When he last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the effects of road fuel taxation on business in Scotland [180229]

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend on a wide range of issues.

The respective pre-pump prices, excluding taxes and duties, of unleaded petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel are 20p and 21p. Last year, the Chancellor said that he would not proceed with fuel duty rate increases if the international oil situation remained volatile. What hope can the Secretary of State give to hauliers and motorists in Scotland and throughout the UK that the Chancellor will keep his word?

The hon. Gentleman has picked his day carefully—today, oil prices have fallen to a two-month low following the handover of sovereignty in Iraq. Oil prices are currently volatile and high because of a combination of factors, including not only uncertainty in Iraq and the middle east, but increased demand from the United States, China and other countries. The Chancellor has said that he will examine oil prices and review the situation in August.

The Government have cut the fuel tax escalator that the previous Government imposed. Does the Secretary of State accept that environmental issues such as climate change are important and that a sensitive balance must be reached? Those who fought against protestors in the late 1980s are now inciting people needlessly to riot, which is a sorry sight.

My hon. Friend is right that one must take a wide range of issues into account in considering the taxation of fuel. A few weeks ago, the Conservative party showed its opportunism at its worst: instead of joining others in encouraging OPEC to increase oil production, it made opportunistic demands, but Conservative Members know that they would take a completely different view if they were in government.

The Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will review September's proposed 2p rise in fuel tax in August. Just so that ordinary Scots know how strong their voice is in Cabinet, are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would intervene and advocate abandoning that tax hike? Today's press says that desks are being thumped throughout Downing street; are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would thump his desk?

In our Department, desks are not thumped—they are too valuable. Just as I am determined to bear down on the Scotland Office's hospitality budget, I will not rack up bills by damaging my desk. People, whether they are hauliers or motorists, are, of course, concerned about fuel prices, but it is important to concentrate on the causes of the oil price increase, which, as I said, are increased demand from certain parts of the world and events in Iraq and the middle east. I recognise that we have a long way to go, but the recent fall in oil prices is welcome. Brent crude is currently trading at just more than $33 a barrel, which is much better than a few weeks ago. The Chancellor has said that he will keep the situation under review and, as he indicated earlier this year, he will make a decision in August.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the threatened protests throughout Scotland should fuel tax increase. Will he assure the House that those protestors will face the same level of law enforcement that trade unionists faced when they defended their communities in the 1980s?

It is important that anyone who demonstrates abides by the law and does what they are asked to do by the police and other authorities. Of course people have a right to object, but they must do so within the framework of the law.

In my constituency and in many other remote rural areas where road transport is a necessity, fuel costs, on average, 10p more than it does in urban areas such as Inverness and Edinburgh. Is the Secretary of State aware that EC directives 92/81 and 92/82 contain derogations to allow for lower tax to cover precisely that situation? Why do not the Government act to end that penalty in remote areas, and what is his Department doing to persuade the Treasury to that end?

The Liberals always give the impression that they want fuel prices to go up for environmental reasons—except, of course, in their own constituencies. As for the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would give rise to difficulties were the Government to decide that fuel tax should be lower in one area than another. There will always be an argument about where the line is drawn. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is not practical, and were we to act on it I suspect that he would be the first to complain about where the line was drawn.

Despite today's welcome news about oil prices, 77 per cent. of the price of a litre of fuel is still taken up by taxes and duties. Does the Secretary of State think that that figure is too high or too low, and does he think that there could still be a case for a further 2p hike in fuel prices for Scottish motorists?

As I said, the Government's position is that we are keeping the situation under review and the Chancellor will make his decision in August. That seems to me to be the right way to approach these matters.

What discussions he has had with the First Minister about returning cash seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to local communities worst affected by the criminals. [180230]

As my hon. Friend will know, that is a matter for the Scottish Executive, but I know that they are determined that recovered criminal assets must be used to benefit the communities that suffer from drug dealing.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. About 50 per cent. of all assets seized in Scotland have been seized through the good work of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, which also led to the largest ever UK seizure through the civil recovery aspect of the Act. I appreciate that this is a matter for the Scottish Executive; nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend speaks to the First Minister will he impress upon him that some of that money must find its way back to the local communities that have been so badly damaged through criminal activities, and especially drug dealing which is rife in many parts of the country?

I am aware of the seizures that have taken place in the south-west of Scotland and my hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the chief constable and his police force in Dumfries and Galloway. For many years—indeed, ever since he has been the Member for Dumfries—my hon. Friend has expressed his concern about the impact of drug dealing on communities. Of course, I talk to the First Minister about such matters. It is difficult to have an exact correlation between where the money is seized and where it is paid back, because the place where it is seized may not be the scene where so many crimes have been committed and communities have suffered. The Scottish Executive is talking to the Treasury about the exact percentage that is retained and repaid. The general principle of the legislation is absolutely right, and it is a great pity that Opposition Members were so reluctant to support us.

Notwithstanding the fact that many of these responsibilities lie with the Scottish Executive, this House has responsibility for regulating and dealing with professionals. Given that the amount of money that has been seized is lower than might have been expected, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to deal with professional associations representing accountants, bankers and lawyers, which often act to assist criminals by hiding their assets and preventing their being seized?

I am tempted to declare an interest, but it has, sadly, been some years since I practised, although the register shows that I am still a member of the Faculty of Advocates. I am still practising politics, however.

What discussions he has held with the Department of Trade and Industry on the future of regional selective assistance. [180231]

I met ministerial colleagues last week when the European Commission's proposals for amending the guidelines that govern regional state aid from 1 January 2007 were discussed. The Government's approach to responding to the Commission regarding the proposals was set out by the Minister for Industry and the Regions in a written statement on 14 June

In the borders over the past few years, more than £6 million of regional selective assistance has created more than 200 jobs and safeguarded at least another 1,000. Does the Under-Secretary recognise the importance of that funding in the aftermath of the debacles at Biosytems and in the textile industry? Will she ensure that however RSA is to be restructured, the needs of rural manufacturing economies, such as that of the south-east of Scotland, will not be ignored?

We are well aware of the importance of regional selective assistance to many areas in Scotland. Approximately 48 per cent. of Scotland is covered by RSA. I know that specific issues apply in the borders. In our discussions with the Commission, the Government hope to identify effective, regional targeting while ensuring that some of the most deprived and disadvantaged areas are given the economic support that they need. I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to make their views known in the consultation period that the Minister for Industry and the Regions announced.

Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the report of the West of Scotland European Consortium, which makes a compelling case for continuing assistance to the west of Scotland, due to deprivation and social exclusion that are higher than average? Will she assure me that whatever the future holds for regional assistance, the needs of constituencies such as Inverclyde, which have higher than average unemployment and poverty, will be borne in mind?

I have had a glance at the document that my hon. Friend mentions. I have not read it in detail, but I endorse his views. As someone who served on the monitoring committee of the former Strathclyde objective 2 partnership, I know the importance of European funding, through structural funds and regional selective assistance, to areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency. It is one of the aspects of European partnership that is clear to people not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. It is one of the benefits of European partnership and membership of the European Union that the Conservative party often neglects to mention.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the Dungavel immigration removal centre. [180232]

The operation of Dungavel immigration removal centre is a reserved matter and the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I have regular meetings with Home Office and Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss any specific concerns surrounding asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland.

My hon. Friend knows that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am a member, visited Dungavel last week. We were impressed with the facilities and the commitment of the staff. Will she join me in congratulating the staff on their efforts and assure me that any families in Dungavel will be detained for as short a period as possible?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that the staff in Dungavel will also welcome them. Some of the pictures that the media paint of Dungavel in no way reflect the high quality of service that good people provide there to refugees and asylum seekers who need support.

At Scottish questions recently, the Under-Secretary welcomed the fact that the new Children's Commissioner for Scotland intended to visit Dungavel. She knows that the commissioner has visited and that she said at the weekend that she wholeheartedly agreed with the conclusion of the chief inspector of prisons that detention compromises children's welfare and development. What does the Under-Secretary say in response to the commissioner's comments?

The commissioner also said that the facilities inside Dungavel were good. She was there at the express invitation of the Home Secretary, as I said at the last Scottish questions. Yes, the commissioner is on record as saying that she does not believe in principle that children should be detained, and that is a difference that we have with some groups in Scotland about the detention of children. The reality is that if the hon. Lady's party were in charge of immigration in Scotland, it, too, would have to put in place a structure to deal with those who were unwilling to accept the outcome of the immigration or asylum process. I am due to meet the commissioner quite soon and I shall be interested to hear her views first hand, rather than through the media.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that a joint meeting between the Scottish Executive, the Scotland Office and the Children's Commissioner, Kathleen Marshall, might be constructive in developing a way forward for dealing with the question of children at Dungavel?

I reiterate that the management of Dungavel is a matter for the Home Office, although we obviously link very closely with the Scottish Executive and Home Office Ministers over some of the issues that I have already identified. I have had correspondence with the Children's Commissioner and, as a courtesy, we are meeting to discuss some of the issues that are causing her concern. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the Scottish Executive, Home Office Ministers and I meet regularly to discuss these issues, which are important not only to this House but in Scotland generally.

Having visited the centre recently, may I say to the Minister that one of its strengths is the separation between the centre's detention staff and the Home Office officials dealing with the legal process? However much those detained endeavour to destabilise the process, they are in my view still treated with the same concern. May I seek the Minister's reassurance that there are no plans to change that two-pronged relationship, as has been reported?

There was a report in a national daily newspaper that the Home Office intended to extend Dungavel to provide a further 150 places for families, and it is totally untrue.

Does the Minister agree that she and her Department would be under considerably less pressure over Dungavel if the wider asylum issue were not in such widespread chaos? Is not the real scandal the fact that so many of those awaiting removal have had to wait so long for the legal process to be concluded, in the knowledge that so many others have evaded the process entirely?

The real scandal is that when the Conservative party was in power, it allowed our immigration and asylum policy to descend into chaos. We have had to sort it out. The reality is that immigration and asylum cases are now being dealt with in a far more effective and efficient manner than they ever were under the Conservative Government.

When he last had discussions with the Health and Safety Executive on its work in Scotland. [180233]

Ministers have had discussions with a number of organisations in relation to their work in Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that while the number of fatalities and major accidents at work in the rest of the United Kingdom has decreased, the number in Scotland has increased in recent years, and that the rate of deaths in the workplace in Scotland is 95 per cent. higher than the average for Great Britain? What discussions has he had with the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland about the resources that it requires to tackle that issue, and to ensure that accidents in the workplace decrease significantly in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. There is no intrinsic reason why the number of accidents in the workplace in Scotland should be greater. In particular, the number of people injured on construction sites in Scotland is much higher than on sites in England. The Health and Safety Executive is investigating the issue and carrying out research into why this is happening. It has also been agreed that the HSE, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, will set up a joint piece of work to examine how the situation can be improved. In addition to what the Government can do, there must be a reminder to everyone involved in a workplace—a construction site or elsewhere—that safety can and must be improved. There are still too many people being killed and seriously injured at work in Scotland, and that should not be happening.

What plans he has to meet the Scottish Executive to discuss the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [180234]

My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a wide range of issues. We welcome publication of the index as a valuable tool in tackling poverty for both reserved and devolved areas of responsibility.

May I say to my hon. Friend that I am 63 years old and live in the Shettleston constituency—[Laughter.] Adult male life expectancy there is just that—63. Tragically, because this is no laughing matter, that is 14 years fewer than the UK national average, and it is partly due to poverty in the area. Six of the 10 most deprived areas in Scotland are in Glasgow's east end, where 20,000 people are unemployed. Does she therefore agree that the No. 1 priority must be the education and training of the unemployed, and will she assure the House that she and the Government will do all that they can to help the Scottish Executive to deal with and tackle this very serious situation?

In spite of the raucous response to my hon. Friend's question, by drawing attention to his age he makes a serious point about the difficulties in some parts of the United Kingdom, including his constituency. I hope that he will take confidence from the fact that we are tackling some of the major issues, which are mainly related to unemployment and poverty, not only in his constituency but across Scotland. More children have dropped out of poverty over the past seven years of a Labour Government, following the dramatic increases that had occurred in children and their families dropping into low income. I hope that that will give him reassurance for the future. I wish him many future happy returns.

What devolution issues she has considered since 25 May. [180244]

What devolution issues she has considered since 25 May. [180245]

Since 25 May, 48 devolution issues have been intimated to me. Thirty-six of those related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination under the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulatory fisheries offences and evidential issues. In the civil sphere, 12 issues were intimated, 11 of which related to actions for damages or judicial review in respect of prison conditions, while the last concerned a challenge to the discretion of the procurator fiscal.

May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether she has had any discussions with the new Children's Commissioner for Scotland, Dr. Kathleen Marshall, who was referred to earlier today, in connection with the concerns that she has expressed about human rights issues arising from the new antisocial behaviour legislation that has recently passed through the Scottish Parliament? If she has not had any such discussions, does she intend to meet her later this summer?

To date, I have had no discussions with the commissioner. The matters that my hon. Friend raises relate to policy, which would usually be discussed with policy Ministers, not with me. Obviously, were there any legal issues to be addressed, that might be a different matter.

Has the hon. and learned Lady's advice been sought, however, on the positioning and the legal situation as regards the construction of wind farms in international shipping lanes in Scotland? In the event of a wind farm being built and a fisherman colliding with it, who would be responsible for that collision?

The hon. Lady knows full well that I cannot tell the House whether my advice has been sought.

Not again.

I am afraid so. I am happy to discuss privately with the hon. Lady general issues relating to the statutory structure, if that would be of assistance to her.

May I congratulate the Advocate-General on the splendid job that she is doing? She will be a very difficult act to follow. Will she also pass on my congratulations to the Lord Advocate on the great improvement that there has been in the Scottish Procurator Fiscal Service? Can she also tell him that if he needs any heavyweight support, I will be free after the next election?

I can only say that those kind words were entirely unsolicited. I shall be more than happy to pass on my right hon. Friend's good wishes and thanks to the Lord Advocate.

What human rights issues she has considered since 25 May. [180248]

In addition to the human rights issues raised in the devolution issue minutes to which I referred some moments ago, as a matter of routine such matters were considered by me in my role under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 and in my capacity as a United Kingdom Law Officer.

Given that Mr. Eddie McKechnie, acting in furtherance of the human rights of Mr. Megrahi, is hopeful that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is giving the most serious and painstaking consideration to that complex case, does my hon. and learned Friend think that the House of Commons will have a role when the commission reports? I do not criticise Members of the Scottish Parliament, but it is clear that none of them have bothered to become immersed in what is a very complex issue.

I am sure that many Members of this Parliament, as individuals, will read the commission's report with great interest when it is available. I think that these matters will generally be regarded as devolved, but I am sure that, with his great experience, my hon. Friend will find a way of raising the issues that concern him in the House.

Will the Advocate-General review the answers that she has given in the House over the past six months? Does she believe that her Question Time has added anything to parliamentary accountability?

I think that Question Time has resulted in a most interesting and stimulating debate. I have certainly enjoyed it. I am particularly grateful to Opposition Members, who have raised so many questions with me. I shall be delighted to review the answers, but I remind Members that the conventions which prohibit me from giving details of opinions are not created by me—they are long-standing conventions, which Members have also supported.

What assessment the Department has made of the efficacy of the recent trials for postal voting in the north-west of England. [180752]

The recent trials of postal voting in four regions of England proved worth while. Turnouts increased throughout the country, but were appreciably higher in the all-postal areas, where they doubled in comparison with those for the previous European elections. The Electoral Commission is statutorily obliged to evaluate the pilots. No doubt lessons will be learned from its report, which is due in mid-September.

Experience has shown that turnouts increase initially after all-postal ballots, but then fall back. Turnout increased on this occasion because there were two elections on the same day, the European and the local elections. Will the Minister acknowledge the incidence of costly administrative chaos, postal delays in some areas and alleged fraud? Will he ensure that while opportunities for postal voting will continue to be provided, the traditional democratic right to vote in person at a polling station will always be maintained in the future?

Of course the right to cast a vote in the polling booth was maintained in the all-postal ballots, via the assistance and delivery points. There was an issue over whether there were enough of those, and we could think about that for the future.

The trials were very successful in Leicester. Turnout increased in all three Leicester constituencies—[Interruption.]

Order. Members must let the hon. Gentleman put his question. When the Minister replies, he too should be heard.

Turnout was up in all three Leicester constituencies, especially Leicester, South, where a lot of people turned out to vote against the cuts instituted by the Liberal Democrat administration. However, will my hon. Friend look at the guidance in respect of making ballot boxes available on the day for those who missed the postal deadline? Only one ballot box was provided by the returning officer, which was at the town hall in the city centre. Parking was extremely difficult, so many people could not return their ballot papers. Could we not have, at the very minimum, a ballot box in each parliamentary constituency to make them more accessible to those who cannot vote except on polling day?

The point of having an all-postal pilot was to test the extent to which the dispatch of ballot papers to the electorate through the post helped to make it easier and more convenient for them to vote. If we had provided the same number of polling stations as before, it would have negated slightly the effect of testing the efficacy of all-postal balloting. I accept that many hon. Members have noted that they would have preferred more assistance and delivery points, and that is obviously something that will come out in the Electoral Commission's evaluation.

It is extraordinary that the Government are yet again disregarding the views of the Electoral Commission in respect of the referendums.

"I am confident that the deadlines to hand over packs to the Royal Mail will be met."—[Official Report, 27 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1735.]

What a shame that, in attempting to perpetuate the story about the supposed chaos and shambles of all-postal voting that both Opposition parties have tried to peddle, the hon. Gentleman seeks to accuse me of somehow misleading the House, which I certainly did not. I underlined the fact that in law, the ballot papers needed to be dispatched to the deliverers from the returning officers by midnight on 1 June. That is in fact what happened to all intents and purposes, and within a few hours of that deadline, the papers were issued. There may well have been different contractual arrangements from area to area and from returning officer to returning officer, but the legal position and legal requirements that I set out were absolutely clear. I am glad that that was a success and that we were able to ensure that those papers were issued, to all intents and purposes, by that deadline.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's two main priorities in using postal voting are to ensure that a larger number of people use their vote, which is good for democracy, and to ensure the integrity of the vote? Later in the year, when we have the report showing the advantages, the disadvantages and where we can improve on what was done in June, may we have a full debate on it? There is merit in taking this matter forward and we can learn from what happened this month.

My hon. Friend makes some reasonable points and I am sure that we will debate the Electoral Commission's report and evaluation in due course. From some of the comments from Opposition parties, one would have thought that we were criminal in trying to address the problems of lower turnout, engagement and participation by the electorate. We have come up with the solution of trying out new techniques to engage the public, while the Opposition parties have developed no ideas or proposals whatever to engage the public more in the electoral system. That is a great pity.

With allegations of corruption, vote tampering and voter manipulation now growing, with 20,000 spoiled ballot papers in the north-west region alone, and with concerns about the huge confusion emanating from postal voting, is the Minister really going to maintain that a short-term, marginal, 5 per cent. improvement in turnout is worth the collapse of confidence in our voting system that postal voting could entail?

The issues about spoiled ballot papers are separate from the constant repetition of claims of fraud and malpractice. I note that, again, the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence, but is simply perpetuating rumour, story and things that have been heard on the grapevine. If that is good enough for the Opposition, it is certainly not good enough for the police, who need to see the evidence immediately—if the hon. Gentleman has those reports. I trust that he will now produce such evidence immediately to the police, if he has it. There have been no charges yet in respect of any electoral offences in the pilot regions and no legal proceedings, despite the scare stories and the doom and gloom that we heard from Opposition Members.

We all want to boost turnout, but why can we not pilot weekend voting? Why can we not pilot Thursday voting, but make Thursday a public holiday? There are alternative ways of approaching this issue, without jeopardising the secrecy of the ballot.

Nobody has jeopardised the secrecy of the ballot, but I accept that my hon. Friend has other suggestions that he would like to try out. In fact, we trialled weekend voting in Watford in 2003, but no appreciable effect was proven there. The right approach is to test new arrangements that make it easier and more convenient for people to participate in elections, while always maintaining the security and safety of the electoral process.

If he will make a statement on the future of reform of the House of Lords. [180753]

The Government remain committed to reform of the House of Lords, but to proceed now in the face of current opposition in the Lords could jeopardise the wider legislative programme. However, the Government are determined to take this matter forward and to find a consensus that defends the Commons supremacy and the proper revising role of the second Chamber.

Does the Minister accept that, just as no one has been able to find a solution to the West Lothian problem, there is growing concern that a similar problem will arise with reform of the House of Lords, because no one can come up with a credible solution to altering the balance of power between the two Chambers, and to the consequent problems? In order to provide a solution once and for all, why do the Government not support the Prime Minister in his preferred option and just continue appointing Members of the House of Lords?

I am not quite sure that that is the Prime Minister's total view, but I always support him in all eventualities, as all Members are well aware by now. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point in part, in that it is possible to square the issues of improved legitimacy for the second Chamber and maintaining Commons supremacy. There is a consensus that we want this House of Commons to be the final decision maker. At the same time, it is important that we find a way to improve connection with the public so far as the second Chamber's composition is concerned, while ensuring that it continues in its revising role.

There is a view in some quarters that it would be better to have a half-baked scheme than no scheme at all. Will my hon. Friend resist that view and remember that it has taken us nearly a century to come up with House of Lords reform that has some chance of working? It would be better to get it right in a form that can command widespread support.

That was a cryptic question from my hon. Friend, but I shall not demur from answering it. He is correct to say that it is better to get a solution that works well. As I said earlier, it is possible to square Commons supremacy with improved legitimacy for the second Chamber, and we will continue to press ahead in looking for a consensus on that point.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that many of us are very concerned about the influence and power of the Whips in this House and therefore want to extend the powers of the second Chamber? Does he also understand that in order to do that, he has to give greater political legitimacy to the second Chamber? That would involve either a complete or very substantial election process by a direct franchise from the people.

Of course, the whipping system already exists in the second Chamber. The right hon. and learned Gentleman comments on the situation whereby those who are elected might be more prone to the persuasions of the whipping system than others, but I am not convinced. Each individual takes a decision according to their own conscience—just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not always necessarily obey the Whip when it was waved under his nose.

May I urge my hon. Friend to continue his search for a consensus and a scheme for the reform of the second Chamber? It would be unacceptable to go into the next election without a clear manifesto commitment from our party on that question. I therefore urge him to meet, if he has not already met, Mr. Billy Bragg, who proposes one form of a scheme that may command a consensus. Will he undertake to meet Billy Bragg and many others who have views on how best to take a step forward with this knotty problem?

I have already met Mr. Billy Bragg and hon. Members who advocate the secondary mandate scheme, as they term it. That proposal is designed to improve the legitimacy of the second Chamber without direct election. My hon. Friend's point about our manifesto is correct. I believe that we should develop proposals and he should wait and see what appears in the manifesto.

What progress is being made in implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [180754]

The Government are making good progress on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. An extensive programme of work is taking place in Whitehall and beyond, and we are confident of full and effective implementation by 1 January 2005.

Has the Minister had a chance to consider early-day motion 1269, tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), which has secured the support of 151 MPs? It expresses grave concern about the massive increase in projected costs for accessing information under the Freedom of Information Act. Does the Minister recognise that charging £575 for a piece of information is likely to deter people from using the Act? Is it simply a matter of petty Treasury money-grabbing policy, or is it something more sinister—an attempt to ensure that people do not exercise their rights under the Act so that it is not effective in its operation?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we will bring forward our plans for the fee regime later in the autumn. He will also know that the Government are aware of their previous commitment that the fees should reflect appropriately on the public purse.

What assessment the Department has made of the integrity of the electoral roll following the postal ballots in the recent elections. [180755]

The new powers given to electoral registration officers in 2001 have helped to safeguard the accuracy of the electoral register. Further security improvements, including individual rather than household registration, are being actively considered as part of an ongoing review, but not specifically related to one election.

Does the Minister accept that the robustness of the register is vital to minimising fraud? Does he agree that confidence in our electoral system is not so much determined by a relatively low number of proven cases of fraud as by the perception that our systems largely exclude the possibility for it?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of the electoral roll. The accuracy of the register is vital as the foundation of our democratic system. We have made improvements by giving new powers to electoral registration officers to demand information and to be able to ask for specified evidence of age, nationality and so forth. Of course, they also have the power not to include people on the electoral roll. In this country, we largely operate on the basis of trust and believe that citizens will fill in their forms correctly, but we have to ensure that we always improve security whenever possible.

As the Minister said, the electoral roll is the foundation of any smoothly functioning democratic process. If that is distorted, everything that follows risks becoming polluted as well. Suggestions have been made that some electoral rolls are overstated with ineligible names, particularly in urban areas, to the tune of 10 or even 15 per cent. That has serious implications for all-postal voting and for the setting of boundaries for seats in the House. Will the Minister confirm that he will accelerate the introduction of individual voter registration and that, when it is introduced, it will require the person's name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and signature to authenticate genuine voters and remove the ineligible ones?

That is something that we are discussing, not least with the Electoral Commission, which has proposed individual registration for some time. One problem that needs to be overcome is the extra burden that individual registration would place on citizens. Instead of each household filling in a form, each individual would have to fill in an extra form. That may be necessary and it may have merit, but a possible consequence is that people might fall off the electoral roll, and we would not want that to happen. We must make sure that individual registration is accurate, and that it legitimately enfranchises as many people as possible. I think that we can get that balance right. We are trying to solve the problem and we will bring forward proposals in due course.

What representations the Department has received from the legal profession on the legal products the Tesco supermarket chain plans to put on sale. [180757]

My Department has received no such representations, but it looks favourably on initiatives that offer people wider access to straightforward information about legal issues. My Department has been in discussion for some time with retailers about the role that they might play in that process.

Even experienced purchasers of professional services find it difficult to assess the quality and integrity of their lawyers. The Clementi review of the regulatory framework of legal services might sanction a supermarket approach to justice. If so, does my hon. Friend agree that although a pile-it-high, sell-it-cheap ethos might appear to offer choice and value, in reality it could lead to costly mistakes? That would be not unlike the bogus consumerism promoted by both Front-Bench teams in education and health.

Clearly, I cannot comment on David Clementi's report, which the Government asked him to produce but which will not be ready until later in the year. Of course I welcome the provision by Tesco, or any supermarket retailer, of information to consumers. That information concerns matters such as tenancy agreements, the writing of wills—something that we all want—and, for people whose family circumstances have broken down, divorce. We should wait and see what David Clementi comes up with, but also recognise that the current arrangements—which mean that the Law Society and the Bar Council are the regulator, the disciplinary body and the representative trade union—are a privilege. At the turn of the 21st century, it is a privilege that we should look into.

What plans he has to propose the removal of the term "stranger" from the Standing Orders. [180767]

What action he is taking on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to end the use of the term "stranger". [180772]

I intend in due course to table for the consideration of the House a motion to amend the Standing Orders to remove the references to "strangers". I intend to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, whether that change might also be reflected in the names used for parts of the Palace and in other usage in the House.

When my constituents come to Parliament as my guests, they are treated like royalty and fed lavishly at my expense—at least, some of them are. However, when they make their own arrangements to attend Parliament, all too often they are left queueing in the rain and labelled as "strangers". Although House staff display exceptional courtesy and efficiency, my constituents are treated as the institutional equivalent of the Ebola virus. Is not it time that the House abolished the concept of "strangers"? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will make the speediest possible moves to bring this House into the 21st century?

I agree with my hon. Friend, in every respect. The prospect of being treated like royalty makes me wish that I was one of her constituents. Interestingly, the "Oxford English Dictionary" states that the parliamentary use of the term "stranger" refers to

"one who is not a member or an official of the House and is present at its debates only on suffrance".

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply in relation to the use of the word "stranger", but does he agree that other strange words are used in this place, such as the term "honourable Member"? Is there any support for a change that would allow MPs to be addressed by their names, without the use of that archaic and unmodernised term?

That is a revolutionary suggestion, but we should take matters one at a time. Let us get "strangers" consigned to the history books. I understand that the issue of right hon. and hon. Members has been considered in the past by the Modernisation Committee and the House, but it was not taken forward. My hon. Friend is free to continue to campaign for change.

How many complaints has the Leader of the House had from visitors to this House about use of the term "stranger"?

In the evidence that the Modernisation Committee took, it was deeply resented by virtually everybody—especially younger people—who came to give evidence to us. It emerged as an issue in our inquiries. People queue up to enter the Palace sometimes in the rain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, although that problem will be overcome by the new visitor reception facility. When they get in, they feel, in the words of one person who spoke to us, like aliens rather than citizens who are entitled to be here as of right. It is their Parliament as much as it is our Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to stay in mediaeval times, that is a matter for him: we are going forward into the modern era.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a vital difference between gesture politics and genuine change? Are we not in danger of mistaking the two? Perhaps it would be simpler to stop applying the word "stranger" to members of the general public—who are now corralled in unacceptable conditions in this place—and apply it to Members of Parliament who increasingly find the Chamber a place of great strangeness.

In the sense that too many Members find it strange being in the Chamber because they spend too much time in their offices, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, I am sure that she will agree that the reforms recommended by the Modernisation Committee will be a huge advance in reconnecting Westminster with the voters.

What steps he will take in response to the report by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on "Connecting Parliament with the Public". [180769]

I intend to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues on the House of Commons Commission, and with other parliamentary colleagues, how best to approach the Committee's recommendations.

I urge my right hon. Friend to give enthusiastic backing to the implementation of the recommendations in the report in their entirety as soon as possible. He must know that the combined forces of bureaucratic inertia, backwoodsmen, backwoodswomen, and old and young fogeys could delay the changes for years and years. I suggest that he give Members an early chance to debate and vote on the proposals, so that they can be implemented before the next general election. Taking issues one at a time as he suggested in an earlier answer could result in the 35 recommendations in the report taking several decades to implement.

I am with my hon. Friend on the need to move as quickly as I can, but many of the decisions are for other bodies in the House, including the House of Commons Commission and other Committees. However, his essential point was that we should no longer give the impression that we are a private club for Members of Parliament. The House of Commons should be open and inclusive, and connect as much as possible. The Committee has made a series of recommendations, including having staff on hand to welcome visitors and encourage them to take the opportunities available to them in Parliament, a new visitors' centre, sending a new voter guide to every 18year-old, modernising our websites and using the education unit for outreach work, as the National Assembly for Wales has done far more effectively than we have so far. The report has far-reaching implications for connecting Parliament with the electorate in a modern way.

On our electors witnessing what we are doing here on their behalf, I endorse what the Leader of the House has just said. Given that the number of occasions that they may do so may decrease—for example, it may not be possible in future for them to observe the Prime Minister appearing before the Liaison Committee—will the Leader of the House pay particular attention to those elements of the package from the Modernisation Committee that improve access online? That can be introduced relatively quickly and cheaply and is already probably much more useful to hundreds of thousands of our electors than attempting to come here, which is more difficult.

Order. One supplementary is enough for the Leader of the House to reply to.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on his point that millions of people who may never have the chance physically to visit the Chamber could do so through the internet, through online consultation and a much better website. One of the criticisms made by the Modernisation Committee was of the existing parliamentary website. The Committee suggested that it needed upgrading in various respects. That would enable many more people to make a virtual tour of Parliament, which I know the hon. Gentleman strongly supports, thereby gaining a much greater understanding of our parliamentary democracy.

What discussions he has had with the BBC regarding its coverage of online pre-legislative scrutiny by the House. [180770]

My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the BBC on that subject. However, I have had informal discussions with the BBC about widening access to parliamentary proceedings.

I would like to welcome the fact that the Government have put to online legislative scrutiny almost every appropriate Bill that has come before the House, but unfortunately I cannot do so at present as it would be a little premature. I hope that my hon. Friend will enter serious discussions with the BBC, because its website obviously has an even greater attraction than our parliamentary website and would for the first time open up real law-making to the general public as well as to Members of Parliament.

I commend my hon. Friend's persistence in pursuing that point. I believe that he realises that we are sympathetic to his point of view; online consultation is opening the scrutiny of law to a much wider public. The website www.tellparliament.net, which is managed for us by the Hansard Society, is becoming widely known. That is not contradictory, and would not exclude the BBC from taking such opportunities further, but I caution that such matters are also for Committees of the House as well as for my hon. Friend.

As the BBC receives public money and has a public service obligation, should not it provide active links from its news and current affairs output, and from BBC Online, to our online parliamentary forums? What do the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House plan to do to ensure that we make the most of online forums, given their success when they have been used?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that the opportunities that such technology opens for us to allow the public much greater access to scrutiny are to be welcomed. That is why we have made developments. As he knows, Select Committees and Standing Committees are available live on the webcast and the BBC follows those events. He will know through the PARBUL—Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. —Committee that those things have been discussed, and I look forward to a situation in the none-too-distant future where such facilities will be widely available. However, I emphasise that the matter is not just for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but for the House as well.