What representations he has made to other Government Departments on securing the movement of public sector jobs to Scotland following the publication of the Lyons review. [174424]

I have made clear to other Departments the advantages that Scotland offers as a location for public sector employers and have encouraged them to consider Scotland when they review their relocation plans.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that on 2 December I asked the same question—and got the same answer, as it happens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Consistency"] Indeed. On the basis of the time scale between then and now, I have done some analysis of the current situation and I have found that there are almost 11,000 civil service jobs in Edinburgh, and almost 9,000 in Glasgow. In north Ayrshire as a whole, there are under 900—indeed, there are 805. To make the Lyons report achievable, bearing in mind unemployment in north Ayrshire as compared with unemployment in the rest of Scotland, will he give me two things: first, will he make representations to the Treasury; and secondly, will he meet me—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should try to secure an Adjournment debate.

I was just settling down to listen to my hon. Friend's speech, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to him for his first point—I like to think that my answers are consistent. Since he East asked his question, the Chancellor has announced the findings of the Lyons review, and my hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that jobs are decentralised throughout Scotland. Historically, Edinburgh and Glasgow have had a high level of civil service jobs, but there is no reason why jobs cannot go elsewhere. For example, when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, one of the new pension centres was set up in Motherwell—I know that it is not in Ayrshire—with the creation of 300 jobs. That is the sort of thing that I would like to encourage.

My right hon. Friend was involved in the relocation of 70 jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions to Stornoway. Does he agree that that is a good example of the kind of relocation that is possible? Does he also agree that it illustrates that even the remoter rural areas can benefit from the job relocation process, and that they can provide an outstanding service to those Departments that relocate there?

My hon. Friend is right. Stornoway is an example of a place where an extremely efficient former social security office is now doing work for the whole United Kingdom. Some 15,000 employees of the Department for Work and Pensions are based in Scotland and many of them are doing work for the whole United Kingdom, which shows why Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom is so important—[Laughter.] Scottish National party Members laugh at that, but their whole reason for existence is to break up the United Kingdom. Were Scotland to separate from England, it would not just be the 15,000 people employed by the Department for Work and Pensions whose jobs would be at risk, but those of the 7,000 people working in the Ministry of Defence and of the 8,500 people working for the Inland Revenue.

Over the next few years, the flagship project for Scotland, through Scottish Enterprise, must be the Clyde corridor project, of which Clydebank is an integral part. Great benefit could be brought to that area through the major stimulus that would come from a public sector employer investing there. I hope that the Secretary of State will sit down with the Chancellor and other important UK figures to ensure that that investment is made on a strategic basis, in which case there can be no other choice but Clydebank.

I am aware of the plans, which are already well advanced, to develop the waterfront right along the Clyde. Once they are fulfilled, they will not only transform people's impression of Glasgow but generate real jobs. I also agree with my hon. Friend about both the public and private sectors working together. That is the sort of thing that both the Government and the Scottish Executive want to encourage. That development has the potential to transform Glasgow and confirm its position as one of Britain's premier cities.

What discussions he has had with the Royal Mail about post office branch closures in Scotland. [174425]

The Scotland Office is in regular contact with Royal Mail and other key stakeholders involved in the delivery of postal services in Scotland. Such contacts are at both official and ministerial levels.

I wonder whether the Minister is aware that in Aberdeen 14 post offices have been earmarked for closure—a quarter of the total number in the city. Some serious questions need to be asked about the accuracy of the information that has been presented to justify those closures. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to encourage Post Office Ltd. to reconsider when it is presented with evidence that shows that in some cases those branches are viable and someone is willing to take over their running?

I know that my hon. Friend has welcomed Government support for both rural and urban post offices. Obviously there is a particular issue in Aberdeen, of which I am aware. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other Aberdeen Members who have alerted Post Office Ltd. to some of the difficulties that may be experienced in their communities. That is one of the reasons why the consultation period is so important: it allows communities, along with Postcomm and Postwatch, to examine ways of allowing the spread of post offices to continue after the end of the reinvention programme.

Is the Minister aware that as a result of automated credit transfer, 47 per cent. of Scots no longer claim benefit through the post office? Last year 89 post offices closed, 305 per cent. more than during the previous year. It has been estimated that when the rural fund runs out in 2006, as many as 1,000 post offices will be at risk. Given that Government policy caused this calamity, what will the Government do to prevent that from happening?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should seek to impose on individuals the way in which they collect their benefit. What we have offered people is a choice, and in fact 42 per cent. of new benefit claimants are asking for their benefit to be paid through the new card system of direct payment. Moreover, there has been a massive investment in rural as well as urban post offices. We must ensure that following the investment programme, post offices offer people the services that they want. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that closing his eyes to the difficulty will not solve the problem.

I accept that there should be a choice, but will my hon. Friend acknowledge that automated credit transfer is a major factor in the post office closures? That means that a disproportionate number of urban closures are likely in areas of social deprivation, where a large proportion of people receive benefit. Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and suggest that rather more money should be spent on modernising and refurbishing the remaining post offices and rather less should be spent on the lump-sum payments that are encouraging some postmasters to give up?

I understand some of my right hon. Friend's comments. The Scottish Executive have also worked with the Post Office to ensure that money is invested in post offices in disadvantaged areas, as part of the social inclusion policy. With respect to my right hon. Friend, however, let me say that we must also deal with the reality, which is that many people are choosing to have their benefits paid through a direct system. At the end of April this year, nearly 3 million people had made that choice.

Constituents of mine who have written to the Post Office about closures have received a letter saying, among other waffle,

"We are reviewing our network as a whole, so that we can move away from ad hoc closures which result in large gaps within our network and in turn implement an organised restructuring programme."

What the Post Office is doing, with the support of Government investment and backing from the Scottish Executive, is maintaining a network of post offices throughout our urban and rural communities. I am very disappointed that Members are not willing to face the reality. We saw wholesale post office closures across the network under the last Government; what we have sought to do—[Interruption.]

Order. When a question has been asked, Members should not shout back at the Minister. I may well not call the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) for some time if he continues to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What steps he is taking to promote manufacturing in Scotland. [174427]

The Scotland Office will continue to work with the Scottish Executive and a wide range of manufacturing interests on initiatives such as the Scottish manufacturing steering group.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree with me, and with the Scottish trade union movement, that if Scottish manufacturing is to stay ahead of the field we need further investment in not only research and development but employee training? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the private sector companies that come to Scotland are encouraged to use all the excellent teaching facilities that we have in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is quite right. There are many parts of Scotland now where unemployment has fallen so much that there are concerns about getting the right number of skilled people to go and work. Yesterday I was in Dumfries and Galloway, and the Conservative spokesman for Scotland, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), might like to know that unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. in his constituency since the general election—although he was saying the other day that the Government have not made a difference. My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) is quite right, and there are good examples in his constituency of private sector companies working in close collaboration with higher education institutions. We want to encourage that, because it is absolutely essential.

How content is the Secretary of State with the fact that manufacturing and other businesses in Scotland pay business rates some 7 per cent. higher than businesses in England and Wales? Speaking hypothetically, and saying that he was to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, what more does he think could be done to help businesses to grow by reducing business burdens?

The policy for rates rests with the Scottish Executive, who have put in place a number of measures to reduce the rates burden that Scottish businesses face. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we need to look all the time at whether we can improve the situation and reduce burdens. The Government are committed to that, but one of the best things that we have done for Scottish business is to create a strong, stable economy with low interest rates. The result is low unemployment and lower debts, and we do not have the problems that the previous Conservative Government encountered.

But the Secretary of State has missed one simple policy that could be delivered from right here at Westminster. Has he not heard the voices from across the manufacturing sector that point out the crippling effect that high fuel prices are having on competitiveness, and the resulting disincentive for operations in Scotland, where distances from the factory gate to the customer are often at their greatest? His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister entirely ducked that question last week. Will the Secretary of State now join the chorus of voices calling for the deferring of the fuel tax increase planned for September?

No. As the Prime Minister said here last week, the primary reason why fuel prices are going up is that the economies in China and America are growing, and people are restocking. That is why prices have gone up. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, why does he not have a word with the shadow Chancellor, who said almost exactly the same thing only a few days earlier? While he is speaking to the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman might want to have a further word with him because, at the weekend, the shadow Chancellor was revealed to be calling for even more massive cuts in public expenditure. They would amount to nearly half the Scottish Executive budget, which would have a profound adverse effect on the Scottish economy.

One day, just for once, the Scotland Office will stand up for Scottish interests instead of letting us down. Two months ago, at this Question Time, the Secretary of State told me that he was

"in the very happy position of always being in"—[Official Report, 16 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 141.]

The hon. Gentleman is not very good, is he? I suggest that he reflect on this simple fact: since 1997, unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 50 per cent. Why is that? It is because the economy has been growing year on year. That is why more people are in work. This Government, during the past few years, have introduced a range of measures that are helping Scottish business. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, our biggest single achievement has been to create an economy, and the right environment, in which small businesses can grow. All that would be wrecked if the Tory party got back in, because of the policies that it is advocating—not just because it would slash public expenditure but because of the instability that would be created by the policies that the shadow Chancellor is promoting.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that naval and maritime work at Rosyth dockyard, the Clyde yards and elsewhere in Scotland represents a core part of Scotland's manufacturing skills? Does he also agree that work on the current naval fleet and on the future aircraft carriers is vital in securing a future for Rosyth and elsewhere? Will he use his full persuasive powers to ensure that Rosyth and Scotland get a major share of naval work, and that the core base of manufacturing skills are kept in that area?

My hon. Friend is right: defence work is very important not just to the general public sector jobs in Scotland to which I referred, but to construction. She will know that the Ministry of Defence is currently examining the way in which the contracts to build the two new aircraft carriers will be dealt with. Those discussions continue, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we are very aware of the importance of those contracts—and, indeed, of others—not just to Rosyth but to the Scottish economy generally.

On the subject of manufacturing jobs on the Clyde, has the Secretary of State seen the allegations of Mr. Martin Sixsmith, supported by evidence from GEC, to the effect that the Govan yard was saved in 1999 as a result of a deal through which the Government suspended their competition policy in return for favourable publicity in an election campaign? Now that the future of Govan to some extent—and Scotstoun to a great extent—is once again uncertain, will the Secretary of State give details of exactly what he is doing to secure those vital jobs, without the incentive of an election campaign in Scotland to concentrate his mind? And will he specifically confirm or deny—

Order. That question is far too long.

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would almost think that he is sorry that jobs on the Clyde were saved. He might want to reflect on the fact that, if he were returned to power, there would be no Royal Navy, no orders for ships and no jobs on the Clyde. That would be the price of the Scottish National party.

What meetings he has attended to discuss the impact on Scotland of BP's decision to dispose of its olefins and derivatives business. [174428]

Scotland Office officials have kept in close contact with BP regarding the impact of their decision. My right hon. Friend and I have not taken part in any meetings.

I am very grateful to the Scotland Office for the interest that it has shown in the management of BP. However, a strategy group meets every Friday in the plant, consisting of full-time officials and workers' representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union, the engineering workers' union and the GMB. As my hon. Friend knows, that plant has suffered more than 1,000 job losses in the past couple of years. The strategy group believes that the productivity gains that were made and the synergies that were gained by losing those jobs are about to be thrown away, should the chemicals plant be split off from the rest of the complex. Will the Secretary of State meet the trade union representatives to hear their business case for keeping the olefins plant as part of the entire complex, and run by BP workers for the benefit of the Scottish economy? Indeed, that could even be to the benefit of the new company that might be floated off in future.

My hon. Friend is a great advocate of the petrochemical industry not only in his own constituency but across the United Kingdom, and I welcome his comments. He will of course appreciate that ultimately, this is a commercial decision by the company, but either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I would be delighted to meet him and a delegation of trade union leaders to hear their business case, which could be an alternative to the case made by BP.

When he last met the First Minister to discuss extending the power of the Scottish Parliament. [174430]

I am in regular contact with the First Minister, but I have not discussed extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament with him.

I thank the Secretary of State for that very illuminating answer. The First Minister has identified Scotland's population problems as perhaps the biggest issue facing Scotland in the short to medium term, yet we remain hampered by a UK immigration policy that actively discourages people from coming here—people whom we desperately require. The First Minister's response to the situation was the announcement of his student visa scheme, which he said was a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem, but far from being a trailblazing scheme, it is a regional pilot for a general UK-wide policy. When are the Secretary of State and the First Minister going to cut through this inept Edinburgh spin and get real with this issue, and does the Secretary of State really believe that Scotland's immigration issues are best served by the current UK immigration policy?

What a load of nonsense. The First Minister has rightly identified the fact that the declining population in Scotland is a problem: it is a problem now, and it will be in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] "Why?" they say—simply because if we have an ageing population and a declining population, the costs increase. It is incredible that Opposition Members do not understand fundamental points like that. As I said, the First Minister has correctly identified the problem and the fresh talent initiative that he announced is designed to encourage people of talent to come to Scotland and to stay in Scotland. That should be supported and encouraged, and we certainly do so.

What devolution issues she has considered since 27 April. [174440]

What devolution issues have been raised since 27 April. [174441]

What devolution issues have been raised with her since 27 April. [174442]

Since 27 April, there have been 37 devolution issues intimated to me. Twenty-four of those related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination under the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulatory fisheries offences and the use of sexual history evidence in trials. In the civil sphere, 13 devolution issues were intimated concerning sequestration, appeals to the parking appeals service and a planning decision, with the remainder relating to prison conditions.

I am most grateful for that reply. Has the Advocate-General been asked to give her opinion on devolved and reserved matters under the Energy Bill, particularly those matters to be decided jointly between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? In those circumstances, who will have the last word, and will those decisions be justiciable?

Obviously, I am not able to advise on what opinions I gave or what I advised. As to the general statutory structure, the hon. Lady is aware that both devolved and reserved matters are covered. Each decision will have to be determined on the basis of the particular circumstances, bearing in mind the specific statutory structures.

As Scotland's senior Law Officer at Westminster, what representations does the Advocate-General plan to make to the UK Home Secretary further to the calls last week by the church and nation committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to close the family unit at Dungavel?

As the hon. Lady recognises, what happens at Dungavel is a reserved matter and the policy issues are not for me to deal with, but for the responsible Ministers at the Home Office. Home Office Ministers are aware of the General Assembly's criticisms and will doubtless take them into account.

Because of the Financial Services Act 1986, post office staff are told that they must not advise pensioners whether or not to take up a Post Office card account. However, the Government's own customer conversion centres show no such restraint as they bully and badger pensioners into taking their custom away from the Post Office. Will the Advocate-General look into the script used by the customer conversion centres to check whether they are acting legally under the terms of that Act?

I am more than happy to look into that specific issue. In general terms, however, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not appropriate to give individual members of the public financial advice. That is not a matter for counter staff, but they can advise on how, procedurally, various accounts can be opened.

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I raised concerns with her last month about the decision taken on the practice of slopping out in Scottish prisons. I understand that the particular case to which I referred is now the subject of an appeal. Can she confirm whether there are any other such cases pending in Scotland? Does she share my concern that, now that the practice has been abolished in prisons in England, all parties should work to eradicate this inhumane practice at the earliest opportunity in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that those representing the Scottish Executive have appealed the Napier case. I can also confirm that a number of new cases have been intimated to me as devolution issues. So far, they are small in number and will be dealt with in the usual way. I have not intervened in any of the new cases to date. On the general issue, my hon. Friend rightly recognised that the practice was abolished in England and the Scottish Executive have indicated that they are working towards reform in Scotland.

What recent discussions he has held with Royal Mail regarding postal services in Scotland. [174434]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of earlier today to my hon. Friend Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).

I believe in freedom of choice, and consider that pensioners should have a fair choice between taking up a Post Office card account or opting for a bank account. However, the script from the customer conversion centre of the Department for Work and Pensions is very biased. For example, the first thing that a pensioner who telephones the centre hears is, "I know that you have asked for a Post Office card account, but…" Staff at the centre then badger and bully pensioners into moving away from using the card account. Will the Minister look at the script and revise it to make its advice fair and unbiased?

I am assured by colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions that the advice is neutral and unbiased. However, given the hon. Gentleman's comments, I will have further discussions with those colleagues to see whether the script needs to be refined.

If he will make a statement on the performance of community legal service partnerships. [175296]

Community legal service partnerships have greatly improved the delivery of advice and guidance by co-ordinating the work of providers in response to locally identified need. The recently completed independent review of the community legal service enables us to build on that significant achievement by making recommendations for the future development of the partnership.

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. My constituency is unusual in that it spans two local authority areas. The partnerships work well in one area, but have been disbanded in the other. The voluntary sector was keen in both areas. Senior officers and the private sector in one local authority are committed to the scheme, which makes it possible to identify resources, and that has been very useful. In the other area, however, there was a lack of involvement by senior officers, and private firms were only marginally involved. Can the Minister suggest ways to encourage local authorities and the private sector to get involved? Will he perhaps make some funds available to start the process when need is identified?

I know that my hon. Friend does excellent work with the advice sector in his community, but I remind him that we spend £900 million on civil legal aid in this country. Also, I refer him to the Matrix review, the first review of the CLSPs, which makes a number of recommendations. It welcomes the establishment of the CLSPs, but it also calls for the appointment of an executive director to give them greater coherence. Other recommendations are the adoption of a three-year strategy and a programme board. I am considering those recommendations, and will be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that the first stage of the CLSPs has been a success, in that a full geographic coverage has been established, but that we must now make the second stage of the process a success? That is, we need to tie in more firmly all those partners that must co-operate. They include voluntary sector agencies, private legal service providers and, crucially, local government. What is being done to tie in local government and secure its commitment to the success of the CLSPs?

We now have 99 per cent. coverage across the country, which is a tremendous improvement on the situation of three years ago. At that time, people did not know where the resources were, it was not possible to refer people for advice, and there was no quality benchmarking process for the advice that people received. However, further progress remains to be made. We must ensure that there is greater coherence and definition, and that involves working more closely with local government.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the powers of the upper House. [175297]

The Government remain committed to reforming the second Chamber, but to proceed in the present climate of determined opposition in the Lords would crowd out the current legislative programme. Nevertheless, the Government will return to the issue in our manifesto, and I hope that we will gain a consensus on reforms that would maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons and ensure a proper revising role for the second Chamber.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Just as the design of a car differs from that of an aeroplane, because they have different functions to perform, should not the design of the House of Lords depend on the functions that the Government have in mind for it to perform?

Most hon. Members would agree with the notion that the House of Commons should be supreme in the final decision-making process and, therefore, that the powers of the House of Lords should follow that overriding principle. The Lords has a revising function, but any change to increase the legitimacy of the second Chamber would need to maintain the balance that we already have.

If, as my hon. Friend says, the House of Lords is a revising Chamber, why should it have any powers of delay? If it is to have such powers, they should be for a maximum of three months. The present delaying period is far too long and gives too much power to the unelected second Chamber.

My hon. Friend clearly believes that the House of Commons should be supreme, as do I. It is important that the second Chamber can exercise revising functions, including asking the Commons to reconsider. However, that has to be a reasonable power, exercised in a reasonable manner.

Was not the replacement of the hereditary principle with the hybrid hereditary and crony principle only ever meant to be a short-term answer? The total failure of the Government's policy of Lords reform has destroyed the legitimacy of any plans that they may now have to vary the powers of the other place.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. He raises the issue of the hereditary peerage. The Government still believe that we should get rid of the hereditary peerage, but unfortunately we met considerable opposition in the second Chamber that could have jeopardised the whole legislative programme, especially if Conservative and Liberal Members ganged up and blocked all the other good measures that we want to introduce. We will rightly return to the issue and ensure that we introduce reform that squares the supremacy of the Commons with extra legitimacy for the second Chamber.

Is not evidence mounting daily that the transitional arrangements are becoming too permanent? There is little incentive for Government to reform an upper House to make it more effective. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that there is sufficient political will to achieve that reform, and will he consider deleting the present powers of the House of Lords to veto secondary legislation and, at the same time, Incorporating a power for it to veto or substantially delay constitutional reform?

There is certainly the political will on the Labour Benches to reform the second Chamber. It is possible to find a solution and reach a consensus on the issue. We have encountered opposition from the Conservatives and Liberals in the other place. We hope that they will start to act in a more grown-up and mature manner so that we can find a consensus on the issue. I live in hope.

The Minister has just heard another complaint about the House of Lords being unelected. Do the Government now accept that it would be folly to tinker with the powers of the other place unless and until it is prepared to face up to the need to make it more democratic and representative and to tackle the issue of its composition?

The hon. Gentleman has a point to the extent that composition should be dealt with at the same time as the roles of both Chambers. It is important to maintain Commons supremacy, but a change in the legitimacy of the second Chamber may have a de facto impact on its role and functions. We will need to bear that in mind when we reach the final stage of reform, as I am confident we will.

Is not the best way of securing the supremacy of this House to ensure that the other House is never either wholly or partly elected?

That may be one option, but other people may feel that the second Chamber needs to be more connected with the public at large, although not as supreme and as much of a final decision maker as the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman has his views and other hon. Members have theirs; I think that it is possible to find a solution to the issue.

If he will make a statement on the potential for political interference in the (a)funding of and (b)appointment to the proposed supreme court. [175298]

The Government's proposals are specifically designed to minimise any possibility of political interference in either the funding of the supreme court or appointments to the supreme court.

Has the Minister seen the comments made by Lord Hope of Craighead in his written evidence to the Lords Select Committee? He was particularly interested in funding and pointed out that the Law Lords' running costs are currently met by the parliamentary vote, over which the Treasury has no control, and that that insulates the Law Lords almost entirely from interference by the Executive. He said:

"At present, the executive cannot lay a finger on the work that the law lords do. In an uncertain world, this is a vital guarantee of judicial independence where it matters most which our history has bequeathed to us, and I do not think that it should be given up."

I have seen those comments. Indeed, the Select Committee in the other place has been looking into many issues relating to how we might fund a supreme court in a way that preserves its independence. Yes, we want as much independence as we can possibly give, but we are talking about taxpayers' money and the House of Commons has to vote that money from our electorate, so at some level there must be a degree of accountability for the spending of taxpayers' money. That is not to say that we cannot find a way of having independence in the system, and I am sure that a solution can be found as the debate continues.

Does the Minister not agree that, although there should be no political interference, there has to be political involvement in the whole process? That is the only way that we can achieve accountability to Parliament. Will he confirm that, in the ongoing discussions about the new supreme court, the higher judiciary are being kept informed of the Government's proposals? Far too often over the past few weeks, very senior judges have criticised the proposals, yet we know that there is an ongoing dialogue between the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers and the judiciary. Will the Minister confirm that they are all being kept fully informed and that they consent to the changes that are taking place?

My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that we have that dialogue and partnership with the judiciary in the reforms that go ahead. Of course, there will be differences of opinion, and different ideas and solutions will be suggested, but at the end of the day I hope that we can gain consensus and see the Constitutional Reform Bill approved by the other place and brought to this House as soon as possible.

Does the Minister recognise that not only the funding but the staffing of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords are entirely protected from the Executive, because the Committee is part of the House of Lords, and that it will be necessary to write into the Bill a much clearer arrangement to protect the funding from the Executive and to give the court designated officers who are not themselves part of the Executive?

The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee whose report we shall debate in more detail in Westminster Hall on Thursday—I am just advertising that for other hon. Members. We shall be looking into how we can improve independence of funding, although I have to point out that the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as a UK Department, is capable of providing that level of ministerial accountability for taxpayers' money. That is an important principle because, ultimately, Parliament has to account to our electors for a resource that is procured from them.

What steps the Government are taking to ensure wider participation in the democratic process. [175299]

The Government have taken several significant steps to encourage wider participation in the democratic process: for example, introducing citizen education in schools; combining this year's local and European elections on the same day; making voter registration easier; and piloting all-postal voting.

I thank the Minister for his reply, and I applaud the measures that have been taken. Does he agree that improving participation in the democratic process is a matter not merely of making voting easier but of engaging people and enthusing them from an early age? What steps is the Department taking, with other Departments, to engage people in the political process, especially young people?

The work of the Department for Education and Skills, with our Department, has proved particularly successful—not least because citizenship education has been part of the national curriculum for the past two years, as a compulsory subject for 11 to 14-year-olds, which is intended to improve political literacy and social responsibility, and awareness of wider community issues and how decisions are made locally and nationally. That is a major step forward, which over time will produce greater awareness and participation among all our citizens.

Does the Minister accept that, for the first time for a very long time, many of my constituents will be enfranchised to vote in the local elections on 10 June? Many of my constituents leave home before 8 o'clock and often do not get back until after 9 o'clock. Why on earth cannot polling stations in local elections always open at 7 am and close at 10 pm? If that is good enough for European elections and elections to the House, surely it is good enough for local elections. Would we not then have greater participation?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. There is a strong case to standardise opening hours for polling stations—something that the Electoral Commission has recommended. We do not have a legislative vehicle at present for that, but I will certainly bear in mind the strong case that he makes.

I have not met many hon. Members who are in favour of compulsory voting, but has the Minister considered rewarding people who vote, perhaps by tweaking their tax code or by giving a modest increase in benefits if they are benefit recipients?

Perhaps the greatest reward that we can give to our electors is a Labour Government, providing quality services to a consistently high standard. I hope that that reward will continue long into the future.

One of the merits of our traditional system was its simplicity—people would just put a cross on the ballot paper and the person with the most votes won. The trouble is that the system has become very complicated, which is probably turning people away. Let us just consider London on 10 June: people can vote for the London Mayor, under a supplementary vote system, where they express a first and second preference; they can vote for the London assembly, with an additional member system, by voting for a candidate in an additional, top-up party list and they can vote for the European Parliament with a closed party list. So they have five votes with three completely different systems—without the added complication of whether to vote in person or by post. Surely that growing complication, with a multiplicity of voting systems and methods, is causing a lot of disapproval and misunderstanding. Is it any wonder that people say, "Stuff the whole thing—we're not going to bother to participate at all."?

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about the d'Hondt mechanism for counting results, but he did not get round to that one. I recognise the likelihood that some areas will have several different ballot papers in June's elections, but I would caution his underestimating of the electorate's intelligence and their ability to cope with such things. Most people can manage to understand that they have a ballot paper, that they cast their vote and that they see the results when those ballots are counted. That is the nature of our democracy at present.

Does my right hon. Friend—sorry, hon. Friend; I have promoted him. [HON. MEMBERS: "In time."] Does he agree that we might achieve greater enthusiasm for the democratic process if the editors and owners of certain tabloids refrained from frequently commenting unfairly on hon. Members?

I have found that most newspapers tend to be very fair and reasonable with politicians, and I have great relations with many of them, but my hon. Friend has concerns about certain of the red-top tabloids. All I can say is that the House needs to keep a close eye on the truth in matters that relate to hon. Members.

When he next expects to meet members of the lay magistracy in East Anglia to discuss the workings of the local justice system. [175300]

Although I have no current plans to meet representatives of the lay magistracy in East Anglia, I am, of course, ready to do so if that would prove useful.

It may well prove useful. Is the Minister aware that most of the lay magistrates whom I have met feel very let down by the Government? They feel undervalued, unwanted and unappreciated and they are concerned about the number of court closures. What would he say to lay magistrates today to boost their morale and improve their standing? In addition, will he confirm that there will be no more small court closures?

On the latter point, there have been no court closures this year, in contrast to the closure of 21 magistrates courts in the last year of the Conservative Administration. I believe that the best way to secure high morale among magistrates is to reiterate how much we, on both sides of the House, value them. They are volunteers who provide a good, solid and continuous service in the administration of justice, and I, for one, am very grateful for the work that magistrates do.

To ask the Leader of the House if he will submit plans to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to simplify papers for standing committees. [175289]

I am aware that some Members find the form and number of Standing Committee papers unhelpful. The Modernisation Committee is considering the accessibility of the House's publications in its current inquiry on Parliament's engagement with the public, which includes the form of the papers provided for members of Standing Committees.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in many ways, the present arrangements for Committee papers resemble the form-guide sketch from the Marx brothers' "A Day at the Races", in that one needs four documents—the Bill, the explanatory notes, the list of amendments tabled and the Chairman's selection of amendments—to understand what is going on? Does he have any proposals on methods whereby all those documents could be combined, for perusal by both the public and Committee members?

The Procedure Committee is also considering the matter. I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Modernisation Committee has held a number of evidence sessions with members of the public in which that point has been repeated, especially by visitors who are attending a Standing Committee for the first time. We need to address the issue, but pulling the various papers—the Bill, the explanatory notes, the amendment paper, the selection list, the background papers, Library notes, and so on—into one document would be difficult and perhaps costly. None the less, simplifying the process should be a common objective.

May I suggest one way of improving papers for Standing Committees—a sort of modernisation, perhaps even a tidying-up exercise? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One or two of my hon. Friends say no, but should not the Opposition be allowed to publish explanatory notes with key amendments on the Committee amendment paper?

That is taking modernisation very far indeed. Were the hon. Gentleman ever to find himself in government—which is unlikely, despite his being a nice fellow—he might take a rather different view.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence taken so far by the Modernisation Committee makes it clear that Standing Committees are the least understood part of our proceedings? It is evident to me as a member of the Chairmen's Panel that Members often do not understand how amendments are selected and how their amendments will be voted on if they choose to press them to a vote.

Of course, selection of amendments is not a matter for the Leader of the House, but my hon. Friend underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that the procedure in Standing Committees is baffling to visitors. On the other hand, members of Standing Committees deal with highly complex aspects of Bills that will become law, and such matters have to be dealt with seriously and technically in order to conform to the legislative requirements. We have to get the balance right, but I am sure that it has to be struck in favour of greater clarity and openness and a more welcoming atmosphere for visitors to the House.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the Modernisation Committee has evidence that not just Members and visitors but people with a direct interest in the legislation who may be affected by the outcome find the whole procedure unintelligible? Does he accept that we need to look seriously, for example, at the timing of advance notice of issues that are coming up in Standing Committee? We must, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, look hard at the way in which Select Committees have improved their procedures and made themselves much more intelligible to everybody with an interest in those matters.

Yes, indeed. Select Committees have done an admirable job in that respect. As for the serious issue of people knowing what is coming up, I assume that that is a vote for programming, which enables us to do that. For the interested groups to which, I assume, the hon. Gentleman was referring indirectly, and which may have a direct stake in legislation, knowing what day an issue will be discussed in Committee and at what time is a tremendous benefit of programming. The hon. Gentleman's wider argument, however, is generally very welcome.

To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the House of Commons Commission will ban smoking in the Members' Tea Room. [175290]

The Catering Committee makes recommendations on smoking in Refreshment Department outlets, including the Tea Room. I am sure that it would be happy to receive views from hon. Members, particularly the hon. Gentleman. As a good employer, the Commission discourages House staff from smoking, but it is also keen to protect them from the effects of passive smoking.

That is a good reply. I do not consider myself a health fascist in any sense, but the time has come to protect our staff and Members themselves from passive smoking. In addition, there is not a single sprinkler in the building, so this world heritage site could easily go up in flames. I hope the Catering Committee will turn its attention to this serious matter.

Most members of staff and most Members are non-smokers, but not all of them, so we must bear that in mind. Many smoking restrictions have been put in place, where practicable, on a case-by-case basis, but the hon. Gentleman's question is timely, and it may well be time for the Commission to look at the question of smoking in the Palace precincts in a fresh light. I am happy to consult colleagues and report progress to the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the study published by Imperial college last week that showed that every week passive smoking kills about one person working in the hospitality industry? That obviously affects our staff in the Tea Room as well as Members, so does he not agree that now is the time to act?

Absolutely. We are conscious of that study presented at the Royal College of Physicians, and it is an important development. Passive smoking is emerging as a new health risk in the workplace more generally, so it is right that the House should recognise that and look at the issue again.

To ask the Leader of the House, what proposals he has to ensure greater representation of minority parties on departmental Select Committees. [175291]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of the concerns of minority parties about their representation on departmental Select Committees and on other Committees. Progress has been made in addressing their concerns in a number of ways: for example, by accommodating their interests in the nomination for recent Joint Committees for pre-legislative scrutiny, and for Standing Committees on Bills and on Delegated Legislation.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but it did not address the question that I tabled on departmental Select Committees. At the moment, Labour is over-represented by three Members and the Liberal Democrats by two Members, but Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are under-represented by two Members, which is not right in any democratic set-up. What progress has been made on giving us a place on the Liaison Committee?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I accept that his concern is genuine. I could quibble over his arithmetic, but his general point is a valid one. I urge him to bear in mind the fact that Committees are established at the beginning of a Parliament, and the rules are set out in Standing Orders. I remind the House that the previous arrangement, whereby the minority parties were represented by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, was changed at their instigation, and that that is now done by the Government Chief Whip, who is involved in discussions on the matter.

To ask the Leader of the House if he will submit proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to open the House to visitors on Saturdays. [175292]

The Modernisation Committee has considered the accessibility of the House to visitors as part of its inquiry into connecting Parliament with the public. The question whether the House should be open to visitors on Saturdays is also a matter for the Administration Committee, in the first instance, and for the House of Commons Commission.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Although Sheffield is less than 200 miles from London, the travelling time ranges between three and five hours. Even when the House sits at 2.30 pm, many of my constituents find it difficult to arrive in time for a proper tour around the House. Constituents throughout the United Kingdom, many of whom live much further away than Sheffield, should have more opportunities to visit the House, with or without their MPs.

I understand the force of my hon. Friend's argument, because my constituency is a similar distance from Parliament, and visitors travelling by coach have to set off at about 5 am. I am pleased by the way in which the new visitors' services manager has taken on that question—for example, we have agreed an earlier 9 am start for tours, and Member-guided tours starting at 8 am are being planned. He also ensures that, where possible, priority for tour slots later in the day is given to those travelling from constituencies furthest away from Westminster. Given the security implications, however, whether it would be cost-effective and sensible to open on Saturdays is an issue. Owing to the efforts of the Central Tours Office, numbers on Member-guided tours in the first three months of this year have increased by 9,500 over the equivalent period last year.