1. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies in relation to matters that affect only England. [54018]

2. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies on matters not affecting Scotland. [54019]

3. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies on matters not affecting Scotland. [54020]

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I express the good wishes of the whole House to Mr. Speaker? We look forward to seeing him back as soon as possible and hope that he makes a good recovery.

I have frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be fair or democratic for hon. Members from Scottish constituencies to vote on matters that affect only England? The only reason proposals have not been introduced to address that anomaly is that it would be to the Government's electoral disadvantage.

No, I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman should read the letter sent to the Financial Times by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, who is an expert on such matters—I believe that he tutored the Leader of the Opposition—and who has pointed out the difficulties in creating two classes of MPs. He has made the case for hon. Members being able to vote on all matters that come before them.

Does the Secretary of State realise how offensive his remarks are to those of us who firmly believe in democracy? Given that there is a Scottish Parliament, will the Secretary of State do something to address the disquiet felt among the splendid Scottish Labour Members who feel that the creation of a two-tier membership system for this House of Commons is very wrong?

Given the hon. Gentleman's past performance, I look forward to his representing a Scottish seat one day.

Will the Secretary of State explain the precise logic by which Scottish MPs can vote on English laws?

Those elected to this House are entitled to participate in all of its proceedings, debates and votes. On his website, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that we need to preserve the British constitution. Our constitutional settlement is currently asymmetrical, but the principle that there should be one class of MP that participates in all proceedings is sound.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scottish public have no interest in the West Lothian question, apart from remembering that English Tories imposed the poll tax on Scotland? The Tories object to Scottish MPs participating in English business, but Tory Members are participating in Scottish questions as usual. We do not object to that—in fact, we welcome it—because every time English Tories take part in Scottish questions, support for Labour in Scotland goes up.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no objection to MPs participating in any proceedings. I see that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is the sole Conservative MP in Scotland, voted no fewer than five times on the Government of Wales Bill last night. In June last year, he voted on special schools and special education, NHS dentistry, council tax and licensing, all of which affect England. I would be interested to know when he established his great principle of not voting on English matters.

My right hon. Friend knows that Northern Ireland had its own legislature and Prime Minister for 50 years, but it continued to send Members of Parliament to this House. Will he enlighten the House on why the Conservative party supported the right of Northern Ireland Members to vote on all issues before this House during those 50 years?

Since 1987, I recollect many Northern Ireland Members voting more often than not with the Conservative party, so the issue was not a problem for the Conservative party. We are seeing sheer, naked opportunism from a party that used to stand in Scotland as the Conservative and Unionist party—now it has given up on Scotland altogether.

Does the Secretary of State understand the strange logic by which a Scottish borders MP, whose constituents travel across the border daily for work and pleasure, refused to vote on a smoking ban but felt it right to vote on the Government of Wales Bill last night?

I find it difficult to follow, too. If I were to represent a constituency from which several thousand people travel across the border every day, I would take an interest in their well-being at work, which might be affected by the smoking ban. I had no difficulty in voting on that matter, and I cannot understand why any other hon. Member would, too.

May I associate the Scottish National party with the Secretary of State's remarks about Mr. Speaker and our hope for his early restoration to the Chair and to good health?

Let me understand this issue correctly. English Conservative MPs are revolting because the Secretary of State for Scotland is threatening to vote on English education with the Prime Minister, and with English Conservative MPs, but against what any normal person in England would like. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland therefore stop upsetting the revolting English Conservative MPs and undertake not to agree with them or to vote with them on the English Education and Inspections Bill?

This cannot be one of the hon. Gentleman's more lucid days. I would say, though, that Conservatives and Unionists should think long and hard about going down a road whereby they would end up in the same bed as the Scottish National party.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the early-day motion submitted by SNP Members on the principled position that hon. Members should not vote on matters not relevant to Scotland. Why, then, have they voted consistently on the Government of Wales Bill?

I think that my hon. Friend will find that the nationalists vote when it suits them—there is no issue of principle at all. The big difference between us and them is that they want to break up the United Kingdom. The Conservatives should think very hard before they go down that road.

With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I associate my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State's remarks about Mr. Speaker and wish him a speedy recovery?

Does the Secretary of State agree that for as long as the Scotland Act 1998 provides for any legislation enacted here at Westminster subsequently to be imposed in Scotland by Order in Council, it is vital that all MPs maintain their right to vote on that legislation? Does he further agree that the only logical answer to the West Lothian question is devolution for England, not the parliamentary gerrymandering of the party formerly known as Unionist?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to work out which one of his leadership candidates he will support, since I have not heard such a clear exposition of a principled position for some time. The key principle is that we are all elected to the House of Commons in the same way and are all entitled to take part in all the proceedings and Divisions. Once that changes and there are two classes of MPs, there are profound constitutional consequences. What we have from the Conservatives is sheer, naked opportunism. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am looking forward to him explaining why he has managed to vote on so many measures that affect purely English matters, given that he claims that he will not do so on a matter of principle.

4. What discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers on the contribution from Scotland to the UK's international climate change targets. [54021]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of matters.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the contributions that Scotland can make to tackling climate change is by tapping our immense reserves of renewable energy. In that connection, I am glad that the go-ahead has at last been given to funding for the development of wave power, such as that undertaken by a company based in my constituency. Given that it took some time for that fund to get going, through no fault of the Government, will my hon. Friend ensure that applications to it are dealt with quickly so that we do not lose the immense advantage that we have in this field and let the lead that we have in this technology be taken by other countries in Europe?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the progress that he is making with his private Member's Bill, which will make a considerable contribution to the debate. I understand that the Committee considering it has a further sitting this afternoon. He is right to highlight the Government's commitment to marine renewables. I welcome, as he does, the announcement made on 8 February by the Minister for Energy of a £50 million marine renewable development fund, building on the £25 million that has already been made available. The company that my hon. Friend mentions, Ocean Power Delivery, has already benefited from some £3.2 million of this development money. The deadline for applications is 8 May, so there is some time left. I look forward to that money going out to those who are successful in getting a grant so that they can carry on with research into the important contribution that marine renewables can make to our energy commitments.

I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State's good wishes to Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that Scotland's climate change targets will be best met through a balanced energy policy; that is why I welcome Scottish Labour's decision to support nuclear power. But how will the Scottish Executive be able to deliver on that commitment when the Secretary of State says that the Liberal Democrats run away from hard decisions and fail to face up to their responsibilities?

The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to talk about people running away from tough decisions when the Conservatives have called for a moratorium on the development of wind farms, which make a significant contribution to tackling climate change.

We have said all along that it is foolish to rule out completely the possibility of renewing Scotland's nuclear-generating capacity or having a new generation—that is part of the energy debate. We believe that there will have to be a mix of energy—some will come from renewables, which the Conservative party opposes, and some may come from nuclear, to which some parties, with one or two honourable exceptions, have simply closed their minds. We are taking a balanced view.

As a Glasgow Member of Parliament, may I associate myself with the sentiments expressed about Mr. Speaker?

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Scottish Labour party on the decision that it made at the weekend? Does he agree that clean coal technology, nuclear and all other forms of energy should be part of a balanced energy policy? Will he ensure that the dinosaurs that still exist north of the border do not stop the process of getting energy for this country through stupid planning means?

The essential question that must be asked during the energy review is: how can we provide the energy that our country needs without wrecking the planet in the process? We have two commitments: we need to keep the lights on and tackle fuel poverty, and do it in a way that is consistent with our international obligations on climate change. Some parties pay lip service to the environment, others pay lip service to the economy, but we have to manage both.

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of nuclear submarine facilities in Scotland. [54022]

My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a range of issues.

Given the importance of the naval base at Faslane to the Scottish economy, by what date does the Under-Secretary expect a decision on the replacement for Trident to be announced?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday in Defence questions that it was hoped that a decision would be made during this Parliament. Of course, the decision does not have to come into force for 20 or 25 years, so there is no rush.

The future of Faslane does not depend on a replacement for Trident. It depended on the Government's decision to base the Astute class submarine at Faslane, which means £135 million of investment in Faslane and the local economy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether the Scottish Executive has any form of veto over future nuclear defence development in Scotland?

No, defence is reserved.

6. What improvements are planned to road links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. [54023]

Traffic to and from Scotland benefits from many of the improvements to the strategic road network.

In the past decade, one casualty a week on average has occurred on the A1 between Scotland and Newcastle. The road accidents and the road's effect on economic development cause considerable anxiety to residents on both sides of the border. When will my right hon. Friend, in his role as Secretary of State for Scotland, convince himself in his role as Secretary of State for Transport for the United Kingdom that the road needs dualling once and for all?

We have many useful and productive discussions about those matters and we happily find ourselves in complete agreement.

My hon. Friend knows that, five or six years ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned a report on what was required for the A1 north of Newcastle and up to the border, on the basis of which I came to the view that there was neither an economic nor an operational case for dualling the road. It recommended improvements for safety and other reasons and work has continued on working up such schemes. I am surprised that the north-east region did not prioritise them in the recent exercise and I shall have to consider how to proceed in the light of that. Although there is no case at the moment for dualling the road all the way to the border, there is a case for making improvements, especially to deal with the safety points that my hon. Friend raised. I hope to say something further about that, probably in the late spring.

When the Secretary of State next lobbies himself, perhaps he could raise the case of the M74 between Gretna and Carlisle. Will he then let us know the exact start date for that project and give us an assurance that there will be no further delays?

I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement about that fairly quickly, and that construction will start imminently. Both Secretaries of State will make an announcement at the appropriate time. I must point out that those improvements have been made possible only by the huge additional investment that we have promised, every single penny of which was opposed by Tory MPs, both north and south of the border.

7. What assessment his Department has made of the Arbuthnott report on electoral arrangements in Scotland. [54025]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on the day of publication, and as I confirmed in the recent Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend on the Arbuthnott report, we now have an opportunity for consideration and debate, and we will respond to the proposals in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I understand the practical problems associated with changing the voting system in time for the 2007 elections, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to introduce legislation in this Parliament to change it in time for the elections in 2011?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we have ruled out the possibility of legislating in advance of the 2007 elections. They are only just over a year away, and preparations for them are very much under way. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Arbuthnott commission for the work that they have done. We now need to respect their work by giving it the most careful consideration possible.

When considering the Arbuthnott commission's report, will the Minister pay special attention to its observations on the benefits of having a system of proportional representation for UK parliamentary elections? Although that was not one of the report's recommendations, it was a subject on which the commission took evidence. Will the Minister give the matter careful consideration when responding to the report?

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what our response to the report says.

We all welcome the hard work that went into the Arbuthnott commission's report, but many of us were disappointed at one aspect of it in particular, namely that it did not recommend the abolition of the practice of standing in the list and in a first-past-the-post election. Will the Minister assure us that that matter will be considered when these issues come before Parliament?

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that Sir John Arbuthnott did not recommend that change; indeed, he specifically recommended that it should not be made. No such change will be made before the 2007 elections, and any change that could be made would undoubtedly affect only subsequent elections.

8. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies voting on the Education and Inspections Bill. [54026]

I have frequent discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters.

Given the anticipated publication of the Education and Inspections Bill later this afternoon, has the Secretary of State been able to assure the Prime Minister that he will be able to rely on the votes of Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies during the passage of the Bill, which has no jurisdiction over schools in Scotland? How many of those MPs support the alternative White Paper?

We discussed this matter a short while ago, and our position remains exactly the same. I suspect that the Conservatives' interest in this issue stems not so much from principle, given that, in the last two general elections, they have managed to get only one MP elected in Scotland. The Conservatives spent more than £1.3 million in Scotland at the last election, and all they got for it was the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). And to cap it all, they also want him to be a part-time MP.

We are given 30 minutes once a month to raise specifically Scottish issues. It would appear that the Opposition have conspired to ensure that we end up debating English issues today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that helps to illustrate why the Tories in Scotland have, to all intents and purposes, been wiped out?

I am very pleased that so many Members from different parts of the country have come along today. That ought to be encouraged. As I have said, I believe that all Members should take an interest in every matter that is put before the House.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to principle a moment ago. Does he not understand that the basic principle of any democratic Assembly is that Members of Parliament should not be able to vote on matters that concern neither themselves nor their constituents?

I do not think that that is right.

Surely the answer to the so-called West Lothian question is Bill Shankly. When a new offside rule was introduced, allowing a goal when a player was in the penalty box and not interfering with play, he famously retorted that if his players were not interfering with play for 100 per cent. of the time, he would want to know why. We are on the park and we are playing. We are from Scotland, we are from Northern Ireland, we are from Wales. I seem to recall that the Conservative party believed in the Union at one point. In this debate, the only logical conclusion—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this period should be devoted to the asking of questions.

My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and I agree with it. The difficulty for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—the solitary Conservative spokesman—is that in the past year he has voted on a range of matters relating to, for instance, English dentistry, English health care, English education and English local government. I find it hard to believe that he has now discovered a principle according to which he should not vote on those matters. He should recall that his predecessor, the previous Conservative Member, said that he did not vote on English matters, but we learned that he had voted on the Mersey Tunnels Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is getting into a huge amount of trouble. As I have said, it is all driven by the Tories' frustration at not being able to get anyone elected north of the border.

9. What discussions he has had with colleagues regarding voting rights of hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland on matters that do not affect Scotland. [54028]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to Questions 1, 2 and 3. I suspect that it is remarkably similar to the answer that I shall give him in a moment.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State.

Next month various Scottish right hon. and hon. Members will support the Education and Inspections Bill, including the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Conservative Members will welcome them in the Lobby on that occasion. Is it not the case, though, that the Bill will not apply to Scotland, and that it is wrong and unfair—and, indeed, recognised to be wrong and unfair by many Labour Members—for MPs to vote on a matter that does not affect their constituencies?

Of course, the constituents of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) go and enjoy an English education south of the border. He therefore has an interest in voting for the Bill, although he does not seem to accept that.

As I have told the House before, it is difficult to distinguish between matters that are wholly Scottish, wholly English or wholly Welsh and matters that are not. We find ourselves in difficulty when we start saying that some MPs have more rights than others. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and his colleagues ought to think long and hard before taking a route that is more likely than not to lead to exactly where the nationalists would like them to end up.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there are two classes of Member of Parliament? There are Members like him and me, who have no say on education, health or criminal justice in our constituencies, and Members who do have that right. Is it not absurd, and grossly unfair, that we intervene in those constituency interests?

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that there are two classes of MP. There are those of us who believe in the Union of the United Kingdom, and those of us who are against it. I have no difficulty in saying that I support the United Kingdom: that is why I am a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in breaking up the United Kingdom, but I think that that would be an act of monumental stupidity.

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Scottish fishing industry. [54029]

My right hon. Friend has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a range of issues.

Given that the common fisheries policy has failed so comprehensively to protect either the livelihoods of our fishermen or our fish stocks, what specific steps is the Minister taking to repatriate control of our fish stocks and to ensure that we have a viable fishing industry in the future?

This is another example of the Conservatives and the SNP sharing exactly the same policy, and the hon. Gentleman really ought to question himself very closely whenever he finds that he and his party are occupying the same position as the SNP. During our presidency of the European Council, this Government achieved a good deal last December that will preserve marine stocks and the marine environment, and help the long-term future of the fishing industry. Calls to pull out of the common fisheries policy are a complete distraction from the real issue.

11. What recent assessment he has made of the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. [54030]

The relationship is strong and constructive.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer but it is my understanding that under the Scotland Act 1998, Scotland is supposed to have the same electoral quota for parliamentary constituencies as England. Will he look again at reducing the number of Scottish MPs from 59 to 57, thereby henceforth having the same electoral quota as parliamentary constituencies in England?

As the hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware, the number of Scots MPs was reduced at the last general election and the quota is broadly the same. The boundary commission recognised that the Western Isles and the Northern Isles present particular difficulties in terms of reducing the number further, but there is now broad parity between constituencies, even allowing for the problems associated with the geographical spread. However, these are matters for the boundary commission and the Electoral Commission, and they will doubtless keep them under review.

14. If she will make a statement on the level of electoral registration in the London borough of Barnet. [53918]

In the London borough of Barnet, there are probably some 22,000 people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register, and who are therefore unable to vote.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this is a lamentable performance by Conservative-run Barnet council, given that almost a quarter of voters have not been registered? Does this not demonstrate the council's complete lack of commitment to the democratic process? It put out 64 canvassers only last year and it is now reduced to paying them £1.50 per voter signed up; such paying by piece rate is a real sign of desperation. It has not, so far as I can see, taken up the issue of data matching or been imaginative by, for example, trying to register people at supermarkets and further education and sixth-form colleges. Does this not show that the Conservative party really has no interest in democracy?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are probably more than half a million Londoners who are eligible to vote at the forthcoming council elections, but who will be unable to do so because they are not on the electoral register. The important thing is for electoral administrators in all boroughs to find those hard-to-register voters. This is not, by and large, a problem associated with white home owners aged over 55; rather, it is associated more with young members of black and minority ethnic groups who live in private rented accommodation. That is the information given to us by the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Electoral Commission, and all electoral administrators in London need to work on this issue.

The situation in Barnet—and, indeed, across London—is, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says, disgraceful. It is unacceptable that more than half a million Londoners who should be registered to vote are not. Has the right hon. and learned Lady had a chance to progress the excellent suggestion, made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) during Second Reading of the Electoral Administration Bill, of having a democracy day, on which we can really sell the concept of electoral registration? Can she report such progress to the House?

I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I pay tribute to the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to the debate on electoral registration. Those Opposition Members who do not represent inner-city areas, where there are very low levels of registration, might not understand the true position in the way that we do. The point is that our democracy is worth its name only if it is equal, and at the moment it is not equal. Those who are black and young and live in rented accommodation in an inner city are less likely to have a vote. We should all be concerned about this issue.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Islington, which has a Liberal Democrat-run council, only just over 67 per cent. of those eligible to vote have been registered? The Labour group attempted to pass a motion relating to this issue at a council meeting, but it was voted down by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrat councillor responsible for performance, Terry Stacy, shouted, "That's why we win elections"—

Order. The hon. Lady should have read the original question, which is on Barnet. Although she can allude to London, she cannot major on another London borough within the scope of this question.

15. If she will make a statement on Government policy on equalising the number of registered electors per parliamentary constituency. [53919]

The Parliamentary Boundary Commission reviews parliamentary boundaries according to the number of registered electors and other geographical and community factors. It will next report to the Government by April next year. That report will be laid before this House, and its proposals will be in force for the next general election.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but does she accept that our democracy is being damaged by unequal representation in this House? In that regard, I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) through his Parliamentary Constituencies (Equalisation) Bill. There are 239 constituencies in this country that diverge by more than 10 per cent. from the national average. They are not confined to English rural areas: my constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham in inner London has 79,807 electors, is the 57th largest in the UK and is more than 16 per cent. larger than the average. What proposals does she have to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to correct those undemocratic disparities and to make more frequent boundary reviews—

Order. I think that the Minister has probably got the point.

I should like to thank the boundary commission for the very difficult work that it does. It is not party political, and every hon. Member has an axe to grind with it but, by and large, the House should have confidence in its work, which is independent, neutral and based on research and consultation. The smallest UK constituency—Na h-Eileanan an Iar, in Scotland, formerly the Western Isles—has only 23,000 electors because it is an island. However, the largest has 107,000 electors, but that is also because it is an island. We must take account of geographical factors, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in looking for the estimated 17,000 unregistered voters in his constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham who do not have the right to vote.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the Government's policy in respect of equalising the number of residents who are eligible to be registered as electors in each parliamentary constituency? That is a more important question. Merely to equalise the number of people registered would discriminate against people in the inner cities and those who live in private rented accommodation or houses of multiple occupation or who belong to the black and ethnic minority communities. All of those people are less likely to register in practice.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The boundary commission bases its estimate of a constituency's size on the number of registered electors. If 500,000 possible electors were missing from the register in London, for example, that total would amount to the number of voters in eight parliamentary constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) told us about what is happening with her council, but perhaps the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) should get on to his friends on that local authority and ask them to deal with the same problem there.

Another problem has to do with the electoral administration canvassers who go around knocking on doors to find the hard-to-register voters. There are only 64 such canvassers in Barnet, but in Southwark we have 170. All areas should aspire to the standards of the best in their work to find our unregistered voters.

Surely the Minister is not saying that we should count people who are not registered to vote. How could we possibly guess who they were, or how many of them there were? However, a party that gains the majority of voters in England but ends up with 93 fewer seats cannot say that the system is fair. We need a system that is genuinely fair, so that first past the post works, rather than a flawed proportional representation system. Should not the boundary commission rules be changed so that there is a fixed electoral quota in constituencies across the UK? The Minister may say that the country has plenty of islands, but in reality there are not that many. An equal quota should be the general rule, and the boundary commission's rules need to be changed.

I confess that I am not following the hon. Gentleman's line of argument—but I hope that he is not criticising the way in which the boundary commission goes about its work. The House agreed, on an all-party basis, what the framework for the boundary commission should be, and that is the framework on which it operates. I am saying that we should estimate the number who are not registered and get those people registered; then the boundary commission's basis would be much more robust.

16. If she will make a statement on the voting rights of hon. Members representing constituencies outside England on matters relating exclusively to England. [53920]

Hon. Members are entitled to speak and vote on any issue in this House.

But we must face the fact that there is a constitutional injustice here. To most reasonable people it is illogical, unfair and unjust that Scottish MPs can vote on laws that relate only to England, but English MPs cannot do likewise for Scotland. What specific actions are she and her Department taking to address that democratic inequality?

The Department has absolutely no intention of taking any action to address what is not an inequality. The hon. Gentleman asked the same question a few moments ago, and I was tempted simply to refer him to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a few moments ago. As the hon. Gentleman voted five times on the Government of Wales Bill last night, I find it difficult to understand why he has difficulty in understanding why every Member of this House has the right to vote on every issue within it.

Could my hon. Friend arrange a series of teach-ins for Members of Parliament who do not understand how long it took to get members of the whole of the United Kingdom—men and women—represented in this House, to explain why they should not lightly, for party political purposes, launch forth on absurd, ill thought-out and farcical campaigns to change that status?

I do not think that my response could put that any better than my hon. Friend has done.

Does the Minister not agree that if it was iniquitous for English rule to be imposed on Scotland, it would be just as iniquitous for Scottish rule now to be imposed on England?

The hon. Gentleman needs to remember the history of the Conservative—and, at one time, Unionist—party, which imposed laws on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish people. [Interruption.] I think that everyone knows that I am referring to the poll tax. May I say to the hon. Gentleman—he too voted five times on the Government of Wales Bill last night—that every Member of the House should be treated equally? We should not have two classes of MPs in the House, and matters that affect Scotland are entitled to be voted on by English MPs and vice versa.

17. What recent assessment she has made of the operation of the Electoral Commission. [53921]

The Electoral Commission is an independent body established by Parliament, reporting to the Speaker's Committee. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Speaker's Committee are currently reviewing separate aspects of the operation of the Electoral Commission.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that although the Electoral Commission has independent status, it needs clear, transparent accountability too? Does she think that reporting to the Speaker's Committee fulfils that function?

The fact that the Electoral Commission is answerable to the Speaker's Committee fulfils an important function, but Members of Parliament can ask Constitutional Affairs Ministers about its work on electoral registration, election fraud and, for example, registration of service voters, so we have that additional transparency. Representatives of the Electoral Commission are also happy to meet individual Members of Parliament to discuss its work.

Will the Minister refer to the Electoral Commission for its consideration the question that has arisen six times since 2.30 pm today? We understand that Ministers do not like English votes on English matters. Do they understand, and could she remind the Electoral Commission, that many English people do not want regional assemblies or extra politicians? Could she ask the Electoral Commission to come up with a solution that would be acceptable in all parts of the House?

I do not think that that would come within the Electoral Commission's remit. That is not what it was set up to do, and it would be odd and wrong to give it that responsibility, which is a matter for this House.

18. How many of her civil servants are being transferred to the Judicial Appointments Commission; and if she will make a statement. [53922]

No departmental staff will transfer to the Judicial Appointments Commission on 3 April 2006. It is currently anticipated that 80 staff will be seconded to the commission for up to two years. The commission, as an independent body, has the power to recruit its own staff.

While I welcome the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is a great constitutional change for the judiciary, transferring or seconding staff amounts to the same thing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the new organisation, which is intended to be truly independent, should start with no staff from the Department, because some may have preconceived ideas about the method of selection or the qualities of particular candidates? Can she give an assurance that that independence will remain?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that independence will remain. I have every confidence that the chair of the commission, Baroness Prashar—of whose appointment I notified the House a month or two ago—will provide the necessary leadership to forge a new and independent body. The JAC will be able to determine its own staffing strategy after its launch on 3 April.

19. What steps the Department has taken to encourage the judiciary to interact with other professionals and the public in order to improve mutual understanding. [53923]

It is for judges themselves to decide the extent and frequency of their engagement with the local community. However, the Department has taken many steps, in conjunction with the judiciary, to interact with the professions and the public, such as the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships of local authorities and local criminal justice boards, local family justice councils, a judges in schools guide, and developing a protocol for case management to deal with delays in care cases.

Would my hon. Friend the Minister congratulate the clerk to the magistrates in Nottingham, Mr. Graham Hooper, on convening a conference on Saturday about the community justice options that are now available, including the appointment of community judges? Will she go further and urge all similar colleagues to reach out, so that the criminal justice system can start to play a full part in the attack on antisocial behaviour and criminality, and in the regeneration of our communities? Health services, the police, the education services and many others are involved in that battle, so can we ensure that the criminal justice system also plays its full part?

I certainly support my hon. Friend in congratulating Graham Hooper and his team on the conference that will take place on Saturday. I also add my thanks to my hon. Friend for his part in organising that conference, and I am sure that it will be a great success. I know that he is the chairman of the local regeneration partnership in Nottingham, One Nottingham, whose vision statement of reducing inequality so that no one is disadvantaged is one that we can all endorse. I assure my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can to ensure that the judicial community participates in its local community and that the ideals that he and Mr. Hooper seek to encourage and develop on Saturday are taken further.

The Minister will be aware of the excellent work of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the Industry and Parliament Trust. What consideration has been given to helping humble Back Benchers such as me to improve their knowledge of the judiciary, perhaps through day-release schemes—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should say early release schemes. Such a scheme would enable me to spend more time learning about the important role of the judiciary.

I missed the last half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should tag hon. Members so that we know where they are. As a fellow of the Industry and Parliament Trust, I recognise how important such schemes are in giving Members of Parliament an opportunity to understand what is happening in terms of other aspects of our country. To further his knowledge, he might like to sit in on his local court and see what happens there. He could also visit the partnerships in his local authority and discover what crime reduction schemes are in place. I recommend sitting in on his local magistrates court for a day as a good way of learning exactly what happens there.

20. What assessment she has made of the administrative procedures for those recovering small claims following a court determination. [53924]

The courts offer a range of effective enforcement methods, each tailored to dealing with different financial set-ups, without which it would be far easier for recalcitrant debtors to avoid their responsibilities to judgment creditors.

Is the Minister aware that for people who achieve the feat of obtaining a small claims court ruling there is a major bureaucratic obstacle course involving four separate processes, in each of which there are up to three consecutive applications to the courts with form-filling? Can she get rid of some of that red tape?

I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which he has also raised with my noble Friend Baroness Ashton, in respect of one of his constituents. We made improvements in enforcement methods in April 2002. The target recovery for 2005–06 is 85p in the pound, but we are actually recovering 93.8p in the pound, so those improvements are beginning to take effect. We continue to monitor the situation and have publicised further improvement proposals in the White Paper, "Effective Enforcement". Those changes need primary legislation and we shall ensure that it is brought forward when there is parliamentary time.

28. If he will make it his policy to enable all Bills to undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. [53988]

We fully endorse the value of pre-legislative scrutiny. Since 1997, more than 50 Bills have been published in draft and 39 have been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am keen to ensure that as many Bills as possible benefit from that procedure where appropriate.

Does the Minister agree that we make better law when Government and Parliament work together?

Yes, I do.

We were all taken aback by that brief and succinct, but positive, reply. I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). If we had more pre-legislative scrutiny, the nonsense of programming nowadays, whereby much legislation goes through without important parts being adequately debated either in Standing Committee or at remaining stages, would be removed, and the House would be a better place and legislation would be better for the people of this country.

Would that all right hon. and hon. Members shared the optimistic and progressive view of the hon. Gentleman, but the sad fact is that from looking at programme motions of one kind or another over a couple decades I do not consider that pre-legislative scrutiny or any other parliamentary mechanism for scrutiny would stop the inexorable trend for Oppositions to maximise the time for programme motions to complain that there is not enough time. However, I do not want to depart from the present all-party consensus; we support pre-legislative scrutiny and think it should be extended as far as is practical, but there are cases where it is not appropriate or practical.

29. What the final cost was of erecting the cover over the walkway in Star Chamber Court. [53989]

The final cost of designing, fabricating and erecting the cover over the walkway in Star Chamber Court was £435,000.

That is a grotesque sum to spend on such a feature. Is my hon. Friend aware that while almost £500,000 was being thrown away on that absurdity the energy efficiency budget of the House has been cut by 40 per cent. since 1997 and electricity consumption has gone up by 45 per cent? Is not it time that he brought some sanity, common sense and clarity to the House of Commons Commission?

The House of Commons Accommodation and Works Committee approved the construction of the canopy in March 2004, after the estates directorates of the House had identified the need to cover the walkway along the east side of Star Chamber Court following the review of access and security arrangements for visitors to the Palace, which led to the plans for the new visitor reception area. The Parliamentary Works Services Directorate developed the brief and design for the canopy in consultation with English Heritage and Westminster city council under grade I listed building and world heritage site status. The requirements of those consultations led to the costs of the project working out at much more than originally anticipated.

30. If the Commission will take steps to improve the signage for cyclists on the House of Commons estate. [53990]

The Commission encourages cycling to and from the estate. I am happy to convey to the appropriate authorities any specific proposal that the hon. Lady may have, whether on signage or any other matter.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I have several suggestions to make about signage. First, there are absolutely no signs around the building warning unwitting cyclists that they should not park their bicycles against the railings. Many is the time that I have seen police officers removing with angle grinders three and five bicycles that have been left there. Will he perhaps take that back to his colleagues and discuss it? The problem—

Order. One question is enough. Perhaps those matters might better be the subject of correspondence.

I am very happy to convey the burden of the hon. Lady's point to the relevant authorities, but increasing provision has been made for cycling spaces in various parts of the estate. Certainly, if there is evidence of further unsatisfied demand, further spaces will indeed be sought.

As president of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, I welcome the increased provision that is made on the estate, but I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has just said. Those cyclists who come to the Palace of Westminster to lobby their MPs find it very difficult to park anywhere nearby. Will the Commission improve the facilities for visiting cyclists who are trying to save the planet?

It has been concluded thus far that, for security reasons, we cannot let visitors cycle on to the estate, any more than we would allow people to drive in to park. For similar reasons, street cycle parking in the immediate area is not permitted, but visitors can use the cycle parking facilities on Millbank.

31. What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the way in which EU business is scrutinised. [53991]

We intend to introduce proposals in response to the detailed report from the Modernisation Committee shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that commitment, but he will know that it has been some years since the proposal for a major change in the scrutiny of EU legislation was first discussed by the House. It is accepted across the House and beyond that scrutinising EU legislation is not something that we do well, so can he give us a more specific indication of when the proposals will be made?

There have been ongoing discussions and changes in the way we scrutinise legislation in response to the sort of valid point that my hon. Friend makes, and we want to continue such improvements as quickly as is practical.

The Leader of the House has been intending to introduce such changes for rather a long time now, and those ongoing discussions are apparently happening in the Cabinet, rather than with colleagues across the House, which is a misfortune. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether direct discussions were held with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—when we had such a creature—about part 3 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? Quite obviously, there is no point in improving the legislative background to introducing EU legislation if we cannot improve the scrutiny by the House.

We have every intention of improving the scrutiny by the House. Indeed, the House has been divided on the issue. The European Scrutiny Committee, by the narrowest of margins, made a recommendation on which it changed its mind. That gave problems to the members of other Committees who were considering the issue. So it is not quite as simple as perhaps some hon. Members would make out, but there is the desire to ensure proper scrutiny. Many hon. Members are critical of the amount of legislation that must be passed, some of which is consequential on European legislation, and therefore there is good will on all sides to tackle the issue, but there is not yet an agreed solution. I hope that we will reach that shortly.

32. When the Commission will reconsider the need for a review of the Braithwaite report on the administration of the House of Commons. [53992]

The Commission plans to consider the matter shortly.

I am glad to hear that, but since the original Braithwaite report recommended in 1999 that there should be a review in five years' time and since seven years have now passed, does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it is high time that there was a review—unless, of course, he believes that the administration of the House could not be improved?

The Commission agreed a little over a year ago that, as we were at the end of a Parliament, which coincides with a certain turbulence for House departments, it was not the right moment to start. If we go ahead this year, that will be seven years after the Braithwaite review, which was itself eight years after the 1990 inquiry by Sir Robin Ibbs, so the intervals seem about right.

33. What effects the Commission expects the new legislation on smoking will have on the House of Commons accommodation. [53993]

The Administration Committee has asked for a paper on that subject and the Commission expects to reconsider the policy on smoking on the House of Commons estate once recommendations have been received from that Committee.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I am sure that he welcomed the decision made by the House a couple of weeks ago about the ban to be introduced in most workplaces and public places. Does he not think that the House of Commons should take a lead and implement the proposals that we passed as quickly as possible, and that our role should be to lead the nation?

The hon. Lady will have heard the answer that I have just given: specific proposals will come from the Administration Committee. It is impossible for the Commission to make judgments on the matter until the exact form of the new legislation and regulations is clear, but those are the sort of issues that the Administration Committee will have the chance to think about. The estate—including the vast majority of the catering outlets—is already largely smoke-free, but I am sure that there is room to go further and we await the recommendations of the Administration Committee.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that immediately after the smoking ban was passed in the House, Officers of the House visited Members' rooms to see whether people were smoking?

I have no knowledge of that.

BILL PRESENTED

Education and Inspections

Secretary Ruth Kelly, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Tessa Jowell, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Hain, Mr. David Miliband, Mr. Secretary Hutton and Jacqui Smith, presented a Bill to make provision about primary, secondary and further education and about training; to make provision about food or drink provided on school premises or in connection with the provision of education or childcare; to provide for the establishment of an Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills and the appointment of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills and make provision about the functions of that Office and that Chief Inspector; to provide for the amendment of references to local education authorities and children's services authorities; to amend section 29 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in relation to university bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 134].