What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive about levels of employment in Scotland. [159289]

I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters, including employment, especially given that we in Scotland now have the lowest unemployment since 1976 and the highest employment since 1960. Since the 1997 election employment is up by 105,000, long-term unemployment is down by 60 per cent. and youth unemployment is down by 2,000. The First Minister and I therefore have very fruitful and positive conversations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 40 per cent. since the general election? Is, she aware that youth unemployment has been cut by more than 70 per cent? Is she able to give answers to those very difficult questions from the Dispatch Box today?

Whenever my hon. Friend comes to the House, I am filled with trepidation about what he might ask me. I can tell him, however, that much has been done and there is much to do, but there is also much to lose. I agree with him that it is time for a general election.

The Secretary of State will know that the unemployment figures in Campbeltown in my constituency are twice the Scottish average. Following the recent announcement of the closure of the Jaeger factory—which was a terrible blow to the town, as Jaeger was its last major employer—can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry will be reinstated, and, in particular, that the Ministry of Defence is no longer dragging its feet with regard to the turbine factory at Machrihanish?

First, let me wish the hon. Lady well as she approaches her retirement. Indeed, some 18 Scottish Members in all parties are not seeking re-election, and I take this opportunity to commend them for the distinguished service that they have given. That applies particularly to the hon. Lady, who comes from a very distinguished political background. She has served her party and her country with distinction.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that no Conservative Member has even tried to speak of unemployment? Could that be because the Conservatives are embarrassed by the fact that the last time the unemployment figures were as low as this, Labour was in government?

I also wish my hon. Friend well as she approaches her retirement; the warmth of the response to her is very well known. She is also right to remind us of how much we have to lose if this Labour Government are not re-elected. All of us who lived through those bleak Tory years remember what happened to unemployment in cities such as Glasgow and in my own constituency in Lanarkshire.

Would the Secretary of State—who has been boasting so much of the success of the Government's action in Scotland—like to assure my constituents in Devon that Scotland will no longer be wanting the £861-odd extra per head of population that it receives, unlike my constituents; that the levels of benefit that it receives will come down to those received by the whole of the nation; and that it will not continue to receive much more money than is available to the rest of the United Kingdom including England?

That was a very interesting exposition of Tory policy. Labour Members, however, believe in governing for the many and not for the few. We have achieved much in this Parliament, but we still have much to do. On unemployment, though, we now have the prospect of full employment for all of the United Kingdom, which is something that I have wanted to achieve in my political lifetime. It could be snatched away if Conservative Members were ever again to he elected to government. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the same line as the Scottish National party, whose members will be Hague's little helpers in the forthcoming general election as they seek to ensure the election of a Tory Government.

Like my right hon. Friend and all Labour Members, I will never forget the devastation caused to mining communities by the actions of the previous Government and how, for many thousands of redundant miners, the only jobs on offer were as £2 an hour security guards. I pay tribute to her and to the previous First Minister, Donald Dewar, for securing the future for the only deep mine left in Scotland. Does she agree that the best future for that deep mine rests with the return or a Labour Government?

Order. I appeal for shorter questions and, of course, for shorter answers. I also remind the House that we are on Scottish questions. The general election campaign will be fought elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) is aware that the coal industry faced very significant difficulties when we were first elected to government and that the introduction of a stricter gas consents policy allowed a breathing space for the coal industry to fin I its place in a competitive market. I am very glad that we have been able to make real progress on Longannet deep mine, which is the last deep mine in Scotland. I am also pleased that we have been able to make progress on delivering compensation to those miners who, over very many years, gave their health so that we could have a coal industry—an industry that was treated with contempt by Conservative Members.

Just for once, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who said that it is time that we had a general election. So it is—so that we can have a change of Government. [Interruption.] As people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom know perfectly well—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) keeps asking whether I know where Pollok is. Of course I know where Pollok is. However, that is not what we are here to discuss. We are here to discuss Scotland's economy and Scotland's unemployment levels and to hold this Government, however temporarily, to account for what they are doing.

Order. I do not think there was a question there.

I was getting quite worried about the hon. Lady, given her forthcoming happy event, which I understand is to be in July. I wish filer well for that. Her loyalty to her party is very well known, but I hope that it does not mean that she has to call the child Orinoco. We are well aware of what the previous Government did to Scotland. Those of us who represent constituencies in Scotland saw long-term unemployment rocket and a dearth of hope for young people in our communities.

How many people in Scotland have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction. [159290]

More than 120,000 people in every constituency in Scotland, including Aberdeen, North, have benefited from the national minimum wage since it was introduced by the Labour Government in April 1999. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that on 1 October the national minimum wage will the increased by almost 11 per cent.—that is greater than the increase in average earnings—except in the admittedly unlikely event of the election of a Tory Government who are committed to scrapping it. It is absolutely vital that that does not happen.

In Aberdeen, the national minimum wage has proved particularly beneficial to women. Can my hon.

My hon. Friend is right in every respect. Some 70 per cent. of the beneficiaries of the minimum wage have been women. It has had the greatest effect on women's pay since the Equal Pay Act 1970. I am pleased to see that some Tories are rising, to ask questions as they said that jobs would be lost because of the national minimum wage. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Unemployment has gone down and employment has gone up in every part of the United Kingdom. I notice that SNP Members are not even standing to ask questions on this. As my hon. Friend rightly said, they were not here to go through the Lobby to vote for a national minimum wage. How can they stand up for Scotland when they do not even turn up for Scotland?

Does the Minister recognise that, while the Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the minimum wage has stopped the worst employment practices in terms of low pay, many people do not work in paid employment but run a small business or a farm? Because of the current foot and mouth epidemic, many of those people's incomes are below the minimum wage. Will he therefore ensure that the Prime Minister recognises that, although the number of foot and mouth cases may be tailing off, the economic consequences will be felt in the rural economy for many years after the last case has been reported?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, although it grieves me somewhat to say so. The Government understand the difficulties created by foot and mouth. That is why we have put in place a great deal of help for farmers and people involved in agriculture, and for those affected indirectly. The hon. Gentleman will know that the increase in the minimum wage was announced in March, which has given people a significant amount of time to prepare. I am sure that he would not want people currently struggling on low pay to suffer as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. Obviously, we must take account of the effects of foot and mouth disease, which are felt by employees as well as employers.

What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [159291]

I meet regularly with the First Minister and discuss a range of topics, including how to tackle the menace of drug abuse in Scotland. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to hear about that

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the creation of the Scottish communities against drugs fund? It will make money available to those strapped communities fighting a campaign against drugs in Scotland to make their areas drug free and to offer a more positive environment for people at risk from drugs. Will she also join me in welcoming the support of the Daily Record?

May I begin by assuming that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I understand that it is a significant one.

What discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the Barnett formula. [159292]

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Deputy Prime Minister, on a variety of matters.

Does not the Secretary of State find it ironic that, at a time when she is accusing the Tory party of wanting to cut £8 billion of public spending, the Deputy Prime Minister is aiming to reduce spending in Scotland by £1,000 a head? Even London brokers say that Scotland's surplus of revenue over expenditure comes to £100 million a month. Should not the Scottish Parliament therefore have control over revenue, rather than being at the mercy of an anti-Scottish cabal in the Cabinet?

One thing that one can say with certainty is that the hon. Gentleman is never happier than when he is whingeing for Scotland. This Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula, and we have delivered £8.5 billion more in public expenditure for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's party's plans for Scotland would mean a reduction of about £500 million in expenditure on health, £500 million less expenditure on local authorities and £500 million less for other services such as transport, housing and economic development. The health service in Scotland has benefited to the tune of more than £400 million. The SNP's plans for Scotland would have meant an increase in health expenditure of a puny £38 million. We would take the hon. Gentleman much more seriously—

Order. I ask the right hon. Lady to sit down.

If the right hon. Lady is right in her view of the firmness of the Government in respect of the Barnett formula, will she explain why, when I asked her Department in writing on 11 January about its intentions towards the formula, it took two and a half months to deliver the completely anodyne reply that the Government supported the retention of the formula? Why was there that delay if the Government were not considering scrapping it?

I was not in the Department on 11 January. We have discussed the matter twice at Question Time—perhaps on occasions when the hon. Gentleman was not here.

As usual, the right hon. Lady is less than frank about the position. Why did it take so long to answer the question? Is not the reality that the Government knew very well on 11 January that they were considering scrapping the formula and were trying to put that forward in a way that might be presentable? Would the Government not be reneging on a key commitment that they made in the past by scrapping the formula, which would be part of the complete dissolution of this country that is being brought about, through the agency of the Deputy Prime Minister, as part of the regional policy?

I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman's colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it clear that he could not guarantee maintaining spending in Scotland; this was the man who said that the poll tax was a very good experiment for Scotland.

On how many occasions she has been requested to give advice on the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [159313]

When requested, I give advice, as a United Kingdom Law Officer, on a variety of matters including questions concerning the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

I am most grateful to the Advocate-General for repeating her answer to my question of one month ago. Will she now tell me how many times she has been requested to give legal advice, what the cost of such advice has been on such occasions and what the total cost of implementing the Human Rights Act in Scotland has been?

Duplication—we call it corroboration in Scotland—is a doctrine with which the hon. Lady may be familiar. It is a long-standing tradition that Law Officers do not advise about the questions that they have been asked—one which Law Officers on both sides of the House recognise.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in terms of human rights in Scotland, the Disability Rights Commission will always have an important part to play? It is one of the finest achievements of the Government. Will she remember that hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland are delighted that this United Kingdom Parliament delivered that measure?

With Some assistance from my right hon. Friend, the convention on human rights has been delivered in Scotland. It is an important step that individual citizens can now exercise their rights and have their rights guaranteed by the domestic courts of this country, which is a much cheaper and quicker alternative than going to Strasbourg.

Having just treated the House to that extraordinary mixture of incompetence and contempt, will the Advocate-General tell us what she is for?

Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, I will tell him—at length, if Mr. Speaker permits. Under the Scotland Act 1998, I have a number of functions. I inherited the advisory functions of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. I advise the United Kingdom Government about a range of matters on not only Scots law but European law, including the European convention on human rights. I also sit on a number of Cabinet Committees. I have a statutory role under section 33 of the 1998 Act of considering Scottish Parliament legislation, and—

Order. The question is about human rights, not about the Advocate-General's role.

If she will make a statement on her role in monitoring the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. [159314]

If the human rights point raises a devolution issue, it must be intimated to me and I have powers to intervene. I am also kept informed about the general impact of the Human Rights Act, including important court cases. With reference to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), it is because of the devolution aspects that I have a role in relation to human rights.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the advantage of the Human Rights Act is that it makes justice more accessible for ordinary people by fast-tracking access to the United Kingdom courts. avoiding the cost and the delays involved in going to Strasbourg? How long does it take to raise a case now?

A human rights case can be raised with great speed in the domestic courts in Scotland. Depending on the situation, it could be raised and dealt with by the court within a few days. The appeal process has shown that human rights issues can be taken through the entire process, all the way to the Privy Council, within months, which is a vast improvement on the previous situation, whereby individual citizens sometimes had to wait years before a court considered their claim.

If she will make a statement on the role of the private finance initiative in the provision of new magistrates courts. [159318]

The private finance initiative is used to procure new magistrates courts throughout England and Wales. I am happy to make a statement on the subject.

The Minister will know how glad I am that the Government continued with the construction of new magistrates courts under PFI that was started by the previous Government. Would not it be wrong. however, to sacrifice smaller, rural magistrates courts such as Evesham on the altar of PHI, especially when they are being asked to provide extra capacity during the construction of the new courts?

I am happy to pay tribute to the representations that the hon. Gentleman made during the consultation on the original closure programme introduced by the magistrates courts committee in Hereford and Worcester, and I acknowledge that, as the Worcester court has become inoperable because the police no longer use it, Evesham is now one of the courts that is used for the excess work. I understand that the committee intends shortly to hold consultations on proposals for courthouse closures, but as no decisions have yet been made, I cannot comment on any such proposals.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that PFIs can be used to bring existing courthouses up to scratch, so that the jailing sections meet the modem European standard?

I absolutely concur with the point that my hon. Friend is making about security. PFIs are indeed being used for a range of purposes, and not only new build, important though that is. For example, once such initiative is providing refurbished courthouses at Redditch.

The Parliamentary Secretary talks about the use of private finance in magistrates courts, but has she considered the figures revealed this morning in one of the national newspapers by the distinguished legal correspondent, Joshua Rozenberg, that show that in Greater London fines worth more than £92 million remained uncollected last year alone? Does she not recognise that judges and magistrates are increasingly concerned that the mismanagement and incompetence of her noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has led to a collapse in confidence in collecting fines and in other non-custodial penalties? On the day the Prime Minister finally dared to call a general election, which he will lose, should not the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the Lord Chancellor must acknowledge that he is the weakest link and say goodbye?

The hon. Gentleman may not know that successive Governments have considered that fine enforcement would be more effective if such work were transferred from the police to the magistrates courts committees, which can give it a higher priority. However, this Government have delivered that modernisation to the magistrates courts committees. That is a measure of our confidence in their ability to handle that work. He and his party propose to take £525 million out of the justice system, so it is rich for him to lecture us on modernisation and improvements in the service.

If she will make a statement on the progress being made to allow people from a wider range of social backgrounds to become JPs. [159319]

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about this issue. As I said in a written answer:

"my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has asked for a national strategy for tin recruitment of lay magistrates to be developed."—[Official Report, 3 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 173W.]

Is it not important that that representational approach reflects the ethnic, social and political mix of the community? Is it not vital to focus on making the bench more equitable? Will the Minister consider, for example, shortening the hours of commitment, so that the bench is more accessible to working people? Will she also consider improving the image of the bench, which is not as good as it should be?

I will, of course, take careful note of all the points that my hon. Friend raises. The Lord Chancellor was one of the first Lord Chancellors to consider that political balance may not be an appropriate way to measure social balance on benches, and that was the result of the landslide at the last general election.

Does the hon. Lady accept that whatever has gone wrong in her Department, we all k low that it was not her fault? So magnificent has been her stewardship that we know that this is the last time we shall see her before she rockets to greater heights, in the shadow Cabinet. Does she agree that what matters most is that such people, who perform an incredibly important job in the community, are seen to be truly effective, and that anything that takes our eye off that ball would be a great mistake?

I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to help me, and I hope that the Prime Minister was listening.

There are hairdressers.

As my hon. Friend says, the magistracy includes hairdressers. Being a magistrate is not an easy task, and I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to magistrates for the important work that they do.

Will the Minister comment on her Department's success in recruiting people from the ethnic minority community to the magistrates bench? What sort of gender balance has been achieved from within that community?

We seek constantly to review the balance and make-up of benches. It is important that hon.

The Minister uttered some fine words, but in many parts of the country they are meaningless. Because of the magistrates courts closures under the Government, a number of people from wider social backgrounds have been forced to leave the lay magistracy. The Government have commissioned an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness of the lay magistracy. Auld has reported. Will the Minister tell us what the Government's policies are for the future of the lay magistracy and whether it has a future at all under the Government?

On every occasion that such points are made to me, I demonstrate not only in fine words but with examples how we are working hard to promote the magistracy, and to improve and modernise the service that magistrates give their communities. It is Opposition Members who question that commitment who cause magistrates to have doubts. I strongly recommend that the hon. Gentleman consider the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who, during proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, said that he had far more confidence in a judge and jury than in a bench of magistrates. Had we passed that Bill, it would have been living testament to the Government's commitment to the magistracy.

If he will make a statement on the use of information technology to support rural courtrooms. [159320]

New IT systems and services are being developed both for magistrates courts and county courts. The Libra system will link together all magistrates courts and allow links into other criminal justice agencies. On 15 January. I published a consultation paper on the development of IT in the civil courts, which I trust the hon. Member has read. I look forward to his response.

I thank the Minister for that invitation to read his document. I shall read it assiduously because his Department's proposals for rural courthouses in my constituency are very poor indeed. The proposal to close two or three courthouses in Ceredigion is at least being fought by the local county council. It has made an interesting suggestion on the use of IT to support rural courthouses: a main courthouse for the county, with satellite courthouses linked by IT systems. Will the Minister welcome that? Will he also give an assurance that financial considerations will not stand in the way of such additional and innovative solutions, which may deliver justice to rural areas? Finally, following his consultation paper, will he tell us what guidance he is likely to produce to encourage magistrates courts committees to look beyond financial questions and consider innovative solutions?

The purpose of magistrates courts is to deliver justice. I am sure that local justice is an important consideration, whether in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in any part of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the county council for its co-operation and for taking advantage of the opportunities presented by IT. That is precisely what the consultation paper is all about, as he will see when he gets around to reading it. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who will consider the appeal in due course, will consider those matters seriously. I am grateful for all the work that has gone into ensuring that a large measure of local justice is still delivered in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Will the Minister tell us what access and technology will be available for the rural courts that have closed under his Government's stewardship, especially those in Bakewell, Ashbourne and Matlock? That means that there is no local justice in West Derbyshire.

The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the closure of magistrates courts, but such decisions are taken by local magistrates courts committees under legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government. As for the county courts, the strategy in the "Modernising the Civil Courts" Green Paper is aimed at increasing the number of places at which hearings can take place to increase the availability of local justice, not to close courts. The strategy is to develop local justice, not to restrict it.

What recent action the Lord Chancellor's Department has taken to improve access to justice in Macclesfield; and if she will make a statement.[159322]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement, but it might take me a little time, as we have been extremely busy in improving access to justice in Macclesfield.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) flattered the Minister, may I do the same and thank her for that extremely helpful reply? However, she knows that if justice is to be effective, it needs to be local. She talks about a private finance initiative project for a new magistrates court in Macclesfield. Will she give a commitment today that that is part of a firm plan, subject to all authorities agreeing, and that we will have a new magistrates court in Macclesfield to serve the town and the surrounding area?

The details of the project are still being considered. It would be wrong to give a commitment at this stage to proposals before I have been able to consider them. However, I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, as I will to the representations that I know that he will make in future.

If she will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on rural magistrates courts. [159323]

Data provided by the magistrates courts committees in the period October to December last year show that there has been no significant impact so far on the operation of the magistrates courts as a result of the Human Rights Act.

What an absurd reply! Five years ago, £350,000 was spent modernising the old school buildings in Oswestry. The court now faces a bill of £197,450 to make it compliant with the Human Rights Act. Every time I ask the Minister where the money should come from, she says that it is down to the magistrates courts committee. That is rubbish. The cost is being forced on local magistrates by central Government. Will she explain why the Government will not stump up the money?

Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities. The standard of accommodation and facilities provided in a court is only one of a number of factors that magistrates courts committees consider. The Human Rights Act has had very little bearing on those considerations. Setting aside the hon. Gentleman's pre-election hysteria, the answer to his question is simple and straightforward: the prophets of doom who predicted that the implementation of the Human Rights Act would bring chaos to the courts have been proved wrong. That is due to two years of careful preparation by the Government and the courts. The smooth incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been a major achievement of the Government and it is one of which I am very proud.

If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the procedure for the tabling of oral questions. [159331]

Not at present. The Procedure Committee has considered the matter many times. I am pleased to say that Mr. Speaker has responded to the recommendations in its most recent report by extending the deadline for tabling oral questions to 6.30 pm on a trial basis.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's characteristically mellifluous and soothing reply. Given the worrying growth of government by remote control and the new extended deadline of 6.30 pm for the tabling of oral questions, will he comprehensively rubbish the idea of tabling questions by e-mail and agree instead that Members who wish to table questions can reasonably be expected to continue to bestir themselves to plod along the corridors of the Palace of Westminster until they reach the Table Office to do so?

There is no need to plod very far. There are no plans for the tabling of questions by e-mail or fax.

Why do we not do away with the tabling of questions and take a leaf out of the book of the Canadian House of Commons, where questioners are chosen exclusively by the Speaker? The debate is spontaneous the whole Ministry is present and it stops the planted question. In addition, Ministers from the other place should attend this House to answer questions, and vice versa. It is nonsense for Ministers to come here and pretend that they know the answers when they do not. Ministers should answer for themselves. If Gus Macdonald is made a Cabinet Minister, I want him answering questions here.

I must confess that I am surprised that my hon. Friend knows anything about planted questions, because he is a man of integrity and comes up with his questions himself. My right hon. Friend in the Lords, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, is already a Minister. There were abuses in the past, but the present system of tabling questions in Person seems to protect the House from any abuse.

What steps she proposes to take to improve the ability of the House to hold the Executive to account. [159332]

I propose to continue the experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, which have given Back Benchers more than double the number of daytime Adjournment debates and increased fourfold opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. Those steps must be seen alongside other steps in the extension of scrutiny that have already been made. They include broadening the remit of the European Scrutiny Committee, setting up a Select Committee on Environmental Audit and a Joint Committee on Human Rights, agreeing to the Procedure Committee's proposals for the improved scrutiny of treaties and increasing the opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Given the strength of support from Members on both sides of the House for the implementation of the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", is it not a sign of the contempt in which the Government hold the House of Commons that we have been denied a free vote on that report in this Parliament?

No, that is nonsense. The report has been debated, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said. He is right that many Members support the proposals in the report, but many other Members have great reservations about many of the proposals. On bow the issues can be thrashed out, I point out that they have been debated and no doubt they will be discussed again.

My right hon. Friend will have considered the way in which the Opposition have conducted their business this Session. If she is Chairman of the Modernisation Committee it the new Parliament, could she not propose that the Opposition use their time far more effectively instead of engaging in time wasting? They would then be able to carry out their function of scrutiny, about which they protest so much.

There is some justice in my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope very much that the Conservative party will have the benefit of a few more years in which to build up its experience of opposition. Given its propensity to knee-jerk reaction to any proposals of the type that have been mentioned, that is sorely needed so that it can effectively use the time of the House for scrutiny. The Opposition attempt to do and say anything that they hope will embarrass the Government as opposed to considering what will be workable and to the advantage of the House as a whole.

The Lord President will know that the Opposition have committed themselves to a number of important reforms in this area. Can she assure us that, when Parliament is dissolved, the Labour party will also go into the next election fizzing with new ideas about how this place can hold the Government to account and seeking to reverse the damage that it has done in the past four years?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Conservative party is committed to a number of reforms. It had 18 years to implement many of them, but it utterly failed to do so. I assure him that we keep under review the proposals that have been made. If we are returned to power, we hope to build on the improvements and the greater availability of scrutiny from which the House has already benefited

What representations she has received about programme motions for legislation. [159333]

A number of Conservative Members have continued to oppose any use of programme motions, but I believe that many Members consider that the Sessional Orders do not go far enough. Refinements to the present experimental procedures have been suggested by the Modernisation Committee in its first report of this Session.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she had time to analyse the points that have been made during programme motion debates? Does she agree that they tend to be repetitive and that we should consider whether those programme motions are really necessary?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She takes a close interest in those matters, so I am sure that she knows that that issue was discussed by the Modernisation Committee and lay behind the production of our most recent report, which commanded support across the Committee and from all parties. Sadly, however, on this occasion, that support was not unanimous.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that Conservative Members have opposed programme motions because they are guillotines in disguise and were introduced without regard for the nature or complexity of the Bills in question and without any proper consultation with the Opposition? In fact, they are a disgraceful treatment of Parliament.

No, I am afraid I do not accept any of those points.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the matter is not one that should be debated on a party basis? The quality of the scrutiny that legislation receives ought to be important for the House of Commons. Is it not a sad commentary that the cumulative effect of many changes has been to remove better scrutiny? The suggestion that somehow programme motions should be debated without talking about programming shows a sad want of understanding of what happens in the House.

My hon. Friend has from the beginning expressed opposition to the experiment. She is right that different points of view exist on both sides of the House. However, I simply repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). There was support from all parties for the Modernisation Committee's most recent report. It is by no means insignificant that the present and past Chairs of the Select Committee on Procedure, both of whom are experienced, supported it.

While supporting the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her desire to achieve better scrutiny in the House, may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will guarantee that the recommendations of the recently issued first report of the Modernisation Committee—which she chairs—will be implemented? She will be aware that there was some cross-party support for the report, not least from me, because the way in which we introduce programming is not working, as she knows. It is vital that the recommendations and guidance of the Modernisation Committee are implemented at an early stage of the next Parliament, whichever party is in government.

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that, to a certain extent, there is an understanding. Although I would not venture to agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I accept that we have all been learning from the initial experiment and that improvements can be made to achieve genuinely better opportunities for scrutiny. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be the first to remind me that it is not for me to say what the House will decide, but I take his point that the House should have an opportunity to pronounce on the recommendations of the most recent report of the Modernisation Committee and that, as always, that should be done on a free vote.

What further proposals she plans to put before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [159335]

The Modernisation Committee has already instigated radical experiments with Westminster Hall, programming and deferred Divisions. I expect the Committee's major task to be monitoring those experiments, although we continue to discuss other issues, such as the use of electronic voting.

That is regrettable. The right hon. Lady will be aware that many Labour Members are exhausted by the pace of reform, particularly the late night sittings to which, perversely, it has given rise. Can we not all have a rest from that business?

I think that the notion that the reforms have created greater difficulties instead of easing some of them is not wholly shared. Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, although I note that he, like other Members, has taken advantage of the new opportunities in Westminster Hall.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members thoroughly welcome the modernisation process? Those of us who were first elected in 1997 still find it bemusing that, while it would be an act of treason if the IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force put a drug in the water supply of the House of Commons to ensure that Ministers were tired, irritable and unable to concentrate through lack of sleep, until we fully modernise the House, we have made sleep deprivation a constitutional requirement.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I merely say to him what I have often said in other debates in this House: people are rarely more eloquent in the early hours of the morning, although unfortunately, all too often, they think they are.

May I put it to the Leader of the House that one thing that should not be modernised is the opportunity for individual Members of Parliament to raise individual cases in this House and with Ministers in other ways? As an example, I hope that we will maintain the opportunity for me to raise the case of a constituent who has been asked to wait 15 months for an appointment at a hospital. For all the legislation that we have, for all the glitz and the glamour, each Member of Parliament must fight to ensure that our national health service is not a national waiting service.

The hon. Gentleman uses the opportunity skilfully to raise a slightly different point. Of course he is right that individual Members of Parliament must always have the facility to raise cases of the kind to which he refers. Indeed, many of us raised them frequently—much more frequently than is necessary today—during the years in which his party was in power.

What her policy is on the recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries relating to the pay of hon. Members and the office costs allowance. [159338]

Decisions on the recommendations are a matter for the House.

As, the right hon. Lady says, such decisions are indeed matter for the House. However, when will the recommendations be put to the House so that it can take a decision? Members in all parts of the House believe that the recommendations should be considered, and that such consideration should take place in this Parliament and not the next.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that his view is shared in other parts of the House. He asks me when the recommendations will be debated. All I can say, as I would characteristically for a business question, is that it will not, I fear, be next week.