If she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland. [57379]

The operation of postal services in Scotland is a matter for the board of Consignia, subject to the conditions determined by the postal regulator, Postcomm.

Perhaps I can be the first to welcome the Under-Secretary to her new post among the matriarchy on the Government Front Bench. She represents the town of Stirling, as her constituency name indicates, but she also represents my home town of Dunblane; it is a shame that the constituency name does not show that. I am sure that she will do a fine job in her new post.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was worried that when I rose to speak today the House would empty, given that I normally move the Adjournment.

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I welcome the change from Postcomm and a great deal of credit for that has to go to hon. Members across the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who met Postcomm and the trade unions.

I, too, congratulate the Minister, and I welcome her to her post on behalf of my party. I also associate myself with her remarks concerning her predecessor.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments.

As one who shared a Capstan Full Strength office with her father for several years, I join in the expressions of pleasure at my hon. Friend's appointment.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. In the interests of health, I should say that Capstan Full Strength do not do one any good, and my father paid a penalty for smoking them over a long period. I know that he is sitting on a cloud somewhere laughing at that comment.

I, too, congratulate the new Minister on her elevation, and I hope that she will add to the honourable tradition of Members for Stirling in ministerial office. She talked about rural communities feeling secure about their postal services. Perhaps she has not yet had time to read of the petition signed by 500 residents of Newton Stewart expressing concern about their postal services. Has she made any assessment of the effect of closing post offices in rural communities? Does it accord with the remarks of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee that there would be "severe adverse consequences"? Will the Government's half-baked reforms and the consequent suppression of competition continue to centralise postal services in Scotland?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I trust that he is talking about Lord Ewing when he refers to predecessors in the Scotland Office. I assure him that I am not seeking to emulate the fate of my immediate predecessor in the constituency.

What consultations she had with ministerial colleagues on the Budget changes to North sea oil and gas taxation. [57380]

I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters, including fiscal matters, affecting Scottish interests. Budget decisions are of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on reaching her new position, and I also congratulate Ireland on reaching the next stage of the World cup finals.

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.

Representations to the Chancellor—

Order. It is time to sit down.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The decisions that the Chancellor has taken in relation to North sea fiscal policy should not have come as any great surprise. In 1998, when the oil and gas industry taskforce was being established, the Chancellor undertook a review of the North sea fiscal regime, and pointed out that he was considering petroleum revenue tax and a supplement on corporation tax. When the oil price dropped to $10 a barrel, the Chancellor made it clear that for the duration of the Parliament he would not take any action in respect of the North sea fiscal regime, but would keep the matter under review.

Order. I call Mr. Connarty.

I was enjoying that answer because it was so comprehensive.

It was better than the question.

Yes, it certainly was.

Order. This is a supplementary question, and the Secretary of State will try to answer it.

This is a complicated issue and I apologise for spending time on it. Naturally, the industry does not like paying additional taxation, but it has a much higher rate of return—some 34.3 per cent., compared with 11.2 per cent.—than all other non-financial companies. The Chancellor made it clear in the Budget statement that he is trying to bring about stability in the North sea fiscal regime. Indeed, the taxation changes are designed to ensure that companies that invest in the North sea pay less tax, and that those that do not do so pay more. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I find that very attractive. I find equally attractive the fact that the money is being used to ensure better health care in Scotland—something that my party has argued for, and delivered, for some time.

I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary, and my commiserations to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I was glad that I was able to congratulate him on his forthcoming wedding anniversary in good time. I also welcome the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to what is possibly one of his last appearances at Question Time before he moves to Holyrood.

One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position that the Tories just make numbers up, and that is what the hon. Lady is doing and what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just done. The taxation regime is balanced. It includes the 10 per cent. supplementary charge on corporation tax that takes into account the profitability of the UK continental shelf companies. It includes a first-year allowance of 100 per cent., which means that marginal fields will pay less tax, and it also commits to setting a date for the abolition of royalties.

The 18,000 people who may lose their jobs will not necessarily find that their health improves. Will the right hon. Lady leave behind her previous role as energy Minister and concentrate on her role as Secretary of State for Scotland? In all her answers, she has not made it clear whether she represented the views of Scotland to the Chancellor or, as usual, she was the Cabinet's voice in Scotland. Will she clarify that point?

I am Scotland's voice in the United Kingdom Cabinet, which has more Scots in it than the Scottish National party has sitting on the Benches. The Budget is in the best interests of Scotland, because Scotland's health record is one of the worst in Europe. We have to improve the health of the people of Scotland as well as improve the economy, and that is the reasoning behind the Chancellor's sensible Budget.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the record profits made by multinational oil corporations such as Shell and BP? Is not the Chancellor right to tax them appropriately? However, does my right hon. Friend share the disappointment felt in the highlands, and in Scotland as a whole, about the loss of the BP Clair platform to Norway? Will she join my campaign to investigate the details of the Norwegian bid?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign to secure the Clair jacket, for Nigg in particular. The decision was a commercial one, but I hope that greater concentration will now be put on getting subcontract work from the Clair jacket to ensure continuation of supply employment in Scotland.

Order. The views of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) are nothing to do with the right hon. Lady. She is here to answer for the Executive, and she should do so.

What representations she has made to each Government Department concerning their provision of information on Council of the European Union meetings to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. [57381]

The provision of information to the Scottish Parliament is a matter for the Scottish Executive, who are involved in all relevant discussions in relation to European matters.

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. At a time when the Government are stressing the importance of accountability, democracy and subsidiarity in European Union matters, does she agree that Scotland has a democratic deficit in that area, especially when one considers the conclusions of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee that was published this morning? The report states:

"It is a matter of concern that not all information about EU discussions relevant to the devolved administrations and legislatures has been forwarded to them by UK Departments."

The Government will respond to the report in due course. However, I attended the meeting this morning of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, with the Deputy First Minister. I have received no representations from the Scottish Executive regarding any unhappiness about the availability of information on European Councils. The hon. Gentleman seeks always to push Scotland to the periphery of Europe. It is my job, and the Government's job, to ensure that Scotland remains in the mainstream in Europe.

What devolution issues have been raised since 30 April under the Scotland Act 1998. [57404]

What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [57405]

What devolution issues have been raised since 30 April under the Scotland Act 1998 relating to human rights. [57406]

Since 30 April, 33 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They have involved a variety of matters, mostly concerning the right to a fair trial under the European convention on human rights.

I congratulate the Minister on retaining her post. As a result, we can continue to hold her to account at these monthly Question Times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow leader of the House, is present, and I am sure that he will support me in asking whether she has made progress with the modernisation plans that would allow an extension of this Question Time. At present, we have the minimal period of five minutes. An extension would help to make the Minister totally accountable to the House.

I am delighted that there is still support for further time to question me. That sits rather uneasily with those Opposition Members who feel that there is no role for the Advocate-General. However, the determination of the length of Question Time is a matter for the House, not for me.

What has been, or is likely to be, the Advocate-General's involvement in the ongoing saga of the Megrahi case? Yesterday, Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa, called for the matter to be referred to the Privy Council. Does the Advocate-General have no role in the matter, or is her role secret?

My role is not a secret at all. The Scotland Act 1998 makes it plain that I have no role in connection with prosecution matters, which are entirely for the Lord Advocate. As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has other relationships to deal with. If further legal proceedings were begun, it is possible that a devolution issue might arise. If so, that would be intimated to me in the normal course of events, under the rules of the Scotland Act.

Given that President Mandela asked that there should be an appeal, will my hon. Friend the Minister use her good offices with the Crown Office to accede to the request from Mr. Eddie McKechnie, Megrahi's lawyer, that a moratorium be placed on the handing over of crucial artefacts? What is the hurry about handing them over, after 13 years? What does the Crown Office have to hide in the matter?

The Lord Advocate, and through him the Crown Office, are responsible to the Scottish Parliament and to the courts. There is no role for me in relation to the way in which the Lord Advocate exercises discretion. If my hon. Friend wishes to make representations to the Lord Advocate, that option is open to him.

With regard to devolution issues, have any cases been referred to my hon. and learned Friend that allege delay in criminal proceedings? Will she relate that to possible breaches of the ECHR?

I have indeed had many intimations about delay in criminal proceedings as alleged contraventions of the ECHR. The number of such cases runs into the hundreds, about 50 per cent. of which raise those issues. Because of the number of cases intimated to me, for a number of days recently I was involved in a test case, at which I appeared personally to deal with those legal issues. The Appeal Court has given a decision in that case, and the representations that I made were successful. However, a further appeal to the Privy Council is to be mounted, and I shall be dealing with that in due course.

What measures she is taking to improve value for money in her Department. [57407]

As the first Advocate-General for Scotland, I have been keen to ensure the most efficient use of public money, and I think that this has been achieved. My office provides a range of legal services to Government Departments, including litigation, advisory work, preparation of legislation and formal Law Officer opinions, and it does all that with 19 lawyers plus support staff. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my officials and I give very good value for money.

Would the Advocate-General care to comment on reports that came to my office recently that she had a full set of session cases transported from Edinburgh to London simply for the purpose of a photo opportunity and that it was then repacked and sent back to Edinburgh? Is that the case and, if so, does she consider that to be value for money?

It certainly was not a photo opportunity involving me. I have no knowledge of that. [Interruption.]

Order.

What steps the Department is taking to extend legal advice for the socially excluded. [57408]

Lack of access to reliable legal advice can be a major factor in creating and maintaining social exclusion. Community legal service partnerships are therefore being established in order to plan and co-ordinate local legal services more effectively. The work of the community legal service partnerships is making a real difference to communities across England and Wales, particularly to those living in some of the most deprived areas.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the Government's approach. Does she agree that it is vital that legal advice is available to people such as my constituent from Gleadless, who came to my surgery on Saturday, so that she can challenge the loan company which says that she now owes £22,000 on a loan of £7,000 taken out 11 years ago?

My hon. Friend is quite right that the spiral of financial difficulties in which people sometimes find themselves could be avoided if they had proper debt counselling at an early stage, particularly to stop them falling into the hands of loan sharks, as her constituent obviously has done. The community legal service in Sheffield has received Government money to improve access to advice and information, particularly aimed at socially excluded communities and individuals. That includes making sure that people know exactly where they can obtain advice about the kind of debt problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted. I hope that that will improve the situation in her area.

Will the hon. Lady send a warm welcome to the Department to her fellow Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)?

My hon. Friend may well have done that already.

Indeed.

I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's welcome to my hon. Friend. He is right that it is important to keep smaller firms involved within the community legal service partnerships, and there have been some good examples of that. In terms of ensuring proper access, we have almost achieved 100 per cent. coverage of legal service partnerships throughout the country, which is way ahead of schedule. That is an important means of ensuring that people have access to legal advice, particularly those who may have been excluded in the past. I certainly agree that it is important to ensure that private sector solicitors are involved in those partnerships with us.

I note what my hon. Friend said about access to the right information, which is fundamentally important in ensuring that people who seek help receive reliable information. May I draw her attention to the work of the Medway community legal services partnership, which has developed in a number of ways? I draw her attention especially to the document in my hand—the referral handbook—which is useful to us all, not only Members of Parliament, but other bodies who help people seeking advice, such as the person to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) referred. The document has been developed by the Medway CLS to identify the available services and the clientele that they might serve. It shows where legal services are available through the CLS and where the quality mark exists. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary look at the document as an example of best practice?

I know that my hon. Friend has been extremely supportive of his local CLS partnership. It is important that Members of Parliament show such support, as it often helps to make the partnerships successful. The booklet to which he refers is an excellent example of good practice by a partnership. I certainly agree that it is important that we ensure that other partnerships are aware of such good practice. One of the ways that my Department is considering assisting that process is by funding innovative projects throughout the country, especially through the partnership innovation bids. My hon. Friend might like to draw the attention of his partnership to that fund.

What representations the Lord Chancellor has received on the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on hospital chaplaincy. [57409]

Five hon. Members have written on behalf of constituents about the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 on hospital chaplains. The hospital chaplaincies council of the Church of England will shortly meet officials in my Department.

I welcome the Minister to her new position. Does she agree that hospital chaplaincy provides a vital service to many thousands of people who are in severe need of help and support? Does she share my concern that an over-zealous interpretation of the Data Protection Act is standing in the way of the work of hospital chaplains? Will she undertake to consider whether changes to the legislation are necessary in order to allow chaplaincies to carry out their functions properly?

I agree that hospital chaplains can provide a vital service of spiritual support and care to many people in hospitals who want it. It is important that patients who want that support should be able to get it.

May I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities? I got on extremely well with her predecessor and I trust that we shall be able to maintain that, even with all the necessary opposition that we shall bring to bear on her Department.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming words. I, too, look forward to working with him. To understand what issues he was interested in and might be keen to raise, I inquired what parliamentary questions he had tabled previously. I drew a blank, however, as he has not asked any written parliamentary questions of the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1997, although he has asked many questions of the Foreign Office.

If he will make a statement about the fees for enduring powers of attorney. [57410]

In its report on the Public Trust Office, the Public Accounts Committee was highly critical of fees paid by some clients subsidising different services used by others, and of the pattern of cost recovery. Fees for Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 cases were changed on 17 April 2002. The new fees mean that EPA clients no longer receive subsidy from users of other services provided by the Public Guardianship Office, and that fees are set to recover costs. Improved remissions guidelines make sure that less well-off EPA clients pay less than before the fees were changed, or pay nothing at all.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she give an undertaking to the House to publish a yearly total of the number of EPA registrations, to enable us to see whether the recent trebling of the registration fee is acting as a disincentive to vulnerable people?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, so far, the number of registrations has not altered since the fees were changed. About 11,000 EPAs were registered last year, and, so far, the figures seem to be similar. I shall investigate whether the figures can be published. I am not sure whether they are published in the annual report, and I shall consider whether we can do that.

On 3 April this year, in reply to my written question, the Minister made it clear that

"No date has yet been set for the introduction of changes to the fees charged by the Public Guardianship Office"—[Official Report, 3 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 1036W.]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I became aware of the situation, and he is right that by the time the written answer to which he refers appeared in Hansard, it was out of date. I discovered only yesterday what had happened, and I take this opportunity—I spoke to the hon. Gentleman earlier about this—to say that I am extremely sorry for unintentionally misleading the House. I know that my noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland has acknowledged the error in another place. Although my written answer was formulated in good faith, I hope that hon. Members will accept that I am sorry for the error, and I welcome the opportunity today to correct the matter for the parliamentary record.

When work will start on a new courthouse in Colchester. [57411]

I understand that work on building the new courthouse in Colchester is planned to start in early 2005.

Will the Minister confirm that the additional delay in building the new courthouse has been caused by the nonsense of putting all the court services in Essex in the same private finance initiative basket, and by problems elsewhere in Essex?

The magistrates courts committee has to decide about the programme of work and investment in courts in Colchester and the surrounding area. The hon. Gentleman will know that Thurrock borough council has appealed against the MCC decision to close the Grays courthouse. That decision and an appeal against it need to be considered. Ministers have to take account of all the factors raised by both the council and the MCC. However, it is important that the programme of work continues and, as I said, we expect work on the new courthouse to start in 2005.

If he will bring forward proposals for improving the procedures for discussing EU legislation and for considering EU expenditure in the House. [57423]

The House has already implemented almost all the Modernisation Committee's recommendations of the last Parliament on this issue and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider carefully today's report from the European Scrutiny Committee. It and its sister Committee in the other place play an important role in examining EU legislation and expenditure.

Does it not worry the Minister that the European Union, to which we send more than £1 million every hour, has become such an uncontrolled centre of graft and corruption? The most recent examples of that are the awarding of grants for more than twice the number of sheep and goats that actually exist in Italy, and a massive grant to a gentleman from Essex, although not from Southend, to help to provide prostitutes in Hungary with guidance—money that he has spent on buying a new house and two new cars.

The whole House will agree that the common agricultural policy needs radical reform. However, if the hon. Gentleman is alleging criminal activity, he should report that to the police. As I said, we in this House and Members of the other place have two effective Committees. I have served on one of them, and they do an excellent job of scrutinising the expenditure and decision making in Brussels that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Does he think that there is further room for exploring how we can subject the decisions of the European Central Bank to greater scrutiny, especially as we hope that those might have more direct relevance to the economy of the United Kingdom in a year's time? Has he received specific advice from Mr. Rupert Murdoch about how we might examine legislation on European matters?

In the few days that I have been in my present job, I have not had time to receive such advice. I agree, however, that the European Central Bank has much to learn from the workings of our central bank, which have been extremely successful.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. He was doing a good job in his previous post and I cannot understand why he was moved.

I cannot speak for my colleague in the Foreign Office, but colleagues of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will have an opportunity to scrutinise my right hon. Friend on this very subject when he appears before the House of Lords European Union Select Committee on 9 July.

What assessment he has made of the selection process for people's peers; and what plans he has to amend the forthcoming roadshow. [57424]

The Appointments Commission has brought new transparency to the selection of independent peers. As part of that process of transparency, there was a presentation in a number of cities before the first round of appointments. I am not aware of any plans that the commission may have for a forthcoming roadshow. The whole point of the Appointments Commission is to be an independent body, and Ministers are not involved in the way in which it conducts its business.

The reason offered last time for the selection of seven knights and three professors was that if a waitress or a bus conductor had been selected, they would not have had the confidence to address the House of Lords. One in three of the new peers have spoken only once, in their maiden speech. As a former bus conductor married to a former waitress, may I assure the House that people from humble professions are likely to speak more often than the professors and the knights, and possibly to greater effect?

I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says about what he calls humble professions, and I fully agree that the evidence in this Chamber is that the Members from those professions speak at great length and at as much length as any other Member. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend does justice to those who were appointed. They did, after all, include the chief executive of Centre Point, a former chief executive of Childline and a trustee of Oxfam, and those personalities would not necessarily have been appointed under the previous arrangement. The Government deserve credit for having given up the right of patronage so that independent peers could be appointed, and for ensuring that they are appointed independently of Government.

Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that he and the Government will not seek to replicate that system of appointment if and when the second Chamber is revised and reformed? Is he aware of the grilling that was given to the Chairman of the Appointments Commission on 24 January by the Public Administration Committee, during which he admitted not only that a number of those appointed as so-called people's peers had never spoken, but that some of them never even turned up?

Yes!

I notice that my hon. Friend supports that point.

Will the Leader of the House, when he leaves the Chamber, ask his assistants to dig out the Hansard record of the first Prime Minister's Question Time after the general election? He will see there that I drew the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that Sir Herman Ouseley was part of the selection process for the chairman of that wonderful, independent and transparent selection panel, but he was also an applicant, and by enormous coincidence he was selected out of the 3,000 people who applied to be a people's peer.

My hon. Friend was never one to mince his words, and he has spoken with the candour that earned him a place in this Chamber. He expresses a view for which I have much sympathy—we require root and branch reform of the second Chamber. The Government have acted to make sure that Parliament is in the driving seat and can decide the route of that reform.

Is it not a fact that the scheme was sold to the country on the basis that ordinary people from everyday walks of life would be elevated, independently, to the upper House? Is it not also a fact that the sort of people who have been put there as people's peers under the scheme are simply those who would normally be put there under the usual category of Labour party cronies?

I have no evidence that the chief executive of Centre Point or the former chief executive of Childline are, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, Labour cronies. They earned their appointment by their contribution to British society and to the voluntary service; I should have thought that he would respect that.

May I make a constructive suggestion? In view of the newspaper stories, accurate or otherwise, that Mick Jagger may be knighted, might it be possible to make Mr. Jagger one of the people's peers—if only for his outstanding performances, which are an encouragement to all of us of a certain age?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion, which I suspect has done nothing to dampen speculation—for which there is, as far as I am aware, no basis—that Mick Jagger is about to be knighted and may be put in the House of Lords.

What proposals he will make to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the matter of the use of electronic equipment in Standing Committees of the House. [57425]

The Modernisation Committee currently has a heavy programme, but I am aware of concerns about the use of electronic equipment in Standing Committees and will keep them in mind for the future, while bearing in mind also the clearly expressed views of the Chairmen's Panel.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bearing the matter in mind for future work by the Modernisation Committee. Currently, the rules are unclear about what electronic equipment may or may not be brought into a Standing Committee. On the other hand, Ministers mention websites and refer hon. Members to them, even though the rules mean that there is no way that we can use modern electronic equipment to communicate with the outside world from a Committee Room. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to sort the matter out. The House has invested heavily in information technology, and we should be able to use portable computers in Committee to help us to hold the Executive to account.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. He has raised the issue before during oral questions, and it is one that the Modernisation Committee must address when it has time. However, I put it to him that there is not only one simple conclusion or one simple set of arguments. The members of the Chairmen's Panel have considered the issue on several occasions and they are reluctant to admit portable laptops and other electronic equipment to Committee proceedings, for the simple reason that once they have been introduced it is not possible to he sure that they are being used to further an interest in those proceedings, rather than an interest in other things going on in the world, such as English football and the World cup.

I hesitate to mention the word e-mail because I know that it is not popular these days, but should we not try to emulate bodies such as the National Assembly for Wales—

No.

In the Assembly and the other new devolved bodies, that sort of technology is freely available to Members in meetings, so that they can check statistics and facts and communicate with the outside world. Incidentally, both the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and I attended the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill this morning; no one there was seeking England football team results, but a number of text messages relating to the Ireland football team were passed around.

My hon. Friend's last sentence confirms the point that I made earlier. I am all in favour of our using e-mail when it can speed up a process, and I hope that the forthcoming report of the Procedure Committee will open the way to our using e-mail in the tabling of questions. That will enable those hon. Members who wish to use modern communications to do so, and leave the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others who do not wish to do so entirely free to use a pencil and yellow paper.

If he will bring forward proposals to improve the effectiveness of the system of oral parliamentary questions. [57426]

The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into parliamentary questions. I am sure that the House looks forward with interest to its recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already made it clear to that Committee that he would like to make oral questions more topical.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the more the House does to make Question Time a more effective way of scrutinising Government, the better for democracy and the reputation of the House? Does he also agree that one of the problems with the system of oral questions is that the notice requirement makes it difficult to raise topical issues, and it is difficult to deal with issues in depth? May I invite him and our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make representations to that effect to the Modernisation Committee, so that it can make proposals for change as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend is right; there is a widespread feeling in the House that we could make oral questions a lot more topical and relevant. A number of useful and interesting ideas are being discussed, as he said, including shortening the tabling period; electronic tabling, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said; adopting topical questions, as has been done in the House of Lords; and having fewer questions, so that those which we discuss can be discussed in much greater depth.

As the Minister indicated, the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, is likely to produce a report on parliamentary questions in the next fortnight, and some of its recommendations will be constructive, radical and almost revolutionary. Will the Minister, following discussion with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, assure the House and me that the report will be debated at an early date, perhaps with a report of the Modernisation Committee, which is also relatively imminent?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent chairmanship of the Procedure Committee, to whose recommendations we very much look forward. I am glad to hear that they may be radical and revolutionary—not always labels with which the hon. Gentleman likes to be associated. I am sure that the whole House would like his Committee's recommendations to be debated as soon as possible.