If she will make a statement about her visit to Clydebank to open the new premises of Dalmuir credit union. [32332]

Dalmuir credit union is an excellent example of the success of the credit union movement. Everyone has a right to financial services, which are a key tool in the fight against poverty. At Dalmuir, the Scottish principles of self-help and thrift are plainly to the fore in one of the most successful community credit unions ever.

We were grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to open the credit union, which marks the arrival of the credit union movement in a very different way. Since she came, 85 extra members a month have been added to the credit union's membership, which now totals 5,500, and it has share capital of £3.7 million. It is easily the largest community-based credit union in the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, alongside the universal bank in the Post Office and other Government measures, the credit union is a powerful means of tackling poverty and increasing social cohesion?

I agree wholeheartedly. Of my many engagements, that visit was probably one of the more successful. I was able to meet people whom I had not seen for quite some time, and the warmth of the response was outstanding. With my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Rose Dorman, the doyenne of the UK credit union movement. To a large extent, it is her vision that has made that credit union so successful.

The Secretary of State is right to say that credit unions play a valuable role in protecting ordinary people who are financially disadvantaged from the likes of loan sharks. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) is right to say that Dalmuir credit union is a model. As one of the biggest credit unions in the country, it should be used as an example for others.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general sentiments about the value of credit unions, but it was only a few months ago that, with Jackie Baillie, then the Scottish Minister for Social Justice, I opened another credit union in Edinburgh's Leith area. It is important to recognise that the Scottish Executive and the Government work hand in hand.

What discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive's Minister for Enterprise regarding the future of BP at Grangemouth. [32333]

I have regular discussions with all the Executive Ministers on a range of issues, although not all of them appear in my diary. My hon. Friend will be aware that I met BP shortly after its announcement in November to discuss the future.

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares with the people of Grangemouth and the communities of central Scotland the anguish that they felt as 1,000 people were called into the offices of BP's management to be told that, despite the service that they had given, they were now on the scrap heap. I seek an assurance that the ministerial taskforce, which I have been invited to join, and the partnership action for continuing employment group, which has set up an office in my constituency, will focus on making sure that those people are not put on the scrap heap.

I commend my hon. Friend and his colleague, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for the area, Cathy Peattie, on their assiduous work in defending the interests of their constituents who are working at BP, and all the families involved. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been able to join the taskforce. I talked to Wendy Alexander about that and other aspects of BP at Grangemouth, and I shall continue to have discussions with her. I have also discussed with the Health and Safety Executive its concerns about Grangemouth, and I am willing to talk to it further if my hon. Friend would find that helpful.

Given the potential of BP axing 40 per cent. of the work force at Grangemouth and given the problems of job losses in key areas of the Scottish economy, such as Grangemouth, does the Minister share the Secretary of State's complacent view that the Scottish economy is performing well? Will he now take seriously the problems of Scottish industry?

The House should compare the positive and constructive attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk. East (Mr. Connarty) with that of the Scottish National party. SNP Members remind me of carrion crows. They hover, waiting for a corpse, so that they can pick up some political advantage from it. They will not be able to do that. The latest polls show that Scotland continues to reject the narrow nationalism of the SNP.

One of the problems that is faced by BP and others is a lack of tradesmen, especially pipe fitters. What representations has my hon. Friend made to the Scottish Executive about the training programme for tradesmen in Scotland?

That is not a planted question. Heaven forfend. By a strange coincidence, not only did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discuss this issue with Transco, but I discussed it with Wendy Alexander when we met and launched the Clyde taskforce report. We are actively looking into the matter. I shall talk to my hon. Friend about it immediately after questions.

In these and other discussions, has the Minister made any assessment of what effect Labour's policies of more regulations, higher taxes, excessive fuel duties and oppressive congestion charging will have on the long-term future of BP and the oil industry generally? Is it not crystal clear that the continuation of those policies will lead to ever more job losses in Scotland?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to Scotland. I will take him round and show him some things. He might like to know that there have been substantial new announcements in the oil industry in Scotland. In November, the Department of Trade and Industry gave approval for phase 2 of the Juno field, with 1,200 jobs underpinned, and for the first phase of the Clare field. In January, three new oilfields—Madoes, Mirren and Maclure—were approved. Those are all BP fields. I thought that the SNP Members were bad enough, but the Tories seem to want to trump the SNP in talking down Scotland. We will not let them do that.

How she estimates Scottish tourism will benefit from her recent friends of Scotland visit to the far east. [32334]

What benefits for Scotland's oil and gas industries she expects to derive from her recent visit to the far east. [32338]

My recent trip to south-east Asia was primarily trade related, but I had a useful meeting with the British Tourist Authority in Hong Kong to discuss how best to market Scotland. I also had many meetings with expatriate Scots and others who are enthusiastic supporters of the friends of Scotland initiative.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I compliment her on her persistent and persuasive advocacy of Scotland's cause overseas. Does she agree that a vital element in bringing more tourists in from the far east and elsewhere is the creation and establishment of more direct international flights, both long and medium haul, into Scotland's airports. I hope that that will include Dundee airport, once the new departure lounges are completed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I take a considerable interest in the issue of direct flights, and there has recently been a good response from Scottish airports. At Prestwick, for example, flight numbers are up by 18.6 per cent.; at Glasgow, they are up by 4.3 per cent.; and at Edinburgh, they are up by 10.2 per cent. Much of that is due to the expansion of direct flights by no-frills carriers. My hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate of more direct flights from Dundee airport, and secured an Adjournment debate on the subject. The refurbishment of the airport is important; I hope that with the expansion of the Ryanair fleet by up to 150 new aircraft, and the easyJet fleet by up to 75 new aircraft, there may be more flights from Dundee airport to international destinations.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that BP is a large employer in my constituency. What benefits can her recent visit to the far east bring to companies such as BP, which seek to exploit rising sun opportunities?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The oil and gas industry has many international opportunities, not least BP, which is the biggest British investor in mainland China. Whenever I look at the oil and gas industry, I am always conscious of the skills in the supply chain. I was impressed by a seminar that I addressed in mainland China which was attended by representatives of Scottish companies anxious to access the Chinese gas market. The Chinese Government wish to get more than 2.1 per cent. of their energy mix from natural gas; indeed, they want to get up to 10 per cent. We have the talents, skills and expertise; Scottish companies can benefit from that.

Doubtless, the Secretary of State's efforts in the far east were well supported by the British Tourist Authority. Is she aware that the BTA's recent lead promotional document for overseas tourists, "Hidden Britain", fails to mention or refer to more than 50 per cent. of the land mass of Scotland? Does she concur with the chairman of VisitScotland, who suggested that the BTA be abolished and replaced with a tourism structure more responsive to the needs of devolution? Will she make representations in that regard to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?

The BTA has an important job marketing all the United Kingdom. Many people who come here do not come exclusively to visit one particular part of the UK. However, we must maximise our efforts to market Scotland, not just through the BTA, but in many other directions, not least joint corporate activity. It is important to recognise that the "Hidden Britain" map includes a number of Scottish sites. This morning, I learned of the preparation of a new initiative by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the golden jubilee which will enhance the role that Scotland has played in the history of Her Majesty's 50-year reign and will be an important tool for marketing Scotland in 2002.

Does the Secretary of State realise how impressed we all were to read that no sooner had she got off the plane from the far east than she was busy hosting Burns suppers before going off to Wales to boost Scottish tourism? Does she accept that the 2.5 per cent. decline in visitor numbers to Scotland last year, compared with a 10 per cent. rise in Ireland, is the result of serious issues such as the high pound, high petrol prices and under-resourced visitor agencies? Will the Government tackle those significant issues affecting Scotland's major industry, or is it just a case of "c'est la vie"?

There the hon. Gentleman goes again, talking Scotland down. No Government Member takes any lessons about work load from him; he voted in 12 per cent. of Divisions in the last Parliament, and only managed to pass the 50 per cent. mark in this Parliament. I have outvoted every member of the Scottish National party in this Parliament, and shall continue to argue for Scotland in every part of the country and in every part of the world. I shall do so taking pride in Scotland, not talking it down.

Scotland's tourist links with the far east are important, but perhaps even more important are her links with the far west. Recently, Glasgow airport suffered a number of blows, with the withdrawal of many services to and from Canada. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will do all that she can to ensure that those direct daily services are resumed as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend has considerable experience of transport matters. There has been a downturn in activity from the United States as a direct consequence of 11 September. It requires much greater involvement on the part of all of us to ensure that direct flights are maintained. In December I hosted a summit of the airline industry in Edinburgh to talk about the future of daily direct flights. There has been some encouraging news since then, but it is essential that both the Government and the Scottish Executive continue to work with the airline industry to improve the number of flights, and in particular that we take every opportunity to market the positive story of Scotland. Only the Government will do that; the Opposition are united in talking Scotland down.

I am glad to see that BAA and Six Continents hotels were represented in the group that travelled with the right hon. Lady to the far east, and I hope that there will be a consequent increase in the number of people visiting Scotland. However, from her busy diary and in an attempt to talk Scotland up, will she give us some idea what engagements she is expecting to attend to boost tourism? Will she confirm that she is no longer seeking to attract inward investment to Scotland, in line with Wendy Alexander's new policy of supporting only indigenous Scottish businesses?

Once the hon. Lady has rather more experience of Scotland, she may discover that that is not the position of the Scottish Executive. She mentions my diary. I am happy to speak about my diary and the fact that I met a number of businesses in Hong Kong that are anxious to develop in Britain. I was fortunate enough to meet Mr. Li Ka-shing, who has already brought 600 new jobs to Glasgow. I learned this morning that already £1.5 million of new orders have been placed with one Scottish company as a consequence of that visit.

What progress has been made in the development of biotechnology companies in Scotland. [32335]

In biotechnology, Scotland is a world leader. It is a clear success story—the sector is well on track to double in size during the period 1999 to 2003.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the biotechnology industry is notorious for overhyping its achievements. Is not the real picture in Scotland one of small companies, few nominations on the stock exchange, few spin-outs from universities and a lack of Government investment in research and development? The biotechnology industry needs much more investment to reach the standards that we see around one city in England, called Cambridge, or am I wrong?

I hesitate to call such a distinguished doctor of philosophy wrong, but I think I will. Two of the top three recent biotech private financings in Europe were for Scottish companies: Cyclacel, which is run by a Nobel laureate and is doing fantastic work on cancer, raised £35 million, and Strakan raised £30.5 million. The 30 per cent. growth per annum is almost twice the European average. There are 420 organisations involved in biotechnology in Scotland, 24,400 people are employed by the industry, and there are 37 university departments and research institutes. However, as I am willing to listen and to learn, a week on Friday I have arranged to meet 12 of the leading representatives of the biotechnology industry in Scotland, and I will discuss with them the point raised by my hon. Friend.

What is the Minister's view of the impact on biotechnology companies and business development in Scotland generally of the massive increase in the burden of regulation that the Government have imposed on business in Scotland? Does he think that that is positive, and that I, like the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), am wrong?

I have many meetings day after day, week after week, and that is not the first matter that is raised with me by people in Scotland. There are several other important issues. Scotland would not have twice the European average growth in biotechnology if it was over-regulated compared with other countries. If the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints were accurate, we would not have such development in Scotland. Once again, he is trying to pretend something that is not true. Like his Front-Bench colleagues and the Scottish nationalists, he is joining in the chorus of talking Scotland down.

What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [32357]

Since 1 January 2002, 19 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They all raised points under article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial.

But has not the Advocate-General considered the extraordinary story of the Scottish police showering Anthony Gauci, the key prosecution witness in the Lockerbie trial, with hunting, shooting and fishing holidays, five-star holidays—

Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman. That matter is sub judice. Under the sub judice rules, the Advocate-General should not respond to that question.

If she will make a statement about recent European Court of Justice cases which have had an impact upon Scots law. [32359]

The European Court of Justice hears a large number of cases every year raising issues of Community law. Because Community law has a binding effect on the laws of member states, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, any such judgments can have an impact on Scots law.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that comprehensive answer. She will be aware that in Hamilton, South the European Court of Justice is an important and topical subject. How many cases have emanated from Scotland and how many times has she appeared in the European Court of Justice?

Very few cases from Scotland have gone to the European court of justice. The most recent such case is that of Booker Aquaculture, which concerned a reference from the Court of Session that asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on whether the right of property, as recognised by Community law, required that compensation be paid to farmers whose fish had to be destroyed under measures imposed by a Council directive for the control of diseases. Although some of those cases and ruling are highly technical, my hon. Friend is right to think that they are important for his constituents.

What criteria does the Advocate-General use for intervention in the Court of Session? She will be aware that in a recent case, the court was moved to criticise the fact that she had neither appeared nor been represented, although she had said that the case involved a matter of some importance in the context of her responsibilities. Precisely what criteria does she use in determining whether she should intervene?

In the case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, one of the judges took a view with which I would beg to differ. The case concerned an interpretation of a United Kingdom statute. The law in Scotland was perfectly plain according to three judges, and the law in England and Wales was perfectly plain according to the House of Lords.

Order. Sometimes complex matters can be brief.

Pursuant to her oral statement of 15 January, Official Report, column 143, by what means she has sought to clarify the position on the laws on the misuse of drugs in England and Wales. [32360]

In my reply to the hon. Lady last month, I was referring to the devolution issue case of Robert McIntosh, in which I appeared personally before the Privy Council last year. Brief it was not; it took a couple of days at least. The case concerned statutory assumptions as to the source of property, and the compatibility of those assumptions with human rights. The case was relevant to the law of England and Wales, because their legislation makes similar assumptions, which, at the same time, was subject to legal proceedings domestically—the Rezvi and Benjafield cases—and, in the European Court of Human Rights, the Phillips case. I am pleased to report that the Privy Council agreed that the Scottish legislation was compatible with human rights. That was a case in which I determined that it would be helpful to intervene.

As far as I know, Robert McIntosh is no relation of mine. To what extent can the Advocate-General assure the House that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will continue to be interpreted in the way that it should be in England, Wales and Scotland? What discussions has she had with her opposite number who represents England and Wales in that regard? What added value does she believe that she brings to this process?

The McIntosh case helped to clarify the law, particularly when the Privy Council overruled the decision of the Appeal Court in Scotland, which reached a different decision from that in the Benjafield case, for example. I am aware and concerned when similar cases to those in Scotland arise in England and Wales, and I shall take a great interest in Scottish cases to ensure that we reach a satisfactory end result.

If he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Monmouth county court. [32365]

The Lord Chancellor has authorised the closure of Monmouth county court with effect from 1 April 2002. His decision followed a public consultation process and a detailed evaluation by the court service of the work load, facilities and services provided by courts in that area. Arrangements have been made for weekly hearings to take place in High Trees, a building in Chepstow owned by Monmouthshire county council, which is also used by the magistrates court.

There is great disappointment at the decision to close Monmouth county court, but there is also an acknowledgement that the current facilities in the shire hall are inadequate, and that there is no access for people with disabilities. Given that it is hoped that the shire hall will have a major refurbishment, will my hon. Friend consider returning the county court to that site, if it is in a decent state of repair, so that we can return the administration of justice to Monmouth after centuries of the fine administration of justice there?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend some reassurance on that matter. I understand his intense concern, and that of his constituents, and I pay tribute to his campaigning on the matter. Unfortunately, we have not been able to arrange for hearings to be held in Monmouth in the same way that they have been arranged for Chepstow, because, at the moment, we cannot find a suitable venue in Monmouth that fulfils the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—which comes into force in 2004—and that meets the security needs of the judges. Should that situation change and a suitable venue be found, of course we shall review the situation.

With regard to the closure of Monmouth county court and the Government's policy on court closure across the land, will the Minister bear it in mind that these decisions are sometimes based on figures that suggest a saving, whereas the outcome turns out to be far more expensive, as was the case in Derbyshire, where the Lord Chancellor closed a number of magistrates courts and the cost is now substantially greater?

I should be happy to see any detailed figures that the hon. Gentleman would care to provide me with. He is well aware, however, that the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for the magistrates courts committees, which make such decisions in accordance with the needs of their local area, but if he would like to write to me and provide me with more details, I should be happy to consider anything he sends me.

If she will make a statement on appeals against refusals of visit visas to family members of UK residents. [32366]

This Government reinstated the right of appeal against refusals of visitor visas to family members of UK residents on 2 October 2000. In the 14 months since the introduction of the appeal right, the Immigration Appellate Authority received 4,975 appeals, 53 per cent. of which were successful at the adjudicator stage. The review report on the operation of the family visitor appeals scheme will be published shortly.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The high success rate for appellants in oral hearings—more than 70 per cent. in certain months—suggests that bad initial decisions were taken. What plans does she have to involve adjudicators in preparing information for entry clearance officers to improve the quality of first-stage decisions, so that families need not suffer the distress and expense of appealing against such decisions?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The review process will examine how the system works from start to finish, and I can assure her that we are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish the role that entry clearance officers should play and whether improvements can be made. We should also examine the information provided to applicants on first going to entry clearance posts and the advice to them on what information they should provide for those initial decisions.

Will the Minister take account of the fact that figures published last October, when the Government last made an announcement on the matter, showed a variation in successful appeals? In November 2000, 18 per cent. were successful, but 45 per cent. were successful in July 2001. Will she be good enough to explain how that can happen, and does not such variation demonstrate the need for greater coherence in the way that such decisions are taken and the criteria given to courts to enable them to reach sensible decisions?

The whole point of what we are doing is to review the system and all such factors will be taken into account. For example, we are examining the differing success rates of paper and oral appeals. We are looking at the process from start to finish, and as the Home Secretary said last week, the results will be announced shortly. They will take into account the various factors that I have outlined and the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

In constituencies such as Aberdeen, the full range of family members visit surgeries to discuss such matters, and in that respect I have noticed a difference. A relative who is affluent and owns property in their own country will probably be granted a visa first time, but it is very difficult for someone from an impoverished background to secure a visa, even on appeal. My experience therefore suggests a problem. It is far harder for those from poorer backgrounds to visit this country—they are often automatically rejected because they have no home to return to. Are the Government looking into that issue, and can such discrimination be eliminated from the visa system and the appeals system?

The review will examine the way in which the system works and all aspects of it. Of course, legal help is available for people from poorer backgrounds to enable them to challenge initial decisions. None the less, I take on board my hon. Friend's point and I shall liaise with colleagues in other Departments to see whether anything can be done, perhaps through further research into the matter.

Does the Minister agree that legal help is not always applicable, because the folk concerned cannot get in touch with a particular legal adviser and must chase around from one adviser to another? There is also the reverse problem, which affects people in this country who require visas to visit relatives in other countries. A constituent of mine has a scholarship to go to Africa in March, but is still waiting for a visa. Every time we contacted the authorities, we were told, "We will sort it out as soon as we can and when everything is complete." However, they told us as long ago as last November that everything was indeed complete. Nevertheless, there is still no visa.

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the case he has raised, I will certainly look into it.

What progress has been made in appointing more people from the Warrington, North constituency to the magistracy in Warrington. [32370]

There is no shortage of magistrates on the Warrington Bench; neither is there a shortage of magistrates from the Warrington, North constituency. However, there has been a slight decline in the number of magistrates from Warrington, North, from 59 per cent. of the total in 1997 to 57 per cent. now.

The problem in my constituency is recruitment from the poorer areas, which suffer the most crime. Is it not vital to the administration of justice for such areas to have representation on the Bench? Will the Minister consider running pilot projects to encourage people from those areas to apply, and also to help them with the interviewing process—or to establish why they do not get through the process when they do apply?

The Department is deeply sensitive to those important points. We will shortly launch a national recruitment strategy that will take them all into account. I look forward to working with colleagues on these matters, and to making progress.

I note that it is as difficult to find people with low incomes who are prepared to serve as magistrates in Warrington as it is to find such people elsewhere. It is very important for us to have a representative lay magistracy. Is the Department considering paying magistrates a reasonable sum, in Warrington and elsewhere, and appointing them for a period of, say, 10 years, which would not be renewable?

Of course we must take account of financial loss when recruiting magistrates, and we do take it seriously, but there is no pressing evidence that potential magistrates are being deterred by financial hardship. There is nevertheless a great deal of concern about the issue, and we are looking into it. If it became apparent that there was a real, widespread problem, we would of course consider what research was needed to get to the bottom of it and what action should subsequently be taken.

When he expects work to start on building the new courthouse at Colchester. [32371]

It is planned that the work should start in early to mid-2004.

There is grave concern about the possibility that the introduction of the private finance initiative will cause the company involved to be more interested in profit than in the prestige of the building. Can the Minister assure us that the PFI courthouse will be a building of which we can be proud, rather than just a profit generator for the company running it?

As the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric suggests, he is well aware of the truth. The idea is to produce a new courthouse for Colchester, and a number of new courthouses throughout the country. No new courthouses have been built since 1992. The Department is currently supporting the building of 12 new courthouses, and I think that that is something of which we can all be proud.

What estimates his Department has made of the costs of the proposals by Lord Justice Auld for reorganisation of the criminal courts in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32373]

Estimates of costs will be made in the light of decisions that will be taken following the consultation on the report of Lord Justice Auld, which ended on 31 January. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, these decisions have not yet been taken and the Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the patent confusion that exists, as we know from information found in a pub off St. James's park, what is driving the Government's response to the Auld report? Is it cost savings or the interests of justice?

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, our response to the Auld review is driven by our manifesto commitments and the results of the very wide consultation that we have just finished.

What consideration he is giving to bringing the operation of the royal prerogative under parliamentary scrutiny. [32380]

The royal prerogative is usually exercised by Ministers or on their advice. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their decisions, but I am always open to constructive ideas on strengthening scrutiny.

I am rather disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply. Given his reforming zeal to make the Executive accountable to Parliament, I had hoped that, at the very least, the absolute power of kings, transferred to the absolute power of Ministers, would finally be brought to public account. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals to ensure that every decision taken under the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister or any other Minister is openly and immediately reported to the House, open to debate and open to a vote before it can be taken to its completion? That would be a start in ensuring that democracy in Britain really works and that the Executive are accountable to the elected representatives of the people.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. I thought that I had crafted an open and welcoming answer on which my hon. Friend could build. I repeat that Ministers are accountable to this place. There can be no question of the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Crown acting under the royal prerogative in a way that is unacceptable to the House of Commons. They would be very quickly brought to book by the House, and rightly so.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the use of the royal prerogative by Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister? In view of almost daily revelations about lobbying, favours and cash for coronets, will the Leader of the House consider the introduction of an ethical Question Time so that we can look at the moral ethics of Ministers when they use the royal prerogative?

I am not sure quite how that supplementary arises from the matter in hand. We had extended discussions on party funding in the last Parliament. It was, after all, this Government who introduced legislation to make sure that party funding is transparent, open and accountable and can be received only by those in Britain. We are pleased with what we have done to clean up the act of party funding. It is a matter of great regret that Conservative Members did nothing about it in their 18 years of power.

The Prime Minister's considerable powers rest largely on the royal prerogative. Why does he refuse to appear before the Select Committee on Public Administration to account for the decisions that he takes under those prerogative powers? I ask my right hon. Friend to intercede with the Prime Minister, ask him to break with precedent and come before the Public Administration Committee, where we will give him a gentle ride.

I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's reference to a gentle ride. I am sure that we can build on that for the future in his relations with the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet.

If he will encourage the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to review the layout of the Chamber in Westminster Hall. [32381]

): The Modernisation Committee has to consider the Westminster Hall experiment in the course of this Session, and will gladly consider any representations that hon. Members wish to make about the layout of the Chamber, or any other matter.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I wish to encourage the Committee to consult more widely among Members. Other people may have shared my sense of surprise when, following an intervention from a Member—admittedly, a very senior one—the layout of Westminster Hall was suddenly changed. Many of us felt that the original layout was greatly preferable, and I want to ensure that there is proper consultation before we get stuck with the present arrangements.

I understand that many Members preferred the original arrangement, on the grounds that it provided for a more consensual approach to debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Many other Members clearly prefer the current arrangements. Both the original and the present arrangements were part of an experiment and, through the Modernisation Committee, we shall have the opportunity to review both parts of that experiment before deciding how to take things forward.

Does the Minister accept that, partly because of its layout, Westminster Hall has been a triumphant success? [Interruption.] That is true despite the misgivings of a tiny minority of Conservatives—in fact I think that it is now a minority of one. The success is largely due to the more consensual atmosphere that has developed, and the fact that all Members can hold Ministers to account in Westminster Hall. Does the Minister think that there may be some lesson to be learned about the layout of this Chamber, which is clearly out of date and presents the entirely anachronistic fiction of a two-party confrontational conflict, which is no longer the case in the 21st century?

I shall tread carefully in answering that question; I do not know whether the Liberal Democrats are offering to sit in the Gallery, but we do not have a great deal of spare space in this Chamber at the moment. I welcome the fact that the Conservative party appears to have changed its mind about Westminster Hall; I understand from press reports today that it now accepts the idea. When Westminster Hall was first proposed, the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), described it as a godforsaken sideshow.

indicated assent.

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. He appears not to have changed his mind, but I understand that many other Conservative Members have changed theirs.

As the number of requests from Back-Bench Members for Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall is now much larger than the number of available slots, will my hon. Friend also consider the possibility of recommending an increase in the time available there, to reflect the clear popularity of the innovation among Members?

In the memorandum that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House submitted to the Modernisation Committee shortly before Christmas, he set out plans for providing more opportunities for shorter debates, both on the Floor of the House and elsewhere. I am sure that the Select Committee will bear my hon. Friend's representations in mind as its work proceeds.

It is extremely dangerous to disagree with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but may I do so? As one of those who has the duty of chairing sittings in Westminster Hall, I believe that the current layout is extremely satisfactory, not only for Members but also for the many visitors, the staff and the Government advisers who serve Ministers. Will the Minister accept it from me that with the current layout it is much easier to identify Members, which is important to ensure that Members of all parties have the opportunity to participate in the excellent debates in Westminster Hall, which has been a great success?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in chairing debates in Westminster Hall. Certainly the intervention that he has made today, drawing on his experience, will be taken into account, along with what my hon. Friends have said.

What plans he has for a fuller utilisation of information and communications technology in processes of the House of Commons. [32382]

I hope that the House will make full use of ICT in its work. I understand that the Information Committee is to undertake an inquiry into the use of ICT, and I hope that we can draw upon its work.

Does the Minister agree that the wholesale abstention by younger voters in June 2001 was at least partly rooted in their sense of detachment from an institution widely seen as mired in an era of quill pens and hansom cabs? Does he believe that there is potential for e-democracy to reconnect this place with the electorate, by promoting and improving the consultation with them on the matters that we debate?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, although I suspect that he has not yet persuaded the shadow Leader of the House. Clearly, we face a serious challenge in reconnecting young people with politics. As my hon. Friend may be aware, there is now a Cabinet committee on e-democracy. It will address many of the issues that have been raised. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House chairs that committee.

What proposals he plans to make to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on electronic voting in Divisions. [32383]

In my memorandum on modernisation, I posed the question whether views in the House on electronic voting had changed since hon. Members were consulted in the previous Parliament. I stressed in the memorandum that any acceptable form of electronic voting must require hon. Members to attend the Division in person, but that electronic voting could have the advantage of removing the need for multiple Divisions.

I thank the Leader of the House for that reply. Does he agree that one reason why Opposition Members value voting in person is that it is the one time of day when we can be sure of meeting as many of our colleagues and senior spokesmen as possible? Much can be carried out when we all know that we will meet at one place and one time. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that view is shared by Labour Members, or are Government Back Benchers and Ministers rather more reluctant to meet than their shadow counterparts?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into why Opposition Members prefer the present voting system. Given the present size of the official Opposition, I think that there are a number of halls in the building that could now accommodate them.

I accept all the important points that my right hon. Friend has made about electronic voting. Even though party Whips might not like the idea, does he also accept that we should consider whether any electronic system should be able to record an abstention?

My hon. Friend raises an important element of the debate. Indeed, the Modernisation Committee examined the subject in the previous Parliament and posed the same question. Plainly, the more modern and flexible the House is when it comes to voting systems, the more options are available. I still have an open mind on the question, but I believe that the House should be willing to explore ways in which we might make a modest advance in the way that we vote, which at present is based on the principle of the sheepfold.

What representations he has received on the alteration of timing of questions to the Prime Minister. [32384]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had many discussions on his proposals for reforming the hours of this House, and those consultations will continue.

I am most grateful for that elegant reply. I wish to make a plea on behalf of those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north of country. Will the Government oppose any proposal to move Prime Minister's Question Time to a slot before lunch, such as 12 noon or earlier? Many constituents have to travel a long way to attend Prime Minister's Question Time, which is now held on only one day each week. It would be extremely regrettable if further obstacles were put in their way in that respect.

The aim of the proposed reforms is to increase the effectiveness of the House as a whole, and to ensure that all hon. Members benefit, irrespective of the location of their constituencies. I understand the hon. Lady's concerns as they might apply to the start time on a Monday, which we are not proposing to change, or to our finish time on a Thursday or Friday. [Horn. MEMBERS: "For visitors.") I understand that the hon. Lady's question had to do with constituents. Constituents will want to visit the House at many different times during the week, and that is a factor that must be borne in mind. We propose that the House's hours on Wednesday mirror those on Thursday. It is fair to say that constituents are still able to visit the House on a Thursday, and that the experiment with the hours on Thursday has proved to be very successful. [Interruption.] Clearly, not all hon. Members share that view. The debate will continue in the Modernisation Committee, and it will come back to the House once that Committee has reached a view.

To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on progress in appointing the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [32386]

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 6 February 2002, the House of Commons Commission has nominated for the post Mr. Philip Mawer, at present the Secretary General of the General Synod of the Church of England and Secretary General of the Archbishop's Council. That nomination is subject to the approval of the House, and the Leader of the House has indicated that the motion will be before the House tomorrow, 13 February.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but will he confirm that the existing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin, carried out her duties in a conscientious way and was impartial in investigating cases? Is he aware that many of us, certainly myself, believe that she has been, in effect, fired for carrying out her duties in that way? She has been a splendid public servant and it is most unfortunate that she is leaving in such circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I do not share it. I refer him to the nomination paper that will be before the House tomorrow when the motion is moved to appoint her successor. At paragraph 5, it says:

"The House of Commons Commission would like to record its appreciation of Ms Filkin's dedication to work of the House. She has successfully brought a number of complex inquiries to a conclusion. Coupled with the Standards and Privileges Committee's consideration of reports presented to them, her work has fully validated the system of parliamentary self-regulation established following the recommendation of the first Nolan report."