What recent discussions she has had with Postcomm regarding deregulation of postal services in Scotland. [65298]

If she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland. [65301]

The Scotland Office has regular contact with Postcomm and other organisations involved in matters connected with the operation of postal services in Scotland. Regulation of postal services is a matter for Postcomm.

Quilters on the island of Islay found last month that their prices had been almost tripled by Parcelforce. Before that Parcelforce had an arrangement with the mail order company that the quilters deal with to the effect that Parcelforce delivered to any part of the country at a uniform rate. Parcelforce has withdrawn from that arrangement and is now charging almost double for deliveries to the highlands and islands compared with other parts of the country. Will the Minister step in now and stop that discrimination against the people of the highlands and islands by the Post Office and guarantee a universal service to all parts of the United Kingdom at a uniform price?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is a uniform delivery service for letters throughout the whole United Kingdom, but I note from the nodding on his side of the House—and, using the eyes in the back of my head, the nodding behind me—that there is an issue and I will take it up with Postcomm at our meeting next week.

The Minister should be aware that the former Under-Secretary in the Scotland Office, the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), confirmed to me on 7 December that reforms would not lead to any avoidable sub-post office closures. Will the hon. Lady confirm exactly what "avoidable" means? My constituent, Mrs. Cronie, who runs the sub-post office on the Isle of Whithorn, tells me that she has no idea

"what to expect come 2003 when the pension book disappears".

As I said last month in reply to another question from the hon. Gentleman, he should stop scaremongering about some of the things that are happening. He is well aware that the Government have supported the rural post office network and that Postcomm is working closely with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. If he wants to talk about the postal service in his area, perhaps he would like to use in his news release this week the information that the figure for first-class deliveries in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is one of the highest recorded—94.9 per cent; and that second-class deliveries are 93.3 per cent. That is good news about the Post Office—perhaps he would like to start telling it.

The Minister will be aware that the finances of the Post Office are very, very serious indeed and that unless there are significant reforms to the urban post office network, we shall hear a great deal of protest. Great ideas were proposed in the report of the performance and innovation unit, but they are only coming out sluggishly: talking about pilots in Rutland does not convey the urgency of the need to change post offices. Will my hon. Friend assure me that all her energy will go into speeding up the rate of reform of urban post offices?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is well aware that there are ongoing discussions about the urban network. He should not be so dismissive about the roll-out of the pilot schemes in Rutland and Leicestershire. The schemes have to be evaluated but, as I have already pointed out, I will meet Postcomm in the next week or so, and I shall certainly raise his concerns.

When my hon. Friend meets the regulator, will she have something to say about the number of closures that have already taken place in the postal service—one of which was in my constituency and has adversely affected mail deliveries in Ayrshire as a whole? Will she bring some common sense to the situation and tell the regulator that competition in the postal service is not welcome?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he will give me exact details about his question after Question Time and I shall certainly take the matter up as part of my wider discussions with Postcomm in the next few days.

In the Minister's original answer, she again referred to the universal service obligation. Will she explain how the Government intend to guarantee that obligation to rural and remote areas of Scotland, given that the Postcomm proposal will inevitably lead to the cherry-picking of profitable urban services?

Of course I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House reassurance about the way that the universal service obligation will be protected, because it is enshrined in primary legislation in the Postal Services Act 2000.

What steps she is taking to ensure that Scottish women's views are fully represented in the debate on the future of Europe. [65300]

What steps she is taking to represent Scottish interests in connection with the Convention on the Future of Europe. [65302]

The Government wish to encourage a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate, as I have been doing. My Department is working with the European Commission office in Scotland on planning a conference on women and the changing European Union. I will also shortly discuss the subject of women and the EU with editors of the women's media, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I congratulate her on her efforts to involve all civic Scotland—and women, in particular—in the debate on the future of Europe. Does she agree that Scotland has much to gain from a more transparent and efficient Europe?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. This is a key time for crafting the future of Europe for the next decade and beyond. Everyone's positive involvement is to be welcomed. I pay particular tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played, not least because of her involvement in Europe before she came to this place.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving an all-women Front Bench. In fact, I know that we will have made gains when people comment on all-men Front Benches.

I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) is looking a little shamefaced in his place as a Whip.

On the future of Europe, is the Secretary of State aware of the apparent efforts by the Scottish Executive to seek more independent influence for Scotland, as reported in The Scotsman yesterday? Can she give the House details of how independent that representation will be, assuming that Scotland does not have the full status of a normal member state? Is she concerned that the report of the Scottish Executive's initiative was described as not even second-rate spin by the Minister for Europe in this morning's Westminster Hall debate?

The hon. Gentleman's questions are as predictable as the appearance of a streaker at Wimbledon, and they have exactly the same purpose.

Will the conference of women in Scotland report to her or to the First Minister?

It will report to the European Commission, which is the organiser.

I assume that it is the conference that the Secretary of State announced on 9 May that she—and not the European Union—was organising. Was she involved in the discussions between Jack McConnell and the Foreign Secretary on Scotland's voice in Europe? Why was this women's forum set up if she was not involved in the issue? Was she cut out of the loop altogether? What does it say for the future of women politicians in Scotland if Scotland Office Ministers were not involved in the discussions? [Interruption.]

A killer question indeed.

Unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, my right hon. Friend obviously understands Scottish politics, so will she accept that, in the convention, the question of privileged access remains to be discussed between the Scottish Executive, their civil servants and the Commission? Will she assure us that she will do whatever she can to make sure that the partnership—on which our relations with Scotland and Europe is based—will be strengthened? Will she do everything in her power to ensure that no dissatisfaction is felt by Members of the Scottish Parliament about the relationship with Europe?

I contacted the Deputy First Minister, who is the Minister for Europe in the Scottish Executive, and asked whether he is confident that he and his officials are getting the exchange of information that they require to process policy on Europe. He tells me that he is, but I am anxious to ensure that the very sound and stable arrangements that we have made on the joint ministerial committee on Europe are enhanced. There is little doubt among politicians who have some say in the governance of Scotland that our involvement in the European Union is significant for Scotland's future prosperity.

If she will make a statement on the impact on the Scottish economy of the common agricultural policy in the last 12 months. [65299]

Agricultural policy in Scotland is a devolved matter, which rests with the Scottish Executive. Farmers in Scotland receive about £450 million a year in direct subsidy payments from schemes based on the common agricultural policy.

It is hardly controversial to say that the common agricultural policy is failing the British people as a whole. It hinders job creation in rural communities and the development of rural society. It makes food more expensive and works against the interests of farmers and consumers. But when the Government went to Berlin they failed to deliver on CAP reform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will stand up for Scottish and British farmers rather than the CAP?

The hon. Gentleman has got a brass neck. Anyone who supported a Government who for 18 years ducked the issue of the common agricultural policy has a cheek lecturing this Government. We began the process of CAP policy reform with Agenda 2000, and we will continue it in submissions in response to statements from the Commission that we anticipate will be made tomorrow. The CAP needs to be reformed and the Government are determined to see that it is. It is important to recognise the quality of Scottish agriculture rather than the quantity issues that dominated the debate when the Conservatives were in power.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the CAP on families in my constituency has been overwhelmingly negative because it has kept food prices at least £20 a week higher than they otherwise would have been? It has also been bad for farmers because it has created a generation of them who are welfare dependent.

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep disappointment felt by many Scottish farmers last year at the failure of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pursue agrimonetary compensation despite the repeated entreaties of the Scottish Executive rural affairs Minister? Will she ensure that in the negotiations likely to be consequent on Commissioner Fischler's interim report, the representations made by the Scottish Executive rural affairs Minister will not be treated in such a cavalier fashion?

It is as well that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat Member because people in permanent opposition do not have to make choices. Agrimonetary compensation involves choices because it comes at a cost. The Government and the Scottish Executive go to great lengths to ensure that the voice of the rural affairs Minister is heard within our counsels. The hon. Gentleman should be proud of that because otherwise he is suggesting that his colleague, Mr. Ross Finnie, is not making his case effectively enough.

We welcome the right hon. Lady's admission that the common agricultural policy needs to be reformed. Is she prepared to go further and agree with the Edinburgh Evening News that

"The Common Agricultural Policy is a fraud that makes Enron look like peanuts"?

The right hon. Gentleman is not being predictable today. He usually asks me about business regulation. I wonder whether Enron, Tyco and WorldCom have convinced him of the value of regulation.

What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the future of Scottish regiments. [65303]

My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a wide range of defence matters. The Scottish regiments have an important continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence plans.

I find it hard to be reassured by the Minister. With a new chapter of the strategic defence review about to be announced, it is interesting to note that the worst-recruited regiment in the Royal Armoured Corps is the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Britain's oldest regiment of infantry, the 1st Regiment of Foot, the Royal Scots, already has 100 Fijians serving in its ranks. The 42nd Regiment of Foot, the Black Watch, is constantly under threat—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go through all the Scottish regiments.

Speaking of having a cheek, the last regiment to lose its proud name was the Gordon Highlanders, and that was disbanded in 1994 under the previous Conservative Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing for our armed forces, to which we give the greatest challenges in this uncertain world, is operational effectiveness? Does she agree that those who would split Scotland from the UK risk that effectiveness in the gravest of ways?

I certainly would not like to compete with my hon. Friend on issues of defence. He is correct, and the Scottish National party's catastrophic policies on the United Kingdom would not only mean a diminution in our defence capability but impact economically on tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland.

When the Minister is defending Scottish regiments in discussions with the Ministry of Defence—I shall not list all the Irish regiments, Mr. Speaker—will she try mention the end of the royal tournament, which was once a great platform for promoting the excellence of all three sections of our armed forces? Will she ask the MOD to stop penny-pinching and bring back the public sector money to promote the royal tournament at Olympia once again?

I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about the royal tournament, but if he is at a loose end in August and early September, the tattoo in Edinburgh is a good substitute.

If she will take steps to stop (a) the women empowering women scheme and (b) other pyramid selling. [65304]

The women empowering women scheme, for those who do not know about it, is a cruel con, no better than a chain letter. As soon as the chain is broken, women lose money. The arithmetic of the scheme simply does not add up, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on the matter because publicity is the best way to protect women from the scheme. The Government are looking at other ways to protect those who get involved in this totally reprehensible means of pyramid selling.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Will she initiate immediate discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on how best we can combat schemes such as women empowering women, or as she has properly called it, women conning women? These get-rich-quick schemes are driving people into the arms of loan sharks all over Scotland, and I congratulate the Daily Record on its stance on the issue. It is important that we make it very clear that loan sharks only bring fear, despair and intimidation into our communities.

I could not have put it better myself—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. To call such people loan sharks is to insult sharks. They are vermin who prey on the most vulnerable in our communities. The DTI is already looking into a review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is examining women empowering women. It is a clever scheme: it is not technically pyramid selling because there is no product involved, but that does not mean that women do not lose substantial sums. Those who think it a laughing matter should come to some of Scotland's poorer communities and see what those people are doing.

What the purpose was of her recent official visit to Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. [65323]

The purpose of the visit was to demonstrate the UK Government's continuing interest and involvement in the borders area by meeting local people involved in important borders industries such as tourism and the vibrant cashmere industry. I also accepted an invitation to attend the end of year show at Heriot-Watt university's school of textile and design in Galashiels.

I commend the Advocate-General for visiting the borders. Her visit was well received, not least because of her support for the cashmere industry and her attendance at the Heriot-Watt fashion show. In the past three years, it has sometimes been hard to pin down the hon. and learned Lady on her roles and responsibilities. Does her visit mean that we have trouble in the courts in the borders, or may we now table questions to her on employment, tourism and the fashion industry?

I have no trouble pinning down my role. The hon. Gentleman might get a better idea of it if he read my article in The Scots Law Times a few weeks ago. I am pleased that he acknowledges the fact that I, as a member of the UK Government and a Scotland Office Minister, was interested enough to come to his constituency. I have every intention of returning there if I am invited again, and I hope that he will come with me next time.

How many devolution issues she has dealt with in the last month. [65324]

What devolution issues have been raised with her since 11 June under the Scotland Act 1998. [65325]

How many devolution issues she has been involved in, in the last month. [65326]

In the past month, 23 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. All but two concerned article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial. The remaining two cases concerned, respectively, the right to education and a question of European Community law.

Following the recent legal action by the Scottish Countryside Alliance to prevent the abolition of fox hunting in Scotland, does my hon. and learned Friend believe that it is an appropriate use of her time and of public money to defend in court legislation produced by the Scottish Parliament? Does she agree that the fox hunting lobby in Scotland is using the Scottish legal system to play politics?

The case to which my hon. Friend refers is an important one, but it is at first instance—before a single judge. I have told the House on several occasions that my policy is usually not to intervene except in the higher courts, especially the Privy Council, where significant issues of principle may be decided. I intervene in the UK interest after consultation with UK Departments to ensure that their interests are taken into account.

Will the Advocate-General explain how she and the Lord Advocate came to give conflicting advice in the recent human rights and hunting case? Do they ever have occasion to meet, so that they give harmonious advice in future?

Of course we meet and we sometimes discuss the legal issues involved. One reason why we have an Advocate-General as a separate Law Officer at UK level is so that he or she can consider interests that may not have been raised by other parties. As the Scottish Parliament is being challenged by the pressure group that was mentioned earlier over the introduction of unacceptable legislation, it is not inappropriate that an interested party—me—should raise in court the issue of whether the body representing the interests of the Scottish Parliament could be heard as a party. One of my roles is to make points that other parties have not considered to obtain clarification of the law.

If the Advocate-General intervened in all devolution cases, what would the costs be to the taxpayer? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that that would be a waste of public money?

It will not take hon. Members long to work out that 1,500 cases multiplied by lawyers' days in court is a great deal of public money. I agree that that is not a good use of public money, bearing in mind the fact that many of the cases are heard in the lower criminal courts where, even if I succeeded in resolving the issue successfully, there would be no likelihood of obtaining awards to cover expenses. There are therefore many circumstances in which I would not regard it as appropriate to intervene in the first instance, but as I have repeatedly said, I look at each individual case as it comes to me. I also look at cases as they proceed through the courts and up to the Privy Council, if that is where they go.

What plans he has to propose reforms to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. [65334]

The Government have no plans to propose reforms to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

Many will be disappointed by the Minister's indifference. The Government should lead, not just react. The weight of case law and opinion in recent years has been to seek a total separation of the judiciary from the Executive and legislative authorities. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the admirable speech made by Lord Bingham of Cornhill to the Constitution Unit on 1 May 2002, in which he said:

"But if the House of Lords is to be reformed, and even if it is not, the opportunity should be taken to reflect in institutional terms what is undoubtedly true in functional terms, that the law lords are judges not legislators and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution."

Obviously, the Government listen carefully to the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Law Lords hold a number of different views about the issue. That was certainly reflected in the evidence to the Wakeham commission which, as he will know, recommended the retention of the Law Lords in the House of Lords. The Government are not convinced that there is a case for changing those arrangements, but if the proposed Joint Committee on parliamentary reform makes such proposals, the Government will consider them.

My hon. Friend has just answered my question, so perhaps I can refine it. She assured the House that the Government will consider any recommendation that the Joint Committee may make. With how much energy will they consider it? The history of reform of the House of Lords is scattered with examples of people saying that they will consider something, then doing nothing. Can we have an assurance that if the Joint Committee makes a strong recommendation, that will be considered seriously and action proposed?

I certainly would not like to predict future energy levels, but I reiterate that the Government are not convinced, in any sense of the word, that there is a sufficient case for change. I repeat that the Joint Committee can make proposals, which will certainly be considered.

When he next expects to meet members of the lay magistracy to discuss the administration of justice in rural areas. [65335]

Magistrates courts committees are expected to recognise the needs of rural users in the delivery of their services, as set out in the rural White Paper. Officials and I continue to have meetings with various representatives of the lay magistracy. Although there are no particular plans to discuss rural issues, I am, of course, happy to do so, should concerns be raised.

Is the Minister aware that Tony Martin is a constituent of mine? Is she also aware that the lay magistracy was obviously closely involved in the case during the early stages? Is she aware that one of the burglars who broke into Tony Martin's house is suing him for damages that he suffered as a result of his criminality, and that in spite of his law firm offering a contingency no win-no fee basis, he is getting legal aid to take the case to court? Should not the rules be changed so that a person cannot get legal aid when a solicitor works on a contingency no win-no fee basis?

The rules on legal aid have been clearly established to ensure that they provide for those who do not have the means to take their cases through court. Those principles are important and we must respect them. It would not be right for Ministers to take decisions on individual cases of allocation of legal aid. It is right that we have proper criteria for such decisions to be made, and we should respect those.

As a member of the Magistrates Association and of the supplemental list of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch Bench in Leicestershire, I can tell the Minister that conversations with colleagues suggest a deep unease about the medium-term future of rural magistrates courts in the light of various pronouncements by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Can she give them some reassurance that the continuing loss of power and the pressure for more remote and large-scale centralised courthouses will be stopped in their tracks, and that there is indeed a future for the rural courthouse, which does not seem clear at present? Are my colleagues right to be pessimistic?

It is important that decisions about courthouses and the provision of services at the local level be taken as far as possible at the local level, by the people who have the experience and the knowledge of local circumstances. That should continue. It is part of the current system that it is a matter for magistrates courts committees in the first instance to make decisions about court venues and where services should be provided. We need to retain such local decision making. It is also important that rural decisions are taken into account. We have reflected on the proposals in the rural White Paper and magistrates courts committees are expected to use the rural proofing check list set out by the Countryside Agency.

The Minister's support for the concept of local justice in rural areas is widely welcomed, but local courts are closing on an almost weekly and monthly basis, not least in my own town, Frome. There are proposals to close the court in Frome, which means that people will have to travel anything up to 30 or 35 miles to their nearest local court. The usual response from the Lord Chancellor's Department is that this is purely a matter for local magistrates courts committees, but I do not believe that every magistrates courts committee in the country is engaged in a conspiracy to close local rural courthouses. Will the Minister give new guidance to magistrates courts committees to make sure that we have local courthouses providing a service to local rural communities?

Magistrates courts committees have been given clear guidance, particularly about the need to take account of the requirements of rural areas. It is the magistrates courts committees' responsibility to decide on the use of courthouses for magistrates services in their area. It is important that those decisions should be taken at the local level. We should consider what further partnership arrangements can be put in place to ensure better working between, for example, magistrates courts, the civil and family courts and the Crown court to promote access to justice in the local area.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned civil courts. Will she tell my constituents whether she would be prepared to travel 80 miles to discuss her civil court case?

Obviously, I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Certainly, the proposals that have been set out as part of the civil and family courts modernisation programme are intended to increase the number of local hearings that are taking place. It is important that we do that, but we must also recognise that the decisions that are taken must take into account a series of other issues, including, for example, the need to ensure the availability of appropriate facilities and access for disabled users. I am very happy to look into the individual case that he mentioned, but I think that the record of the Government's recent proposals shows that they have been about increasing access to civil and family hearings, rather than the reverse.

Does the Minister accept that her trying to sound reasonable does not necessarily mean that she is being reasonable in putting across her arguments? Does she agree that there is increasing evidence that the 28,000 unpaid members of the lay magistracy, including many in rural areas, are in a deepening crisis and are getting angry? There is a vast number of unpaid fines and court closures and mergers are on the agenda, rather than the meting out of justice. As one resigning JP said yesterday in the press:

"I am going because I am disillusioned with the system…I have been presiding over the collection of debts like a car park attendant."

I do not agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Lay magistrates play a vital role in the justice process in this country and are an extremely valued part of that process. There are indeed wide variations in issues such as fine enforcement that need to be addressed and we will shortly set out measures to take that further.

If he will make a statement on the development of IT systems within his Department. [65336]

Current IT systems in the courts are limited in scope and in their ability to communicate with other parts of the justice system. That is why the Department has started a major programme of IT modernisation, beginning with providing IT infrastructure and networks for court users and developing online services for the public and pilot programmes in new technology.

May I ask the Minister about the Libra project? Back in May, there were reports that the whole project was to be abandoned at a vast cost to the public purse. It was supposed to be a vital part of the Government's modernisation process for the courts. Will the Minister tell us what the current situation is with regard to the project and ensure that matters proceed quickly, as court staff are getting frustrated by the endless delays?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. There are two parts to the Libra project. The first part—providing the modern infrastructure and computer equipment for magistrates courts—is 75 per cent. complete and the remainder will be completed by early next year. The second phase is the new standard software application, which was not delivered by the supplier when planned. We are in negotiations with the Libra supplier, Fujitsu Services, to resolve the situation, and I will inform the House of the outcome of those negotiations as soon as they are complete. I take on board the point that has been raised.

May I commend to the House last night's meeting of PITCOM, the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, in which three senior police officers spoke to hon. Members about IT issues in the criminal justice system? It was a very worthwhile event. One comment made to me behind the scenes was about how much progress had been made in the criminal justice IT system. I congratulate the Department on that, but will my hon. Friend ensure that in all future procurement, work is done closely with the customers—the people who do the work at the sharp end—to ensure that procurement meets their needs?

My hon. Friend is right that procurement needs to be undertaken in close co-operation with the customer. In the criminal justice system, that means not only the particular customer who will be using the system, but the other criminal justice agencies that they may need to communicate with. We have to ensure that systems are compatible and work well in communicating between the various agencies.

When he will announce his decision on the proposed closure of Knutsford crown court. [65338]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the public consultation on the possible closure of the crown court at Knutsford ended on 31 May. The group manager responsible for the court is considering whether a formal case for closure should be presented to the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the group manager expects to complete his considerations over the summer.

I thank the Minister for that answer. She will be aware of the enormous opposition to the closure from local people, local law professionals and local Members of Parliament of all parties. Through an Adjournment debate and a petition, I was making great progress with the Minister's predecessor, but then he was moved—or sacked, depending on how one interprets the newspaper reports of what happened to him—so I have to start all over again. Will she at least approach the matter with an open mind and consider the arguments, not just go along with the Department's initial proposals?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet him and other hon. Members from the local area to hear their views. I have not yet received official advice or recommendations on the future of Knutsford crown court. I shall certainly meet the hon. Gentleman before the summer recess to discuss it.

If he will make a statement on arrangements for receiving members of the public at the House. [65349]

Improvements to arrangements for receiving the public at Parliament have already been made, and more are planned. A feasibility study is shortly to make recommendations on a new visitor centre for the public.

Does my hon. Friend agree although the prime determinant of the public's perception of our parliamentary democracy may be what we do in this Chamber and how we do it, arrangements for the reception of visitors are an important element? Does he accept that we have not done as well as we might have done in the past as regards queueing arrangements, line of route tours, refreshment facilities, and so on? Does he recognise that my constituents have a round trip of more than 400 miles to come here, so we need to get those arrangements spot-on?

Yes, I should like to offer my hon. Friend that assurance. Every hon. Member has had similar experiences with constituents who come to this building, which was not designed as a building for a modern, functioning Parliament. That affects not only us, but members of the public, who nowadays expect it to be accessible. Improvements have been made, including the new screens and new reception desk in Central Lobby, screens at St. Stephen's entrance—which should help with new guiding arrangements—and the new Jubilee café. From the point of view of visitors who have to wait outside in our monsoon summer weather, the feasibility study's recommendations on a visitor centre will make a great deal of difference.

Does the Minister agree that extra morning sittings will hardly make the place more accessible?

Not necessarily, but if any suggestions regarding extra morning sittings were to be made, one of the matters that would have to be taken into account is the impact that they would have on the public accessibility of this place. However, other Parliaments sit in the morning and manage to be much more accessible than we are.

What plans he has to propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that there should be time limits on speeches in all debates in the House. [65350]

My right hon. Friend will make further suggestions to the Modernisation Committee on time limits for speeches. In his earlier memorandum, he suggested that there could be advantages if debates were shorter in length but greater in number. That would imply shorter speeches.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that 10 minutes is perfectly adequate for hon. Members to make all the points that they wish? A general 10-minute time limit would give more hon. Members the opportunity to take part and thus end the frustration of sitting in the Chamber for many hours without being able to contribute except through interventions. Will he look into that?

Yes. That is an excellent point. You already have discretion, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Orders to set a time limit for speeches. As a radio journalist, I was taught that one should be able to make one's point in 40 seconds. I am not expecting hon. Members to be able to do that, but I hope that they can be much briefer.

Will the Minister consider introducing proposals to ensure a reduction in prolixity in questions and replies during Question Time and statements?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman must forgive my ignorance. I assume that the question dealt with the length of questions and answers. If so, I agree with him. Questions and answers as well as speeches are invariably far too long.

What plans he has to present proposals to improve scrutiny of Government legislation. [65351]

What plans he has to ensure that more Bills in the next session are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. [65352]

I set out my proposals for better scrutiny of legislation in my memorandum on modernisation, which is currently being studied in the Modernisation Committee. A key proposal is that, over a period of time, publication in draft should become the norm rather than the exception for Bills, thus enabling more to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny. It would be possible to arrange for longer and more thorough scrutiny of each Bill if the House agreed to carry over measures into subsequent Sessions.

I found serving on the Pre-legislative Committee for the Food Standards Bill rewarding and that I was more in touch with the programme for the measure. The Committee was able to improve the Bill before the House considered it and we therefore debated better legislation. Will my right hon. Friend use his best efforts to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible can take part in pre-legislative scrutiny and thus secure the widest possible representation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny is that it ensures that several problems are snagged out before the Bill comes before the House and that the relevant Department has a fair and accurate idea of hon. Members' views.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) served on the Special Standing Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Bill. We all accepted that it was useful to be able to take evidence before considering a Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that procedure should be applied to all major Bills? Does not it have the advantage over Select Committees of ensuring that the latter maintain their independence when considering departmental matters?

I am not sure that I accept that a tension or conflict exists between the two methods of proceeding. I do not understand why a Select Committee should not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny and, when appropriate, we should not provide for a Standing Committee to call evidence. I agree with my hon. Friend that a Special Standing Committee has advantages. I regret that we have been able use that method for only one Bill—the Adoption and Children Bill—in the Session. I should like more Standing Committees to have the freedom to call witnesses if they choose. The speed at which we are required to get Bills through the House to fit the current sessional straitjacket stands in the way of that. If Bills could be carried over from one Session to the next, we could have more Special Standing Committees.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, even with pre- legislative scrutiny, many clauses and Government amendments pass into law without debate because they fall victim to programme motions or the House's failure to manage the business properly? Does he agree that a strong business committee with some independence of Government should be in a position to manage business and to ensure adequate time for proper discussion?

I fully accept that there should be adequate time both in Committee and on Report for hon. Members to focus on the main provisions of a Bill. That does not necessarily mean that we have to spend an equal amount of time on every clause, which is why it is helpful to have programme motions that ensure that there is a considered view on where the priority areas of debate within a Bill should be. As I have said, I would welcome a situation in which we could provide for more time for Bills to be considered, but to do that, I need a longer time perspective. That is where the carrying over of Bills could be not only of value to the business management of the House but of real benefit to Members carrying out their job of scrutiny.

Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that, in any reforms to improve scrutiny, he will use the Oxford dictionary definition of the word—"a critical, close investigation"—and that he will not base any reform plans on what appears to drive most new Labour Members, namely a desire for short debate, shorter speeches, early nights, long weekends, deferred voting and a further curtailment of opposition rights?

rose—

I have not finished. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when my party was in power, all the reforms that we implemented under the Jopling proposals were introduced by consent, following usual channels agreement between the Government and the official Opposition? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will do the same?

I seem to remember from my many years in opposition frequent occasions on which I turned up in the House to vote against guillotines on which there had been no consultation, and certainly no consensus between us and the Conservatives, who were then insisting on ramming through their legislation, including a number of Bills—such as the one that introduced the poll tax—which they lived to regret.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to taking evidence from experts in the pre-legislative scrutiny process, there is a lot to be said for taking evidence from practitioners who have experience of the issue being discussed, and who will ultimately be implementing the law? Does he agree that such consultation could result in our being less likely to make laws that are difficult to implement?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Proceeding by pre-legislative scrutiny, or by Special Standing Committee—or, indeed, both—gives those outside the House the opportunity to comment. It is important for us to remember that pre-legislative scrutiny is a matter not only for MPs but for the wider civic community and for all those involved in the topic under consideration. If we can ensure that that process works satisfactorily, we might have fewer errors on the statute book of the kind of which there were many during the 18 years of Conservative Government.

If he will make a statement on arrangements made between the Transport Office and the House of Commons Commission in relation to the purchase price of airline tickets. [65353]

(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Travel Office is contractually obliged to offer its customers advice on best fare availability. To maximise value for money to the House, there is an agreement between the House and British Airways on special fares booked through the Travel Office for group travel on official business. Following the withdrawal of agency commissions by British Airways, however, a modest transaction charge has been levied on British Airways tickets purchased from the Travel Office to avoid subsidising private travel from public funds.

Is the House aware that, every time anybody buys such a ticket from the Travel Office, they pay a 5 per cent. surcharge? If a Member is travelling on official or parliamentary business, that 5 per cent. surcharge is paid for by the taxpayer. On purchases from any airline other than British Airways, the travel agent's commission is paid for out of the ticket price, but British Airways levies a surcharge.

The Travel Office is there for the convenience of the House. It is there predominantly so that Members—including members of Select Committees—and Officers of the House can travel on official visits using public funds. Because of the way the Travel Office is financed, however, if the 5 per cent. transaction charge were not levied, the taxpayer would, in effect, be providing a subsidy to private users of the office. I would say to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), however, that these matters are always under consideration, and if other airlines can provide similar value for money and equal flexibility of service, any bid from such an airline could be considered in due course.