatory notes would be helpful, especially to Back-Bench Members, who do not have the advantage of large offices to advise them. They help hon. Members to determine the sort of amendments they may table.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that hon. Members will benefit from explanatory notes. I assure him that we will provide them as soon as possible. The motion that we are considering covers only the procedural question of whether amendments can be tabled in advance of Second Reading.

The Minister has heard my point of order on the timetable motion. If he was in a position to disclose a draft copy of the Bill to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, why was not he in a position to place a timetable motion in the Table Office? When can we expect it to be there?

I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same commitment as I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I shall use best endeavours to ensure that we make it available as quickly as possible.

I hope that I have clarified the motion.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to catch the Minister's eye earlier to query whether he had said that the main Opposition parties had been given copies of the Bill yesterday evening. One has to bear in mind that there are other Opposition parties too. I wonder whether the Northern Ireland parties had a copy of the Bill yesterday evening, because I was not aware of it, and the Bill specifically affects Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Minister will take note of that point of order, because I would expect all Opposition parties to be given notice.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A promise was made yesterday that we would receive a draft copy, because most of the Bill has to do with Northern Ireland. That promise was not kept: my party did not get a copy until this morning, after hunting round the various Whips' offices and making phone calls. We did not get our copy until just before the House sat this afternoon. Northern Ireland parties are implicated in the legislation in a big way, so surely they were entitled to see the Bill as soon as possible.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to apologise to hon. Gentlemen from the Northern Ireland parties? I do not know why what happened did happen, and I apologise. As both the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have said, the Bill very much affects their part of this country; they were entitled to see it, and I apologise that they did not have it earlier.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put the case for the many independents in local Government? Surely they are entitled to as much consideration as the candidates from the regular political parties.

Third time lucky, Mr. Speaker.

Given the representations that we have just heard in the form of points of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could begin by saying something that I was going to ask you about. I collected the Elections Bill from the Vote Office after Question Time at 3.30; it was an hour late and, as we have heard, there are no explanatory notes to go with it at the moment—

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The Bill was made available as soon as it was presented to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said that the Bill was late because earlier in the day I had asked the people in the Vote Office when they had been notified that it would be delivered to them. I was told that it was expected to be there by 2.30. That is why I suggested that it was an hour late.

In the circumstances—

Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will take my word for it: I heard the Bill being presented earlier today, and it could be placed in the Vote Office only after it was presented before the House.

Of course I accept your word for that, Mr. Speaker—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to complete a sentence first.

I would like to make a helpful suggestion, because clearly we are dealing with matters of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I appreciate the fact that those on the Conservative Front Bench received a draft copy of the Bill last night, and we are very grateful for that. None the less, the examination and scrutiny of any Bill is equally a matter for Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

In view of the representations that you have just heard in the form of points of order from other parties whose representatives did not receive a draft copy, Mr. Speaker, are you prepared to advise the House of whether you will accept manuscript amendments until a late stage, just before we begin of our proceedings on the Bill tomorrow afternoon? Many Members will not wish to draft their amendments until they have had sight of the explanatory notes.

My hon. Friend will not have forgotten that the Government intend to take all stages of the Bill under a guillotine tomorrow. How does she imagine that the House will be able to judge what will happen in the Committee stage? Hon. Members may wish to table amendments for Report. How does my hon. Friend imagine that they will be able to do that if we are operating under a guillotine?

That is exactly why I began by suggesting—and would have suggested, even if I had not heard the representations from other parties—that you might consider manuscript amendments for tomorrow's proceedings, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend is right: we shall be taking all stages of the Bill under a guillotine. Indeed, the House will not need me to remind it that tomorrow we shall be taking all stages of two Bills under guillotine motions. Careful deliberation will therefore be needed to ensure that we have adequate time, especially for the Committee and Report stages of each Bill. That applies particularly to the Elections Bill, as we have had so little time to consider it.

Having had a few minutes on the Bench in which to flip through the Elections Bill, I immediately see many matters that are not only detailed but potentially controversial. Although there is agreement between the parties on wanting the Bill to proceed, it cannot do so at the expense of proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, or of the right of people to ask questions and to have the right length of debate.

My hon. Friend advances a coherent and constructive argument. Does she not feel that the Government are wrong to introduce a programme motion for the Bill? We are dealing with local government democracy in the Bill, and it is entirely inappropriate that there should be a programme motion. Bearing in mind the complications in the Bill, if the House needs to sit late tomorrow night, it should have the opportunity to do so and should not be inhibited by any programme or guillotine motion.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am concerned, because we shall be dealing with two important Bills tomorrow under those terms. During the business statement yesterday, the Leader of the House was asked whether we would sit late tomorrow night. I forget her exact words, but she implied that we would not. That suggests that the guillotining is going to be pretty ruthless.

My hon. Friend asked about the Government's intention to programme. Programming has become the hallmark of this Government. Although there is co-operation, and a need to see the Bill discharged, I none to the less urge the Minister to allow the House—particularly its Back-Bench Members—to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves.

Is there not a further problem? This is the first time the local government representatives and their associations will have seen the Bill. They may well want to make representations about its contents. In the ordinary course of events, no amendments would be taken after the House rises tonight. In those circumstances, how on earth are those people going to have their point of view properly listened to by the elected representatives sitting in this place?

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Glancing through the Bill for just a few minutes, I notice, for example, a provision about the extension of the nomination period in relation to individual candidates. There is also the matter of clause 6, which deals with compensation to local authorities or candidates. The House will want to probe exactly what is intended by that, and, in the absence of an explanatory note, I have not been able to second-guess it at this stage.

The programme for tomorrow's business includes two very important Bills. The Elections Bill will require a lot of debate and scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, may I urge you to consider being as flexible as possible, according to the powers available to you, in relation to representations from Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and to the ways in which amendments could be tabled to the Bill? Perhaps you could also give us guidance on how the Report stage will be handled, as we shall not have heard the relevant deliberations by the time any amendments would have to be tabled?

Does not the hon. Lady agree that the most difficult part of the Bill has to do with Northern Ireland? We have two systems of voting there. We have a system involving putting a straight "X" for electing Members to this House, and the "one, two, three" single transferable vote system in local government. That leads to all sorts of complications, because the constituencies for Westminster are not—

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are not scrutinising the Bill at the moment. We are discussing the business of the House, under motion 3. That motion is very narrow, and deals with the ability to table amendments. We are, therefore, going wide of the motion if we start discussing the detail of the Bill. That will come later.

May I pick up the thrust of the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)? The measures dealing with matters pertaining to Northern Ireland are important and no doubt amendments to them will be tabled, which brings me back to timetabling. How will the allocation of time be dealt with? It is a great pity that a timetable motion is not before the House now, because we would have a clearer idea of how time will be divided up between the various parts of a Bill that we have only just seen.

The problem is that we have only part of the information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, we know only the barest details of what confronts us and what is, after all, an extremely important and rare, if not unprecedented, event in our constitutional arrangements. We are discussing nothing less than changing election dates. I should have thought that even this Government would want to ensure that the House has a proper opportunity to consider those matters in detail, yet we do not know how much time they will deign to give us tomorrow.

The Leader of the House was kind enough to say yesterday that an allocation of time motion relating to the Elections Bill and, indeed, another Bill would be tabled. We have been told that two Bills will be considered on the same day.

Order. I must be very firm: the right hon. Gentleman is going wide of the motion. I cannot allow him to do so, because I am sure that he will want to speak on other matters.

You can take that as being absolutely for sure, Mr. Speaker. I am concentrating on this matter right now; I am warming to my theme.

The Leader of the House told us yesterday that there will be proceedings—plural—on the Elections Bill. Until the motion was tabled, that was the only hint that we will have debates on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report and Third Reading.

My right hon. Friend will want to remind the House that unless the Bill is amended in Committee, there will be no consideration on Report and the process will be further truncated.

Regrettably, that is true and my right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I hold out no great hope or optimism that we shall be able to amend the Bill in Committee. It has been in our possession for only a few minutes, but even a glance at it suggests to me that there is ample scope for amendment. Therefore, we should be concerned about the opportunity given to us by the motion properly to amend the Bill.

The motion says that

"notices of Amendments, new Clauses"—

that is a useful hint—"and new Schedules", which is an even bigger hint, I would have thought,

"to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time."

That suggests that we shall be able to table amendments, new clauses and new schedules right up to the vote on Second Reading. That in turn suggests that, were we to agree to the motion, which I hope we do not, we would face a possible plethora of manuscript amendments being tabled after Second Reading and before we consider the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. We would then be in the invidious position of facing the possibility of debating a number of manuscript amendments of which most Members of the House were unaware until that point.

Will my right hon. Friend contemplate this point? He is discussing manuscript amendments being tabled up to the point at which we begin consideration on Second Reading, but the truth is that the House needs to consider and reflect on the arguments advanced on Second Reading. That argues for amendments to be tabled in Committee.

Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, although I had not quite reached that point in my reasoning. When considering any Bill, never mind a Bill of such gravity and importance, we would usually expect the opportunity to consider what had been said on Second Reading, take soundings, undertake consultations, accept representations from outside and table amendments in Committee.

That would be the normal process, but we are faced with an absurdity in this instance. Apparently, we are expected to engage in a truncated Second Reading debate under a guillotine; we will vote on Second Reading; then, and only then, the shutters will come down and it will no longer be possible to table amendments.

I might want to delay submitting my amendment until I have heard the whole of the Second Reading debate. If time permitted, I might well want to hear the Minister's winding-up speech before considering what amendments to table for the Committee stage.

My right hon. Friend's textual exegesis is second to none, but, in fairness to the Leader of the House, does he not think that she possibly—and presumptuously—intended the word "proceedings" to refer to a single event?

I cannot believe that. I think that my hon. Friend, unusually, has got the wrong end of the stick. I assume that the Leader of the House deliberately used the word in the plural because of the devastating combination that would confront us under a guillotine: in quick succession, Second Reading, a Committee of the whole House, Report—if amendments had been made in Committee—and Third Reading.

In the normal run of procedure, when we have a Standing Committee, there is the safeguard of a Programming Sub-Committee. How can the safeguards built into the normal passage of legislation by the good offices of such a Sub-Committee be taken into account when a Bill is being taken through all its stages in one day on the Floor of the House?

Order. That has nothing to do with the tabling of amendments, which is what the motion is about.

My hon. Friend may wish to consider what he has said. It might have a bearing in some circumstances—but, guided by you, Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly speculate on that.

It strikes me, at first glance, that items in the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—we have had only a few minutes in which to look at it—suggest considerable scope for amendments, which, of course, are allowed by the motion. The controversial issue of a fixed date might be the subject of one debate; a change of circumstances in the renomination of a candidate might be the subject of another. There is our friend "as if for", which is a variation of the "deeming" method that we have seen recently. There is the whole question of compensation—not easement of expense limits—on which I myself might wish to table an amendment.

In regard to limits on expenses, is it not difficult for us to determine whether it is appropriate to approve the motion until we have had the opportunity of receiving representations from the Local Government Association on whether the 50 per cent. figure is sufficient?

My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important matter. We are being told that a Bill that we have only just received will go through all its stages tomorrow, and that the motion allows the tabling of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, all of which could well be the subject of serious representations from those directly involved in local elections and local councils up and down the land, whose circumstances will vary. Given the compressed nature of the timetable that is being suggested, I should have thought that the lack of any time for those outside the House to make legitimate representations to Members would seriously undermine the credibility of the Bill, should it be passed.

It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It is all very uncontroversial; it has all been agreed, everyone is happy with it, and therefore we need not bother with it too much, need we?" We know from bitter recent experience—the other Bill that we are to debate tomorrow, which you will not want me to discuss or even refer to, Mr. Speaker, is standing testimony to this— that, if we do not scrutinise legislation adequately, mistakes are likely to arise.

Would my right hon. Friend care to make this point? We cannot judge whether the motion now before the House is appropriate until we know what, if any, representations were made to the Government by the Local Government Association and other bodies when the Bill was originally drafted.

My right hon. and learned Friend is correct, but I hazard a guess that the answer is adjacent to zero. That should disturb us all greatly; it should not give us any assurance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful if when the Minister replied, he could say when authority was given for the drafting of the Bill? [Interruption.]

The Minister has just indicated from a sedentary position that he is not going to bother replying to the debate. I think that that was the gist of what he has just muttered. I am beginning to think that this matter will now be subjected to a Division. I am certainly of a mind now to seek to divide the House on it, if only to seek to censure the Minister for the fact that he has indicated that he will not reply to the debate. A debate not replied to should be subjected to a Division, so that we can test the view of the House. I thought that I would give a little indication of that at this stage to help my colleagues.

I am trying to be reasonable and rational, because I agree with the Bill. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would indicate whether—this specifically relates to the motion —the Clerks at the Table will accept new clauses, new schedules and amendments to be moved in Committee after the Bill has had its Second Reading. Clearly, in the light of what is said on Second Reading, it may be necessary to table amendments. Will they be acceptable in manuscript form?

It might be helpful if I said that the motion simply allows amendments to be tabled before the Bill has been read a Second time. It is about timing. It has no bearing on the scope of amendments that may be proposed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is helpful guidance and we are grateful for it, but can you tell us whether you would be minded to accept manuscript amendments in Committee, bearing it in mind that, in the ordinary course of events, amendments must be tabled by tonight? It would be enormously helpful to us if you accepted amendments in Committee and, if we have a Report stage, on Report.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are dealing with a Committee of the whole House. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider that matter, not me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you this evening, once you have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, to say what the likely ruling would be? It would be of enormous value to the House to know that amendments could be tabled in Committee.

The Chairman of Ways and Means, like me, cannot deal with hypothetical matters. Obviously, amendments will have to be weighed up by the Chairman of Ways and Means, as they are weighed up by me.

That is extremely helpful, Mr. Speaker. We are all grateful for that, but you referred a moment ago to amendments. The motion also talks about new clauses and new schedules. Therefore, potentially, a new schedule could—

rose—

I will happily give way to the Minister, who is not going to reply to the debate.

I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I just want to make it clear that, if he divides the House against the motion, amendments, new clauses and new schedules to he moved in Committee might not be accepted by the Clerks before the Bill has been read a Second time. That may be the effect of dividing the House. I want to make sure that he has understood that.

I am always grateful for the patronising guidance of the Minister from the depth of his vast parliamentary experience. I always feel completely inadequate when faced by this Minister across the Chamber, and I find his guidance extremely helpful. I should, however, tell him that I shall make up my own mind on what I do and whether I seek to divide the House, and that when I do, I will probably know what I am up to.

I shall be very chary in the way in which I phrase my intervention. Would I be right in supposing that, had the Government been minded to allow amendments in Committee, the motion could have been drafted in such a manner as to say so?

Of course, but it is perfectly obvious that the Government's objective in this whole exercise is to minimise the opportunity for consultation, representation, debate, amendments and consideration. We can draw no other conclusion than that. Although the Minister has tried, rather feebly, to portray the motion as an act of parliamentary generosity by the Government, those of us who have been in this place for more than a dog-watch will know that the situation is precisely the opposite.

As one who has been in this place for the same length of dog-watch as the Minister, I should perhaps tell my right hon. Friend that, before he takes into account the Minister's guidance on this Bill, on three occasions during our consideration of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, the Minister's guidance on likely events turned out to be terminologically inexact.

Order. That is nothing to do with the matter before us.

No, but it is interesting.

I should like for a moment to concentrate on the word "schedules", which is rather important to us in this debate. It would be one thing if we were dealing only with amendments—although amendments can be a matter of great seriousness and very wide-ranging, of course subject to selection by you, Mr. Speaker—but when we discuss the possibility, as is stated in the motion, of new schedules to the Bill, that raises the possibility of a wide-ranging debate and of considerable change to the thrust and direction of the Bill itself. No less could be said of new clauses.

Once we get into the territory of new clauses and schedules and the possibility of their being moved were they to be selected, the relationship between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, comes into play, as does the matter—which we are not discussing today, although we shall tomorrow—of the time available for them. Therefore, time and again, we keep coming back to the fact that hon. Members must make some type of judgment, within the terms of the motion, on whether we think that it is credible or acceptable, in terms of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the Bill, to countenance what is suggested in the motion.

Although it may be possible for all these matters to be

"accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time"—

in other words, as I understand it, under the guillotine, right up until a Division, if there is to be one, on conclusion of debate on Second Reading—we face the possibility of a very complex schedule being tabled at the last minute trying to take account of what has been discussed on Second Reading, and the House being forced under a guillotine either to debate the matter barely at all or to divide on a possibly very complex schedule, although we are scarcely aware of its content. That puts us in an impossible position.

Even if the Government are attempting to say, "Aren't we being generous, having guillotined this Bill and said", as the Leader of the House did, "that we will have all the proceedings under a guillotine in less than one parliamentary day?", hon. Members are now in the invidious position that we—with you, Mr. Speaker—may have to make a very rapid judgment on a complicated manuscript new schedule or new clause and then be forced to make up our minds on that provision on a matter as important as elections.

Although we are discussing procedure, namely the motion on the Order Paper, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are aware of only part of the process? Until we see the timetable, we do not know when, for example, the Bill will be considered on Second Reading. We are seeing but part of the process, not the whole. How can the House conceivably vote successfully on this motion?

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I was going to touch on that issue, and now is as good a time as any to do it. We know that we have only just had the Bill and the Government propose that it should be dealt with tomorrow, but we do not know at what stage tomorrow it will be dealt with. It is an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend has highlighted the fact that those of us who will try to balance our time between wanting to participate in the upcoming debate and attempting to rush off and start drafting numerous amendments and new schedules to the Bill—as I fully intend to do—do not know how much time we have available to do that. The motion states simply

"before the Bill has been read a second time."

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that a statement were made tomorrow, or that you, Mr. Speaker, were to grant an emergency debate under Standing Order 24. From the time made available tomorrow for the debate on the programme motion, hon. Members could judge when the debate on Second Reading would start and conclude, and when any vote would occur. That in turn would tell us how much time we had to meet the requirements of the motion. However, we know none of that and we are being forced to debate this motion without knowing what the Government will impose on the House tomorrow.

Is not another serious possibility that, if consideration of the Bill is guillotined, as we expect that it will be, the passage of this motion may disadvantage any amendments or new schedules tabled with the benefit of knowledge of what has been said on Second Reading? Amendments tabled before Second Reading may take up all the available time.

Indeed, and we shall therefore have an odd phenomenon. I propose to draft today, without having heard the Second Reading debate, amendments that necessarily will be somewhat speculative—although I shall do my best to imagine what might be said on Second Reading. Conversely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) pointed out, those hon. Members who wait for the Second Reading debate and then try to make sense of new schedules or new clauses will be at a curious disadvantage.

May I point out a further disadvantage to which my right hon. Friend will be put? I know that it is not his practice to attend Westminster Hall—

Never.

My right hon. Friend says "never", but I know that there is a debate on the future of the green belt, and that that is a master of some concern to him. He might be minded to attend the whole debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow—

Order. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is so minded or not has nothing to do with the motion.

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, from my right hon. and learned Friend's attempts at seduction.

We are in an extraordinarily difficult position. The Government have tried to portray the motion as an act of generosity, but it is completely the opposite. The House is in an invidious position, with hon. Members being asked to tamper with the country's electoral arrangements—no less—in a limited amount of time and with no proper time allowed for representations from outside, consideration or consultation. There is the great risk that any amendments, new clauses or new schedules that are tabled will be defective, either for the reason set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a moment ago, or simply because insufficient time has been allowed for their preparation.

The right hon. Gentleman makes the serious and welcome point that the House should never rush through legislation without looking at it. However, that should not detract from the fact that it would not be the first time that hon. Members had written new schedules or amendments without having any idea of what was contained in the Bill connected with the subject matter.

It is always reassuring to know that there is a precedent, in which I am, generally speaking, somewhat of a believer. However, my point is that the House is being put at a peculiar disadvantage on this occasion. If we are to be bereft of a summing up by the Minister, there will be no option for some of us but to seek—

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no requirement, in terms of parliamentary propriety, to debate amendments in the chronological order of their tabling? Although no Conservative Member cares a tinker's cuss whether the Minister of State replies to the debate, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to be plucked from his office and instructed to return forthwith to the Chamber?

We always welcome the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and consideration to the House, and his presence would be advantageous. However, the ordering of the sequence of amendments is for Mr. Speaker to determine. We always respect his wisdom in these matters, as we would on this occasion.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I was about to conclude my remarks, but before I do so I shall of course give way to my hon. Friend.

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend may have treated with undue levity the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom both he and I have great respect. The hon. Lady said that such a state of affairs was not without precedent. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a constitutional measure of this sort, one should set a higher standard? We should not necessarily expect this measure to proceed without proper precedent. I know of no such precedent. Does my right hon. Friend?

I certainly do not and would be interested to know whether the hon. Lady does, for the reason that my hon. Friend has given. This is a constitutional measure of the greatest importance—we know that the Prime Minister has agonised over it—yet the Government seek to rush it through in this unseemly way.

All in all, this is a very sad day. The arrangements are most unsatisfactory. Even in the event of an elegant, comprehensive and lengthy reply from the Minister, I believe that some right hon. and hon. Members may have no option but to vote against the motion to express their disapproval of the whole matter.

The core concern, as I see it, is that although the motion may be intrinsically sound and acceptable in itself, the fact that it does not have alongside it any timetable, programme motion or guillotine arrangements makes it extremely difficult to judge whether it is acceptable. For all we know, the Government may intend to bring matters to a conclusion at 7 o'clock or 11 o'clock tomorrow evening, or at 2 o'clock or 7 o'clock on Thursday morning. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult for us to judge how the matter will be addressed in the House tomorrow.

Liberal Democrats have no problem with the motion, and I think that that is probably true of other parties as well. The key issue is whether we will be given adequate time to debate properly the amendments that will be brought forward under the motion and give the matter the scrutiny that it requires. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench can give us an indication of the intended timetable. I have been in the Chamber for a couple of hours, and I may have missed something, but as far as I am aware there has not even been any discussion across the House through the usual channels.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman heard my point of order. I went to the Table Office and was told that no timetable motion had yet been tabled, so we must assume that the terms have not been drafted.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that may not be entirely so. He will know from his experience in government that discussions sometimes take place through the usual channels before the final version of a motion is tabled. It has been known for programme motions to receive the support of all parties in certain circumstances. Given, as I understand it, that the Conservative party—

Order. I have spoken at length about the narrowness of the motion. Programming does not come into it—it is strictly about the time limit for amendments. That is what we must debate.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The importance of the motion—which we support—is not its intrinsic merit but how it fits with the business of the House. My concern is that we do not know how it will operate tomorrow, which will make it difficult to judge its merits.

I plead with the Government to ignore the fact that the Conservative party seems to be at sixes and sevens on this issue. After all, Conservative Members have wanted these elections to be delayed for some weeks, and now that the necessary motion has come before the House to make that a practicality, it is difficult to understand where they are coming from.

Will the Government give us an indication of what the timetable is? Without knowing that, it is extremely difficult to address the motion in a fair and balanced way.

The House should be aware of the immense part of the Elections Bill that refers to Northern Ireland. Four pages refer to England and Wales, but 12 refer to Northern Ireland. I would have thought it only right for a Northern Ireland Minister to be on the Government Front Bench, at least today, because the largest part of the Bill deals with Northern ireland.

The amazing thing is that Northern Ireland does not need to be included in the Bill, as our elections do not need to coincide. They are not even in the same month. We in Northern Ireland know why this has happened—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister want it, whereas the other parties do not. To us, this is a political move for political advantage.

Elections are at the heart of democracy and there should be no interference, if possible, in the way in which elections are run. Part I of the Bill deals with parliamentary elections rules, about which I am supposed to table amendments. We then come to a large part about local election rules, about which I am supposed to table amendments. [Interruption.] I am looking at the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I am aware of what is in it; it is about tabling amendments, and I am sticking to that. I tried to get that through to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but you cut me off before I put my question, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to stick to the subject of tabling amendments.

I always thought that we tabled amendments after we heard what the Government thought about a Bill and what it meant. I have written a three-page letter to the Prime Minister, by request from the Northern Ireland Office, in which I put all my views. It was not even acknowledged and I do not know what the response will be. How can I carry out my duty as leader of a party in Northern Ireland when I do not know the response of the Government to the Bill?

Does the hon. Gentleman know of any discussion involving the Northern Ireland Office, his party or any of the parties in Northern Ireland—