What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls on the Skye bridge. [119402]

There have been no recent discussions with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls because, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, all issues relating to the administration of the Skye bridge fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.

I thank the combined Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland for that answer. May I congratulate him on acquiring the poisoned chalice that is the post of Secretary of State for Scotland? We look forward with great interest to seeing how his job-share arrangements with Lord Falconer work out.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his congratulations, which I am sure were heartfelt. Two poisoned chalices are probably better than one. I am well aware of the long drawn-out saga of the Skye bridge, but it is a matter that is entirely for the Scottish Executive and Parliament, and it would therefore be quite wrong of me to offer any opinion or give them any advice. It is a matter for them.

The proof of the chalice will be in the drinking. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have regular discussions about that and other matters with the Secretary of State for Scotland?

I have no intention of discussing with the Scottish Executive matters that are entirely within their province. As I have said over the past few days, devolution has changed this country's constitution dramatically. With regard to the post of Scottish Secretary, the hon. Gentleman—who I know prides himself on his knowledge of constitutional matters—might be interested in the following quotation. Indeed, it might be of interest to the whole House:

"Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."

Are not situations likely to arise in which my right hon. Friend may have to go to himself and tell himself that he has no case?

No. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have made a habit of not talking to myself for the past 49 and a half years. If I am spared, as my mother would say, I intend to continue that practice.

What recent assessment he has made of the safety of school buses in England and Wales. [119403]

There is no specific category of school bus in UK regulations. Any bus, coach or minibus may be used for dedicated school-to- home transport. In that context, therefore, it is imperative that we keep assessing and researching all aspects of the safety of all of those forms of transport.

I thank the Minister for that reply, which bears out what many hon. Members already know—that the regulations governing the transportation of live cattle are more stringent than those governing the transportation of children to and from school. Will the Minister undertake to review, for instance, the 50-year-old rules that allow three children to be placed in seats designed for two? The same rules permit up to 22 children to stand in a bus, even when the journey takes in a motorway. Are not those both examples of yet more accidents waiting to happen?

It is entirely unlike the nationalists to make cheap points about something as important as child safety. A range of matters is under ongoing consideration. The point about live animals and children is not accurate, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Special yellow school buses are being used in various pilot schemes in England and Wales. They have operational features such as dedicated drivers, allocated seats and timetables for pick-ups. There has been exhaustive research into the three-for-two regulations, which are on the way out anyway under the post-1998 regulations. The matter is taken very seriously: the assessment of and research into safety for children on buses are of paramount importance in the Department.

My hon. Friend will be aware that children with special educational needs very often are transported between home and school by minicab. There have been problems, including in my area, with securing the right Criminal Records Bureau checks on both drivers and escorts. Will my hon. Friend seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Children to address that issue, and to see how we can increase protection for that most vulnerable group of children?

:My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Between the greater regulation of private minicabs in London and the discussions that I shall happily undertake with the new Minister for Children, I hope that we can resolve the situation, but it goes wider than travel for special needs children.

If he will make a statement on his practice in relation to meeting delegations from Worthing and Adur to discuss the need for a bypass around Worthing and Lancing. [119404]

We have recently revisited our policy of meeting delegations while considering multi-modal study recommendations. Where there are issues of particular significance, we have decided that we should listen to the views of delegations.

:I am pleased to hear it. As the Minister well knows, the thorny problem of the Worthing bypass stretches back about 30 years, and congestion on the A27, exacerbated by the further house building being forced on the area, is acting as a brake on business investment. Why is it, therefore, that he refused to see a delegation from the West Sussex economic forum earlier in the year, and that in April he refused to see a delegation of local businesses headed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), yet recently he has apparently seen delegations from a number of environmental groups opposed to any road building in the area? Is not that double standards, and will he agree to meet proper delegations, representative of Worthing and the desperate need for a bypass in our area?

:The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not unwilling to meet him, because I did so last year on another matter related to his constituency. Our view was that such meetings could have led to some frustration; as he will appreciate, Ministers are somewhat constrained on such occasions because we could not hold discussions that were seen to pre-empt the Government's formal response to any study. If he will accept that during such meetings Ministers would be very much in listening mode, I should be happy to meet a delegation and to hear his views about the bypass for Worthing and Lancing, the merits of which were certainly never recognised by previous Conservative Governments.

What plans he has to secure access to (a) Gatwick and (b) Heathrow for regional air services. [119405]

:The issue of access to London airports for regional services will be addressed in the air transport White Paper, which, as the House will know, I plan to publish before the end of the year.

:Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the major lack of capacity at both Heathrow and Gatwick, and that regional air services are most at risk? Does he share my view that future aviation strategy must include a mix of public service obligations, specific slot allocations and regional-only runways?

:As I have said to my hon. Friend in the past, PSOs should be granted sparingly and only where they are justified. At present, there are a limited number of PSOs on loss-making routes, including those serving some of the islands in the west of Scotland. In relation to his constituency, he will be aware that there are four flights a day from Inverness to Gatwick and that a service to Luton has recently been introduced. Of course, if services from different parts of the country were withdrawn, the Government would have to consider that situation, but it would not be a good idea for us to change our policy and to start granting PSOs on the chance that a problem might arise, as the inevitable result would be that airlines would conclude that the Government were willing to pay for something that they were willing to do commercially. I have no intention of doing that.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that any further expansion at Gatwick by, say, building a second runway means breaking a legally binding agreement?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that when the High Court decided that the Government were wrong to exclude Gatwick, I made a statement to the House, on 28 November last year, in which I said that the reason the Government had not made proposals for a second runway at Gatwick was the long-standing agreement between the council and the then British Airports Authority, which precluded development before 2019. The High Court held that we were wrong in making that decision and that we had to consult on the basis that there could be development both before 2019 and afterwards. Subsequently, we extended the consultation process to the whole country, including proposals for Gatwick, as the hon. Gentleman must know.

Surely, given the earlier question about Inverness and the withdrawal of the service to Heathrow, there is an overwhelming case for the extension of runways and for new runways. Heathrow must be given that option sooner rather than later, with runways designated solely for regional use.

:I am not sure about the latter point, but I agree that we need to consider how we meet the pressures that the London and south-east airports face in particular. That is why the Government are conducting a very extensive consultation, which finishes at the end of this month. I have said on a number of occasions in the House that we cannot allow a period of uncertainty to continue too much longer beyond then, which is why I intend to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's strategic direction for airport development over the next 30 years; and I will do so by the end of this year.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the strategic role that the British Midland flight from Teesside to Heathrow plays as a lifeline for businesses in the north of England. Will he ensure that that flight is guaranteed, not just through the air transport consultation paper, but through his slot allocation policy? What mechanism and channel does he intend to use to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on air transport capacity in Scotland?

:The hon. Lady has clearly been working all night to produce such a contrived question, but not a very good one if I may say so. On her substantive point, the BMI flight from Teesside to London is an example of a very good regional service—it helps Teesside, and the position is similar to the services from Inverness and from Plymouth, which, as the hon. Lady will know, are currently under discussion because British Airways is withdrawing them. Of course, if a region makes a request to us about a flight, we will consider it, but it would be a mistake, as some countries have done, to start to designate PSOs in advance even though a problem may never arise. I should have thought that the hon. Lady agreed that the best possible option is to base such flights on commercial propositions, because that is a much better way to ensure that they last in the longer term. I find it hard to believe it, but perhaps the Conservatives now advocate wholesale subsidies where none are required.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of bird strikes that would occur if an airport were created at Cliffe would make it impossible to operate and far too dangerous? Given that it is a non-starter, can he confirm whether Cliffe is now well and truly off the agenda?

:I understand the position that my hon. Friend advocates, but I have made it very clear that the Government will take the decisions in relation to the whole consultation and airport development in the UK at the same time. It would be quite wrong of us to start taking piecemeal decisions, as that would soon lead to great difficulties and, I have not the slightest doubt, to rich pickings for m'learned friends in the courts. I understand my hon. Friend's position, but he will have to wait until the end of the year, when we publish our White Paper setting out the strategic direction that we think necessary for the next 20 to 30 years.

What representations he has received about the implementation of first-wave multi-modal studies. [119406]

:We have received representations on a number of issues raised by those studies, including, of course, implementation.

The Secretary of State should be aware that today is the last day to make further objections to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough structure plan, where an essential issue is the location of a large new settlement in my constituency, next to Longstanton in the Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor—the subject of a first-wave multi-modal study. To inform that debate, will the Secretary of State tell us today whether the Government intend to provide parallel roads and access roads alongside the A14 by 2006, as well as the financial support sought by Cambridgeshire county council for a rapid transit system from St. Ives to Cambridge?

:The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last year, we published the outcome of the Cambridgeshire-Huntingdon multi-modal study, which included substantial upgrading and improvement to the A14 and various junctions, as well as a guided bus route, which Cambridgeshire county council promoted and is doing further work on. All those proposals are being worked up at the moment. I hope that they will be developed, consulted on and put in place as quickly as possible. He will know that area pretty well, as he represents part of it, and I have not the slightest doubt that we need to ensure that the transport infrastructure is adequate to deal with existing problems and the transport pressures that we know will come from any extension in the future.

Given that the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study proposed a rapid transit system between Huntingdon and Cambridge to cope with the level of traffic at present and to take pressure off the A14, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the 8,000 additional homes at Oakington will put further pressure on that transport infrastructure? As well as looking at the feasibility of the rapid transit system, will he look at the adequacy of what is currently proposed?

:My hon. Friend raises a perfectly understandable point. In this country generally, many parts of the transport infrastructure are not adequate for the pressures that we have today. If we are to have any significant development, we need to make sure that the transport infrastructure is in place to ensure that people can move around, whether on rapid transit systems, roads or railways. She is therefore right about that. The multi-modal studies, and particularly the one to which she refers, allow for substantial investment—some of which has been needed for 20 to 30 years—which will make a difference. Clearly, in respect of additional pressures that may arise because of planning decisions, we need to make sure that we can plan ahead so that people can move around in a satisfactory way.

The Secretary of State will recall that, in relation to the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, his ministerial colleague agreed to meet an all-party deputation at the end of last year. Unfortunately, his other ministerial colleague, who is no longer with him, felt that his diary was too full to receive such a deputation. Will he now agree to reinstate that visit?

:Just so that people understand this, I am quite clear that if any Member of the House wishes to see a member of my ministerial team, unless there are very good reasons for not doing so, we will agree to meet. One of the reasons for being a Member of Parliament is to have such access to Ministers. Clearly, Members will weigh in the balance how often they need to see Ministers, but I want to make it clear that it is perfectly possible to see us. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, before he left for Northern Ireland, mentioned something about a meeting—[Laughter.] He seemed to me like a man with a great weight off his shoulders as he sped off to Northern Ireland. All I can say is that one of my colleagues on the Front Bench—I do not know which unfortunate one it will be yet—will meet the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the multi-modal study for Tyne and Wear, particularly as it relates to the Al western bypass around Gateshead and Newcastle, one of the country's worst congested roads? Will he undertake to look at that urgently and, in particular, to bring forward comprehensive proposals for a solution to the problem? Will he also welcome the initiative by Nexus, the passenger transport executive, in its campaign to increase the use of public transport, particularly the Tyne and Wear metro system?

:I am aware of both proposals, which are part of one of the studies that I hope to deal with before the summer recess. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make a statement about six or seven multi-modal studies that need to be dealt with. I am aware of the issues in relation to the roads and the metro. My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to give commitments in respect of any of those things at the moment, but I am aware of them, and I am aware of the pressures that Newcastle and Gateshead, like a number of other areas in this country, face.

In the light of the multi-modal studies, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he believes that Britain's transport system is currently getting better or worse?

:Many aspects of the transport system are getting better. To give one example, the west coast main line, one of the main arterial routes in this country, was last upgraded in the 1960s and 1970s. Successive Governments, both Labour and Tory, did not face up to the fact that they would have to renew and improve that line, with the result that, at the moment, it has severe problems with reliability. I am glad to report to the House that yesterday, as many Members will have seen, the Strategic Rail Authority confirmed a £9 billion investment in the west coast main line, which will allow, for example, up to four trains an hour to run to Birmingham, a two-hour running time to Manchester and an hour off the journey time to Glasgow. That is one example of how investment and better management will improve our railways, and the same can be said for roads. It will take time, but we are putting in the money and the management. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman's party is against both of those.

:Do not the multi-modal studies in fact show that motorway congestion has grown by between 50 and 250 per cent. since this Government came to office? Do not they in fact show that, in 2001, not a single inch of tarmac was added to the national road network anywhere? Do not they in fact show that future railway carriage orders are set to drop by 90 per cent. over the next eight years? Do not they in fact show, in terms of the announcements made yesterday, that rail services are being axed up and down the country? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the multi-modal studies confirm that passengers, motorists and taxpayers are paying more and more for a worse and worse service? Does he not recognise that the CBI says that it is deeply disappointed with this performance and that Transport 2000 says that the whole system is coming grinding to a halt?

:In relation to the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point, I can tell him that, in September this year, Britain's first new major railway for 100 years will open. The channel tunnel rail link is an example of public and private money going in to improve the railways.

What action he is planning to take to increase use of bus transport. [119407]

We have established the Bus Partnership Forum to bring together bus operators and local authorities to identify how we can work together to increase bus use. As part of the 10 year transport plan review, we are also reviewing the subsidies that we provide to buses—totalling more than a £1 billion a year—so that they are better focused on achieving increased bus use.

:I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I warmly welcome him to his new job.

Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.

:I know that my hon. Friend met my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) last week to discuss the partnership and that there were concerns about service charge withdrawals and fare increases. I am more than happy to stay in touch with Sheffield MPs to ensure that the partnership works. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that good visionary council leadership must be party to the partnership in addition to the private sector, and happily Sheffield now has that.

In Macclesfield, the borough and county councils are developing a purpose-built new bus station, which I warmly welcome. Does the Minister accept that many villages around Macclesfield and in my constituency have an inadequate bus service? That is not helped by the fact that because of resources, the county council is having to reduce the frequency of bus services in many parts of my constituency, even if the services are already inadequate. Will the Minister examine that matter, and if I wish to discuss it with him, will he be happy to meet me?

:I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on his new bus station, and I take his point about outlying areas and continuing difficulties surrounding rural buses. When we meet I shall, at least in part, give him a history lesson on the plight of rural buses under the past Conservative Government.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the congestion caused by parents dropping off their children at schools from cars. He will also know that increased use of school buses could ease that congestion. Will he update the House on progress made between the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport on pilot schemes to encourage schoolchildren to use school buses?

:As I said in answer to an earlier question, a range of yellow bus pilot schemes are being conducted in England and Wales and, to be perfectly honest, we are still assessing their impact. I take my hon. Friend's comments to heart. We are not necessarily against the school run but it has proved time and again to be a pinch point for congestion, not least in many suburban areas. The issue is worth considering and the American model is but one way in which we might go forward. Many other environmental and traffic-calming schemes around schools, in a comprehensive fashion, should also be part of the process, as should the walking-bus scheme.

I would dearly love to see greater use of bus transport by the public, but the services in my area provided by First buses fall way below the standards expected. Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to regulation of the buses?

:Although I am aware of what is going on in Rochdale in other capacities, I am not fully up to speed—no pun intended—on its bus provision. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), a visionary local authority and a bus company that comes to the table with the desire to improve and work with the local community are required. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about Rochdale in that regard to find out whether we can satisfy the situation.

By 2010, what is the expected percentage increase of bus usage in rural areas?

:Another clever little question straight out of "Top of the Form". As the hon. Gentleman would expect, the short answer is, "I don't know", which is the third time that I have said that to him from the Dispatch Box. I am more than happy to share a cup of tea with him to discuss the matter further. Although he sadly did not take up that offer on the past two occasions, I hope that he does this time.

What action he has taken to promote the use of rail services for the delivery of (a) mail and (b) other freight; and if he will make a statement. [119408]

:The carriage of mail by rail is a commercial issue between the Royal Mail and its contractors. In May, the Strategic Rail Authority published its first "Freight Progress Report" explaining achievements to date in increasing rail's overall share of freight traffic and its future plans. Rail freight is now at its highest rate since 1980. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new ministerial position. I am sure that it is a little early for him to want to take full credit for the Government's policy of encouraging the shift of freight transport from road to rail, which has the support of the House and the country. What discussions has his Department held with Royal Mail on what the public regard as the catastrophically irresponsible decision to shift its freight from rail to road? What environmental impact assessment has been made on that decision?

I have had no such discussions. In the half-hour or so of briefing that I had this morning when it was impressed on me that I was no longer dealing with alcohol licensing, but with vehicle licensing I was not informed of that, and I shall certainly try and find out about it for my hon. Friend.

I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to his new post. However, I must tell him that the information he gave to the House a few moments ago was incorrect. In the calendar year of 2002, the amount of freight on rail sadly declined for the first time in a number of years. That will not be helped by Royal Mail's disastrous decision.

:Those are essentially two private companies that are involved in commercial negotiations. I do not intend to interfere in any way in those negotiations. I am, however, interested in the environmental and economic impacts. There is no question about it; they are very important. But I stress that I am also worried about the customers of Royal Mail. Its future in terms of employment and the service that we all receive from it depends on Royal Mail being the most efficient company in what is rapidly becoming a competitive environment. I will give that matter careful consideration and maintain some degree of judgment, which I hope will please the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that in the long run i1 will not be in the interests of Royal Mail to add vast numbers of lorries to our roads? It must know that. When he starts his inquiries, will he look carefully at the disadvantages that people suffer when they negotiate rail contracts? There are extra problems for rail freight. We should be sympathetic and see what we can do to help.

Yes, I am aware that there has been a long-running vociferous debate on how we compare freight that is carried by road with freight that is carried by rail. I shall bear my hon. Friend's advice in mind.

I, too, warmly congratulate the Minister on his promotion and on taking on such important responsibilities. Does he accept that he is not correct in regarding the issue as purely commercial? English Welsh and Scottish Railway has written to a number of hon. Members stating:

"Royal Mail is unable to reclaim VAT as a state-owned entity, while it incurs no VAT on internally provided road services. The resultant 17.5 per cent. cost differential is a principal price issue".

The Independent front page is graphic, dramatic and arresting. I am not sure about the content; I have not had a look at it yet. I shall judge that some other time. It looks a bit conceptual to me.

The Royal Mail has made a commercial decision, but we are living in an age of corporate social responsibility. Is it not important to have regard for a key plank of Government policy and encourage freight by rail, not just because of the impact on the environment but because of the impact on the industry as a whole? Two industries are working against one another, but should not a decision be taken in the public interest instead of in the commercial interest?

:I do not regard the two industries as working against each other. The amount of freight carried on the railways is an important part of the total freight carried in this country, but it is a very small percentage. We must get that into perspective. Anything that we can do to relieve congestion is extremely important, but on matters such as corporate social responsibility the Royal Mail has had a very good record until now, as indeed did the Post Office. I am sure that those complex issues have been taken into consideration, but they are not easy to resolve, given the commercial arrangement between two important companies such as the Royal Mail and EWS. However, I am quite certain that their respective boards will have discussed those things.

Why cannot a nationalised post service do a deal with a Government-regulated industry through the Strategic Rail Authority and a largely nationalised track system under Network Rail to get what we all want—an environmentally sensible answer to carrying the post? Does that not show that nationalisation is bad for the environment, and that the wheels have fallen off the Government's freight transport policy?

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is a little out of date on the nature of those companies, which are organisations that operate privately and draw up their own plans. I remember being in the Chamber on many occasions when he argued that one of the great problems with nationalised industry, which he has just raised again, is the fact that it does not have the flexibility and the imagination to be able to respond to changing circumstances. Those companies are taking seriously the difficult problem of moving something as vital as mail around the country, and are trying to work out how the best infrastructure and operating system can be achieved. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome such assessments as a way of providing the best possible value for customers who, in the end, are the people who count. The deliverers are, of course, important, but if the country does not have a good Royal Mail service we are in big trouble.

What plans he has to increase the resourcing to the British Transport police to cope with increased demands for policing of football. [119409]

The resources available to the British Transport police are a matter for the BTP committee, which oversees the force and sets its budget. The rail industry, including London Underground, Network Rail and the train operating companies, are responsible for providing the necessary funding, not central Government.

:I thank my hon. Friend. However, is he aware of the enormous pull on transport police time during a normal weekend of football matches? Does he share my view that football is the only sport that requires such a massive amount of policing, both by the BTP and other police? Does he not think that it is time that football should have to ring-fence a tiny percentage of the huge amount of money that it gets from Sky and other television companies and give it to the BTP and other police for policing a sport that can no longer be watched peacefully?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that on some Saturdays football increases the lot and load of the British Transport police. For example, since the closure of Wembley stadium, there have been 36 matches for which central funding has been available for Home Office forces, but not the BTP. A survey on 4 January 2003 estimated that the additional cost for the BTP of policing matches on that day was £142,000. The Government maintain that it is the responsibility of the industry to meet those costs, and how it does so is up to it. However, I share my hon. Friend's sentiments.

Is it not the case that almost more than for any territorial force, the key objectives for the British Transport police must be deterrence and reassurance, and that that is achieved by visibility of patrols on trains and the tube? Should not that be a prime objective of the British Transport police authority, and should not the resources be available to make sure that there are enough officers to be visible on our trains and tube?

Whatever other changes have been made over the past couple of weeks, for the British Transport police the world is as it was on 1 April 2003, when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the BTP with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) when he was in the Department for Transport. My right hon. Friend said then:

"The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdictions, including the prevention and detection of terrorism."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 789.]

What plans he has to seek changes to European Union regulations regarding state aid to maritime transport services; and if he will make a statement. [119410]

The UK supports the European Commission in its aim of clarifying the interpretation of the current legislation. To this end, the European Commission, on its own initiative, presented proposed revisions of Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport to member states.

Will the Minister try to persuade our EU partners of the need for flexibility in the regulations? The Scottish Executive are having difficulty implementing the regulations as they stand. For example, there are endless consultations on the future of the Dunoon-Gourock route, and while that is going on, Dunoon pier is in danger of falling into the sea through lack of repairs. There were consultations and tender documents drawn up for the Campbeltown to Ballycastle route, but so far they have not borne fruit. Will the Minister please go to Brussels and try to get some flexibility and common sense into the regulations?

The Government recognise the importance of those ferry services to the islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission will shortly publish the revised guidelines regarding state aid for maritime transport. That will give the flexibility that he wants, and benefit some of the smaller services in particular. However, the implementation of those policies will be for the Scottish Executive. Although Scottish nationalism has taken a bit of a hit in recent months, 1 am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that those matters should be taken on centrally by the Westminster Government.

What action he is taking to tackle road safety issues arising from drivers using mobile phones. [119411]

We consulted last year on a proposal to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. We plan to make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents says that one in four drivers admit to using a mobile phone or texting while driving. May I urge him to bring those proposals forward as a matter of urgency? In the mean time, will he join me in congratulating the police in Plymouth and Devon on the campaign that they ran last month, using existing powers to crack down on inappropriate phone use? Does he agree with Plymouth's road safety officer, PC Duncan Russell, that "missing a call won't kill you, but having an accident may"?

I thank my hon. Friend. She will be pleased to know that we share her concerns. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on the matter. She said that one quarter of people admitted to using a mobile phone at some time for making a call or texting. We know that at any one time, one in 40 people are using a mobile phone while they are driving, and putting themselves and others at risk. I applaud the efforts being made by Devon and Cornwall police using the current law. My hon. Friend will not have to wait very long before the Government make an announcement on the matter, which is of great public concern.

If he will make a statement on the change in low-cost air (a) passenger numbers and (b) traffic movements in the last five years. [119412]

Passengers on low-cost carrier flights through UK airports, both domestic and international, have increased substantially in recent years, from 7.7 million passengers in 1998 to 35.4 million last year. Air traffic movements increased over the same period from 86,000 in 1998 to 308,000 in 2002.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does it not indicate to him that some of the projected growth in air movements and air traffic might mean that the issue comes down to the small regional airports associated with low-cost flights, rather than the major airports?

Up to a point. Interestingly, although there has been a dramatic growth in the low-cost no-frills airlines, many of whose services are point-to-point between regional airports either in this country or continental Europe, there is still a growth in travel on conventional scheduled airlines. What we have to do is reach a judgment on whether this recent rapid development of low-cost airlines is likely to change the whole pattern of air travel in future or whether it will add to the pressures on the conventional hub-and-spoke operation at Heathrow, for example. We will address that issue during discussions prior to the publication of the White Paper at the end of the year, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a phenomenal increase in low-cost airlines in the past five years in respect of airports that many people had thought until now were almost doomed to closure. That is one of the issues that we will need to take into account.

What his policy is on the use of sunset clauses in subordinate legislation; how many such clauses have been introduced since June 1997; and if he will make a statement. [119452]

Revised guidance on regulatory impact assessments was published on 28 January 2003, advising officials to consider time-limiting or sunsetting regulations and encouraging use of those tools where appropriate. While the Cabinet Office actively promotes the better regulation agenda, it does not collate the specific information centrally. My Department has introduced no legislation containing sunset clauses.

:I congratulate the Minister on his promotion in the Cabinet Office, but I suggest to him that whatever he did to earn it, it probably has very little to do with his less than stellar performance in the field of deregulation. Does he recall that, of the seven major achievements touted to business last year in respect of deregulation, one involved lifting restrictions on the sale of electric kettle descalers while another involved liberalising the sale of methylated spirits on Sundays? Would he not make faster progress if all new legislation incorporated a sunset clause from the outset?

:I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically warm words of congratulation. I shall make two points on the substantive issues that he raised. First, the sunset clause is only one of the tools available to advance the regulatory reform agenda that this Government are pursuing. Secondly, I would rather focus on the recent comments of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said:

"The U.K. is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD, it has already made major improvements and has planned more."

If he will make a statement on progress towards introducing e-government. [119453]

What new proposals he has to extend e-government services. [119457]

The latest electronic service delivery survey shows that 63 per cent. of services were e-enabled at the end of 2002, and Departments have forecast that they are on track for the 2005 target. We recently enhanced that target to ensure that certain key services achieve high levels of use.

That is encouraging in so far as it goes, but has the Minister read the Accenture report on e-government, which states that, although the United Kingdom

"has been a strong e-Government performer",

"looks to have stalled somewhat of late"?

"the biggest concern for the government is the low number of citizens using online government services."

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points. Initially, we were driving forward our commitment to ensure that all Government services are e-enabled. That continues to be the agenda that we advance towards 2005. However, for exactly the reasons that he raised, we have also committed ourselves to enhance that target and ensure that we drive up, usage levels. We are specifically considering the Canadian example. Canada has a single citizen portal, which is one of the key reasons why its level of usage is significantly higher than in many other countries. In that regard, I hope that we can make proposals in due course that allow us to harness best practice from abroad as we enhance our agenda for e-government.

:Although we have not reached the level of the world leader, Canada, the growth in e-government has been commendable in terms of the increase in usage and the innovation that has taken place. However, is it not disappointing that the two groups who could probably gain the most from using e-government are not using it? Only one in 10 of the elderly and one in six of the poorest families have access to the internet. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that that increases?

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. We have established 6,000 UK Online centres across the country, particularly serving low-income and deprived communities where access to the internet might otherwise not be available. In recent weeks, the e-envoy's office has been taking forward a nationwide campaign that is specifically targeted at the kind of groups that my hon. Friend identifies. I am glad to say that in my constituency of Paisley, South, a burgeoning number of silver surfers are taking advantage of public access to the internet, which previously would not have been available.

The Minister referred to the Government's target of putting all services online by 2005. Can he confirm whether he expects to be judged on that target at the beginning or the end of 2005? Will he ensure that any reports that are produced as part of that process give full information on any problems or failures in meeting the target, as those are likely to be important in learning for future development?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, e-government, not least because of the scale of public investment involved, is not only reported on by the Government through the work of the e-envoy, but has, appropriately, been the subject of a number of reports of this House. There is little to fear in terms of the transparency of the work that we will undertake in relation to the 2005 targets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is no longer technology, but the political will to join up Departments to make things work? It is still the case, for example, that a constituent dealing with a death will have to deal with up to a dozen or more Departments. When are the Government going to ensure that there is a genuine one-stop shop to deal with key life events?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, I am corresponding on the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). It reflects the fact that this technology should not be seen solely as a technological fix for some of the challenges that we encounter, but rather as a platform on which we can develop genuinely citizen-centred services. The speech that the Prime Minister is making today at the Fabian Society reflects the far broader agenda, of which ICT is only one part, of modernising the public services that were so ravaged by a lack of investment by the Conservative party.

Referring again to the Minister's target of 2005 for making all public services, including local government services, accessible online, will he acknowledge that there is a problem of definition, and that it is not sufficient for services merely to be nominally available online? Can he confirm that the criterion that he will use for measuring success in achieving the 2005 target is a significant degree of interactivity on departmental and local authority websites?

To use the technological jargon, we are moving towards a multi-channel future. I am pleased to say that in meeting the 2005 target, the use of contact centres plays an important role in the interactivity that the hon. Gentleman identifies. In my constituency, and in constituencies across the country, people are already interacting with local government, not only through email, but by using contact centres. Interactivity is vital: that is why we have specifically targeted key services to drive up usage.

What steps are being taken to encourage members of the public to take up public appointments. [119454]

The Government are committed to ensuring greater access to public appointments. My Department launched a new public appointments vacancy website on 27 March. It provides vacancy details—there are currently more than 100—and information on how to apply.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a unique journey from Paisley to the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope that he has found where it is. Not everybody has access to the internet, and that creates a problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that many groups in our society—for example, young people and the disabled—do not take up public appointments? Does he further agree that a reason for that is that the old lags on committees often patronise the new people and tell them, "That was very interesting. Now sit back and have mother cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit"?

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of congratulation on my promotion. Let me return the favour and say that he is unique in the House in having made the journey from playing for Paisley's distinguished football team, St. Mirren, to being a Norwich Member of Parliament.

We want to encourage appointments as magistrates, among other public appointments, especially in the Duchy of Lancaster. Will the Minister confirm that in January, the Department vetoed the appointment of 10 magistrates to the Trafford bench on the ground of their political beliefs or views? Does he agree that giving the impression that people will be judged on their views rather than their merit and ability is no way to encourage them to apply for public appointments?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. A candidate's political views neither qualify nor disqualify them for appointment. In the interests of balance, it is a requirement that the composition of the bench should broadly reflect the voting pattern for the area, as evidenced by the last two general elections. However, the priority must be to ensure the effective working of the judicial system. That is our goal.

We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House notes the far-reaching constitutional implications of the changes to the machinery of Government announced in the Government reshuffle last week; deplores the total lack of consultation before the changes were announced and the confusion that has ensued since; is gravely concerned that the Prime Minister is abolishing the historic office of Lord Chancellor without any idea of what will take its place, and, in particular, how the independence of the judiciary is to be maintained; is unclear about the relationship between the spokesmen for Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons and the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who appears to have executive responsibility for the functions of the Scotland and Wales Offices; regrets that the Prime Minister clearly regards the jobs of the Secretary of State for Transport and Leader of the House as part-time; further notes that the NHS in England and Wales is now to be run by a Secretary of State who has no control over health policies in his own constituency, and whose constituents will not be affected by the decisions he takes as Secretary of State for Health; and calls on the Prime Minister not to proceed with his plans for change until he has properly consulted on them.

I would like to help the right hon. Gentleman. With the Scottish Parliament in its second term, a case can be made, once we have tied up the legal niceties—[Interruption.]—I use the term "niceties" in its scientific sense. When we have disposed of some of the remaining functions—some to the Scottish Executive in Edinburgh, some to the appropriate Department in Whitehall—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to make the Secretary of State for Scotland redundant in due course?

After that, the right hon. Gentleman deserves a position as the Prime Minister's spokesman on the matter.

"I will continue to be the Lord Chancellor and exercise his powers until such time as statutory arrangements can be made to replace it".

"As long as the House of Lords wish the Lord Chancellor to sit on the Woolsack, I will continue to do that."

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise these words:

"I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well and has, on occasion, been radically and robustly independent from both the Executive and the legislature".—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 653.]

Yes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this subject is a matter of legitimate debate and that what should happen now is contingent on proposals for the other place. The difference in our positions is that we believe that this matter should be properly debated, that a Green Paper and a White Paper should be published, that full discussion should take place and decisions be taken in conjunction with the consideration of both Houses and the reform of the upper House. What we cannot have is the Prime Minister announcing the creation of a supreme court without any of those processes whatever taking place.

The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait many months for the Government's response, because the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform had various things to say about a supreme court. It is customary for the Government to respond to such a report within two months, which would take us to 29 June.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman believes that the Prime Minister's response is either appropriate or based on very much thought—I shall leave it for him to decide. However, let me quote what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is acknowledged as something of an expert on such matters, said on Friday:

"If you are going to change 1,500 years of constitutional history, you do it carefully, you have a consultation, a white Paper and experts, and then finally you bring it before Parliament, because Parliament decides the way we are governed, not the Prime Minister on the back of an envelope in Downing Street. What we have here is a botch, which looks as though it has been put together in panic. It totally lacks coherence and clarity."

"As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the effect of the announcement on Thursday is that we would have a Supreme Court but the detail of that has to be worked out after proper consultation."

"You can have an Appointments Commission which is independent of the executive, but nevertheless is tailor-made to produce an entirely different kind of judge who perhaps would be more acceptable to the Home Secretary".

"The next Labour Government should appoint only judges who have clear socialist or libertarian leanings."

"New arrangements will also be put in place for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business. The Scotland and Wales Offices will henceforth be located within the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales."

"the Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland"

"the Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales".

"a precise breakdown of Alistair Darling's schedule and it would be wrong to do so, but … one of the reasons Alistair Darling was made Secretary of State for Scotland was that he was Scottish."

"Alistair Darling, Peter Hain and Helen Liddell"

"in respect of Wales and Scotland, given the progress of time in relation to devolution … these were no longer full-time jobs, so they were being combined with other roles."

"some things had been a little hazy".

"The Wales Office is not being abolished, I stay as Secretary of State for Wales."

"I readily admit that in the comings and goings yesterday, this whole issue could have been communicated far more effectively from Downing Street."

My right hon. Friend has just reminded us that the part-time Secretary of State for Wales has announced that the Wales Office still exists, but on today's Order Paper the Scotland Office is referred to as "the former Scotland Office".

:I am at a loss to explain that. I cannot help my hon. Friend, but perhaps the part-time Leader of the House will do so when he speaks.

Before we get too deep into the knockabout, which we are all enjoying, can we be clear about the policy substance? From what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far, I understand that Conservative party policy is that they would be happy with both a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission. Is that the case, or will he confirm that—in the unlikely event of his being in government—he would abolish either or both of those institutions?

:I wish that we had some substance to discuss. My whole point is that we do not. The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question and our response is that these are very important matters. They are constitutional and judicial matters. They deserve the appropriate treatment. We say that they deserve thought, a Green Paper, a debate, consideration and consultation. Then Parliament, in both Houses, should determine the matter. That is our policy and that is the approach that we would take. If any Labour Members have a problem with that, they should tell us. I hope that the part-time Leader of the House will tell us if he has a problem with that approach when he speaks.

rose—

:Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help us.

The right hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically coy. The question is simple. In principle, is he in favour of the institutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) described?

The whole point is that these are not simple issues. They are complex issues relating to our constitution, which has served us so well for many centuries. If Labour Members think—as the Prime Minister obviously does—that these are simple issues to be worked out on the back of an envelope, that is the difference between us.

:The shadow Leader of the House said, rightly, that these are ultimately matters for Parliament, and I hope that we would all agree with that. However, he is speaking at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, so would he be kind enough to put on record the Opposition's policy on a judicial appointments commission and a supreme court? [Interruption.] I am glad that he is getting some advice from the Leader of the Opposition, but I ask him to clarify the Conservative party's policy for the record. If the Conservatives came to power, would they abolish a supreme court or a judicial appointments commission, or is this only a lot of hot air with great entertainment value?

:Let me take the hon. Gentleman back a little way—

What is your policy?

Order.

:Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the debate that took place on the reform of the House of Lords. We set up a commission, we consulted, we took advice, we published some thoughts, we had debates and we then published our policy. That is the process in which we believe, as opposed to the Prime Minister, who believes in doing none of that. Our policy is to have mature discussions on these important issues, to consult and to debate.

:You don't know yet.

:I shall get the hon. Gentleman into Hansard by replying to his sedentary remark—that is how kind I am. He is correct: we do not know yet. That is the distinction between the Prime Minister and myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends.[Interruption.]

Order. Far too noisy, Mr. Allen.

:On Saturday, Lord Falconer said:

"Of course I am not their boss …There is still a Scottish Office, the officials work in my department, but politically those offices are led by Peter and Alistair, there is still a very strong voice in the Cabinet for Scotland and Wales".

"I am working for Alistair Darling as a junior minister in the Scotland Office which is part of the constitutional affairs department … A great deal of the day to day activity will be done by me anyway, Alistair and I have discussed that".

"This site is currently under redevelopment."

The right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position on a supreme court—which is that he does not know—but will he now clarify his party's position on Scotland? Will he abolish devolution or will he accept the scaling down that follows?

:The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will set our position out when she replies to the debate. We have accepted the settlement following the referendum in Scotland. We have accepted the role of the Scottish Parliament, but we also believe that there should be a Secretary of State for Scotland. The presence of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is living proof of that, and I hope that that is enough for the hon. Gentleman.

Strangely, the shadow Leader of the House has not made enough of the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). In the Order Paper today, Mr. David Crawley is described as

"Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."

:Or a dead macaw, perhaps. I defer to the hon. Gentleman in that he has pointed out that what is in today's Order Paper is the only official declaration that we have had, because we have no official list of the Government. Therefore, we are all in the dark about the position of various Departments and Ministers.

Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what would happen if the part-time Leader of the House should choose to disagree with the part-time Secretary of State for Wales?

:Perhaps the bicephalous right hon. Gentleman could tell us that when he makes his own contribution—[Interruption.] Yes, I thought that that might tax some Labour Members. On a serious point, if the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) felt obliged to resign from a job as one Secretary of State, how can others be reasonably expected to do a job as two?

:Can the right hon. Gentleman remind us what arrangements were made in those areas by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the previous Leader of the Opposition? The shadow Secretary of State for Wales is sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman, so perhaps he can whisper in his ear and tell him what those arrangements were.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have in front of me a copy of his early-day motion. It reads:

"this House believes that the Secretary of State for Wales performs a vital role in the government of the United Kingdom; and further believes that this office should be retained as an individual cabinet post as envisaged in the Government of Wales Act 1998."

"It is an extraordinary piece of casting to put a Scot in charge of the English health service. Dr. Reid has no say whatsoever in health matters pertaining to those who sent him to the Commons."

"I am not happy that the health ministry, which is almost totally an English ministry, is headed up by a member of parliament representing a Scottish constituency."

The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he opposes a Scottish MP being the Secretary of State for Health. However, he also made it clear that in the next Conservative Government, a Conservative Member with an English seat would be Secretary of State for Scotland. That is a ridiculous position.

:Not at all. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), my parliamentary neighbour, I say that we will win so many seats in Scotland that she will face severe competition for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

:No. I must press on, as I am very conscious of the passage of time.

"Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health, administering health in England."

:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

:No. I invite the hon. Gentleman to re-read his early-day motion before he stands up again.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. This is my peroration—as if the hon. Gentleman did not know. Obviously, I will have to give Labour Members a signal when I am perorating.

"The lesson of previous Parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity."

I call the Leader of the House to move the amendment.

:The part-time Leader of the House.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public service by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs focused on improving the criminal justice system, by consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, by consulting on establishing a Supreme Court, and by consulting the House of Lords on the appointment by the House of its own Speaker, and putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution; further welcomes the continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House; further welcomes the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health who will continue the drive to reform and modernise the National Health Service; and supports the Government in its continued commitment to invest and reform the public services."

Order. Opposition Members are far too noisy. They must allow the Leader of the House to speak.

:The part-time Leader of the House.

Why was the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst all process and no substance? It was because he is frightened of substance and of the fact that the reform and modernisation of our democratic system are popular and welcomed by people right across the country.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. [HoN. MEMBERS: "The part-time Leader of the House."] The right hon. Gentleman just said that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was all process and no substance. What does he think that a constitution is about if it is not about process?

That really was a devastating question. Every time this Labour Government propose a sensible constitutional reform, widely supported by public opinion in the country at large, the Tories oppose it and claim that the end of the world is nigh. The Opposition go on about procedure and process, and I shall deal with those claims later, but basically they are against change. The Opposition are stuck in the past, on the side of privilege and patronage. They are the same old Tories, the same old reactionaries: whatever the reform, they are against it.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that the shadow Leader of the House refused to answer the question that I asked him about the policy of the previous Leader of the Opposition? In March 2001, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said the following about the post of Secretary of State for Wales:

"Instead, the position, which is currently held by Paul Murphy, could be merged with roles such as Leader of the House in an effort to create 'smaller government'''.

:I am going to remind the right hon. Gentleman about that in a moment.

Will the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Part-time."]—tell us how long the office of Lord Chancellor will exist?

:The original target was that the office would continue for about 18 months, but it is a matter for consultation—[Interruption.] The proposals are all about consultation. There will be consultation about the situation following the replacement of the Lord Chancellor, about the independent judicial commission, and about establishing the supreme court.

rose—

:I shall give way in a moment, especially to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am always keen to give way to him—he is not a bad performer.

I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. His is truly a chronic speech from a discredited Minister in a devalued Labour Government. Given that Opposition Members at least recognise that the constitution of this country is not a piece of putty to be moulded according to the passing whim of a Government but something that has evolved over generations and should be treated with respect, why does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government's fatal conceit is to imagine that their own internal and short-term machinations are either the same as, or more important than, the long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom?

:The long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom lie in having a reformed, modernised, efficient structure, widely supported across all shades of opinion.

rose—

I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress before I take any more interventions—[Interruption.]

Order. We must have more order in the House. Hon. Members are being unfair to the Leader of the House.

I shall be happy to take interventions if I can make a bit of progress first.

My right hon. Friend is being excessively generous in saying that there should be 18 months or so before the post of Lord Chancellor is abolished. Is the explanation for the delay in enacting that policy that my right hon. Friend discovered from the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House that the Conservative party does not have a policy on the supreme court, the lord chancellorship or the judicial appointments commission? In fact, is my right hon. Friend giving the Conservatives long enough to devise a policy?

That is a good question.

I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. Why was it announced, last Thursday evening, that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office were to be abolished, yet on Friday morning it was announced that they would be retained? Did some key consultation take place between Thursday night and Friday morning? Will he answer those simple questions?

I have before me the press statement issued by No. 10 on Thursday and I should be happy to read it all to the hon. Lady. It makes it clear that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales would remain and that the Scotland and Wales Offices would remain.

I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. He has just said that there will be a Lord Chancellor for an 18-month transition period, yet on Thursday the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that Lord Falconer would not fulfil the role or function of Lord Chancellor. Who exactly did he intend should fulfil that function?

I am honoured that the Leader of the Opposition chose to intervene on a Minister who is well down the food chain and I welcome him to the debate. I shall quote from the statement issued by No. 10 on Thursday:

"For the period of transition, Lord Falconer will exercise all the functions of Lord Chancellor as necessary."

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that although the speech of the shadow Leader of the House was vacuous nonsense, it was very witty? At least it has united the Tories on one issue: they have realised their true potential as clowns. Of course, we already knew that.

I could not agree more.

rose

I want to make some more progress and then I shall happily take other interventions.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Over the past couple of years, he has said many times that the success of the devolution settlement will rely entirely on the partnership of him and his Under-Secretary in introducing legislation from the Welsh Assembly. Thai will now be extremely difficult. At what point did the Prime Minister or his office realise that to abolish the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales would be breaking the law, according to the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998?

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is completely confused about the situation. I have just carefully and patiently explained that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I continue to discharge our functions in exactly the same way as we did before Thursday. Furthermore, I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman and his party want to abolish both the post of Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office because they believe in independence for Wales, and that that would mean that a Secretary of State no longer had a function.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if the Conservatives ever form a Government, they intend to introduce a rule that would prevent any Member representing a Scottish constituency from voting in this place on matters that apply specifically to England and Wales. That is a massive constitutional change on which they held no consultation, yet for 50 years the Conservatives not only tolerated but welcomed a situation whereby Northern Ireland had its own Parliament while continuing to send MPs to this place. Was not the reason for their pragmatism then the fact that Ulster Unionists accepted the Conservative Whip?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

If what the part-time Leader of the House says about the positions of the Welsh Secretary and the Scottish Secretary is true and we should all have known that their roles would be merged, why did the Government say, in March 2003—just three months ago—in their response to the second report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which suggested such a merger, that the Prime Minister

"has no plans to merge either the roles of the territorial Secretaries of State or their departments. Each territorial department is a discrete centre of excellence in the relevant settlement"?

The roles have not merged. I am the Secretary of State for Wales, and there is a distinct Secretary of State for Scotland. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order and allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a perfectly straightforward question; I am giving a perfectly straightforward answer. [Interruption.] Well, he may not understand that there is a separate Secretary of State for Scotland and a separate Secretary of State for Wales and that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office remain, with exactly the same staff, doing exactly the same duties. He obviously has no comprehension at all of the facts that stare him in the face.

On Thursday evening, a major announcement was made in my constituency that could have jeopardised several thousand jobs. I was privileged to be able to take that information to the Secretary of State for Wales that evening and to have it acted upon. There was no confusion, but there is confusion in the line of the motion that says

"further notes that the NHS in England and Wales is now to be run by a Secretary of State"

That was well put. The National Assembly for Wales runs the NHS in Wales—it has been devolved.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why item 11, Scottish Affairs, on today's Order Paper quite clearly says:

"Witnesses: Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland"

"Mr David Crawley, Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."?

It reads, "You're on your own."

No, I have got some good company on this one. Of course, the reference is to a former House official, and the wording of the Order Paper was drawn up by the House authorities, rather than by the Government.

"I don't think anybody who hasn't been on Planet Zog or exploring the Antarctic for the past three or four years thought that the jobs of Secretary of State for Wales and Scotland, as they were before 1999, were going to go on exactly the same as before into the great blue yonder once you had a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly."

rose—

Hon. Members should listen to this for a moment, and I shall then take some more interventions.

"Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."

"To take account of the changed role of the Secretary of State for Wales, I shall, as Prime Minister, give the incoming Secretary of State for Wales an additional United Kingdom role within the Cabinet"

:It would have been better to say that all this was a blunder. The idea that this embarrassing chaos was planned is absolutely mind-boggling, but let us get back to what is on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House made the serious suggestion that House officials had been inaccurate in describing Mr. David Crawley as

"Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."

I made no reference to a mistake; I said that the wording was drawn up by the House authorities. I made that absolutely clear.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

:Give way.

:I will not give way again to someone who wants to destroy the United Kingdom and separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman can wait a moment.