What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Government policy relating to the right of Scottish banks to print currency notes after the proposed introduction of the euro. [130567]

It is with some regret, Madam Speaker, that I rise to take part in what will be your final time in the Chair for Scottish questions. May I take this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Scotland, Members of Parliament from Scotland, and, I am sure, the whole House to thank you for the way in which you have presided over our deliberations for a considerable time? I wish you all the best for the future.

I thank the Secretary of State for that full and vague answer. After 300 years of United Kingdom Union in which the Scottish pound has been preserved, does he not find it sad that, because of the Government's attitude to our relationship with the European Union, there is a great risk that the Scottish pound will be abolished? Is he not at all concerned about the risks to the economy of the whole United Kingdom that a European single currency joined by the United Kingdom would have? Has he not listened to what Sir Eddie George said today about the great risks that the single currency would bring to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, or are we to assume that Sir Eddie George is not to be listened to in Scotland because he is the Governor of the Bank of England?

My congratulations go to the hon. Lady and the author of that contribution. As I have explained to her already, and as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), has already made plain in his correspondence with the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, the Government—and, incidentally, the Bank of England—agree that the position has not changed recently. No final decision has been taken. We are well aware of the importance of the facility in Scotland to produce pound notes and we will bear that in mind if and when it comes to joining the euro.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single currency arrangement made between Scotland and England in 1707 has been extremely beneficial to all concerned and that none of my constituents are campaigning for a return to groats and baubees? Does he further agree that entry to a shared European currency on the right terms would be just as beneficial to all the citizens of the United Kingdom?

I have to give a qualified answer because my experience does not go back as far as 1707. For as long as I have been around I have thought that we have benefited greatly from that arrangement, and it would be a non-progressive step to go back to groats and baubees. However, I notice that the Conservative party, which aspires to government, wants us to go back to threepenny bits and sixpences and no doubt it will be poles, perches and baubees before we get much further into the debate.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is quite difficult to be dogmatic about a policy of dither and delay? The Government need to recognise that if Britain is to be a member of the European single currency, we must take practical steps now to achieve convergence and make the possibility of winning a referendum achievable. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve that?

I have never had any difficulty in watching Liberal Democrats take a dogmatic approach to dither and delay. For many years, they have run on the slogan "What do we want? Gradual change. When do we want it? In due course". There is no difficulty in finding that to be so on the hon. Gentleman's part.

What recent representations he has received on the impact of taxation on petrol on transport in Scottish rural areas. [130568]

If he will make a statement on the impact of vehicle fuel duties on the rural economy in Scotland. [130573]

I am in regular contact with all sections of the community in rural Scotland on a broad range of issues, including taxation on fuel.

The Minister will be aware of the price of fuel in the highlands and islands which, at £ 4 a gallon, is an impediment to business and tourism. However, does he welcome the decision of Gleaner Oils to introduce LPG—liquefied petroleum gas—which costs half as much as ordinary fuel, into more than 20 filling stations in the highlands and islands over the next year? Does the Minister share my enthusiasm about LPG, and recognise that the next step involves, first, changing the conversion scheme to include older cars and, secondly, encouraging car manufacturers to build more dual-fuel vehicles? We will then have a low-emission, low-cost fuel that is available to a new generation of rural motorists.

I am very enthusiastic about LPG, which carries with it the best hope of not just tinkering with the present situation but transforming it. It offers the glittering prize of changing the highlands and islands from the highest-cost road fuel area in the United Kingdom into the lowest-cost area. We can achieve that if we expand the availability of LPG. I am having very promising discussions about a major expansion of LPG availability in the highlands and islands, which would put the area into the forefront of access to the fuel in the UK. I am very much in line with my hon. Friend on that.

Is the Minister aware that Scotland is still a major oil producer and has the second cheapest pre-tax oil prices in the European Union? However, post-tax, those prices are 23 per cent. higher than the EU average. Is the Minister also aware that last year the Highlands regional council did a study that showed that tanking up in the highlands and islands was £4.30 more expensive than in the rest of Scotland? Is it the Government's policy to price the car off the road in rural parts of Scotland?

No, that is not our policy. As always in our debates, the hon. Lady's question suffers from her selective use of facts and statistics. She is right about the taxation burden on petrol, although her remarks are a bit rich coming from an Opposition Member, as it was the Tories, of course, who introduced the fuel duty escalator.

Will my hon. Friend take care when others are trying to persuade him of the need for conversion to liquefied petroleum gas? We must first introduce proper regulation to keep the cowboys out of the conversion market. I have a constituent from Netherburn near Larkhall whose child was nearly gassed in the back of his car, but he cannot get compensation because there is not sufficient regulation to protect car drivers who choose to convert to LPG.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I am sure he will pursue with his usual vigour. It does not detract from the overall point that LPG offers a major opportunity to transform motoring costs, and I urge people in the highlands and islands and other areas with LPG availability, particularly those who are buying a new car, seriously to consider purchasing a dual-fuel car.

Madam Speaker, may I first associate Conservative Members with the remarks made by the Secretary of State at the beginning of Question Time in respect of your presiding over our turbulence?

We enter the realms of the bizarre when a Tory spokesman assails us on the cost of petrol. The Tories, doubtless for what they saw as good reasons, introduced the fuel duty escalator; the Labour Government got rid of it. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of the last 19p increase in the cost of petrol 17p per litre has come from the rise in the world price of oil, which in other ways is beneficial to the UK economy. Let us have some honesty on all points in the debate. We have listed our initiatives, and I am happy to associate myself with the creative thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on bulk buying—that is what a good MP does, instead of bleating about things and trying to make political capital out of them.

The Minister cannot get away with it. The Government have been indulging in the most extraordinary creative thinking to get themselves off the hook. First, they told us that the fuel duty escalator was all about changing our driving habits, which is a useless policy to present to the population of the highlands and islands. Recently, the Prime Minister has been telling us that the taxes are vital to pay for public services, but we in the House know the reality. In the Chancellor's constituency of Dunfermline, East—which is not exactly a hotbed of Conservatives or conservatism—43 per cent. of those polled consider that taxation has risen under this Government, and only 12 per cent. feel that they have received any benefit in the way of services for the price that they have had to pay.

I can only describe that as unconvincing bluster. Let us establish the facts: the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator; Labour has abolished it. That is an inescapable fact. Any hon. Member who says that we should cut fuel duty has to say where the money to do so will come from. Let us not forget that every one of the parties represented in the Chamber supported the fuel duty escalator in one way or another: the Tories introduced it, the Liberal Democrats wanted to increase it, and the nationalists based their budget projections on it. Where is the argument?

What action the Government have taken to promote investment in railway infrastructure in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [130569]

The Government are promoting investment in railway infrastructure through their 10—year transport plan. That includes £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations, which will undoubtedly benefit Scotland.

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for last week's announcement of additional funding through the comprehensive spending review. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that some of that investment is channelled towards moving more freight on to railways, with particular emphasis on timber freight, which is an issue in my constituency?

Yes, I will certainly continue to do that. It is noticeable that, under this Government, there has been the first increase in freight transport on rail for generations. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since May 1997 when the Government were elected, nine freight facility grants have been awarded in Scotland. Those total £16.5 million and will remove 8.7 million lorry miles per annum from roads in Scotland. A further £1 million has been made available for 2000–01. So, once again, investment in our railways, and incentives to move from road to rail have been encouraged under this Government.

May I associate those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches with the Secretary of State's good wishes on the occasion of the last Scottish questions under your Chair, Madam Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Under your Chair?"] I am waiting for a little peace and quiet on the Conservative Benches.

I can certainly look at those, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, post devolution, we are involved in a partnership. All train journeys starting and ending in Scotland—not inter-city services—have become the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. I shall ensure that his point is brought to the attention of the Minister for Transport and the Environment in Scotland, Ms Boyack.

Is it not the case that freight facility grants were never used until the Labour Government were elected in 1997? I welcome the grants that have been awarded, including the one to Leith docks in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State welcome the new, ambitious targets for furthering freight facility grants and the unprecedented boost to rail infrastructure that was announced last week, which will be good for the economy, good for the environment and good for people throughout Scotland?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Conservative Government objected on two principled grounds to doing what we are doing. First, they did not believe in planning of any sort. They believed that words such as "planning and strategy", "common sense" and "forward looking" were associated with opposition to the free market, which was their only criterion. Secondly, they were very much opposed to investing money in any public services, not just rail. That meant decline for many years in freight transport and a commensurate increase in transport on the roads, with all its disadvantages. So, I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that we do not ever have another Government who cut public services as the Conservatives did in the past and have promised to do in future.

It is nice to hear the Secretary of State praising the privatised rail industry. What level of profit does he consider necessary to ensure the continued flow of private investment into the infrastructure of Scotland's railways?

It is not for me to decide the level of profit. The level that will activate future investment will be the one that attracts money to the industry. Despite advances under the privatised industry in the level of investment, the rise in the number of passengers and some of its longer-term plans now that we have brought it together, there have been serious disadvantages, too. Punctuality has gone to pot, reliability is down and the fragmentation of the network meant that, until we introduced the Strategic Rail Authority, there was no overall view. So, the matter is not as simple as having to choose between the unfettered free market and a Soviet command system, which was the line pursued by the previous Government. A sensible balance between the public and private sectors is what this Government stand for.

Safety on board trains is especially important during the holiday period. Will my right hon. Friend take up, with inter-city train operators in particular, issues of overcrowding and overselling of tickets, resulting in luggage and passengers in train corridors, which is extremely dangerous? Will he raise those issues with the Deputy Prime Minister and investigate the possibility of introducing legislation?

I shall certainly give my attention to my hon. Friend's remarks. There is no doubt that there has been a vast increase in the number of passengers travelling by train. For punctuality and reliability, ScotRail normally comes joint first with, or a close second to, Island Line on the Isle of Wight. As that line is only six miles long, a train need only come out of the shunting shed to be almost guaranteed to be on time at the end of its journey. On the question of investment, the plan outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister provides about £29 billion of Government funding, which will result in upgrading of the east coast main line, modernisation of the west coast main line, and £7 billion for the rail modernisation fund. We want the Conservatives to be sufficiently honest to tell us which programme they would cut if they were elected to office at the next general election.

Pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) of 27 June 2000, Official Report, column 482W, if she will list the cases which have caused her to intervene on the grounds that they might have ramifications for the whole United Kingdom. [130592]

To date I have intervened in 14 cases. I shall arrange for a list to be placed in the Library of the House.

Am I right in thinking think that devolved and reserved matters are not always mutually exclusive? May I point out that a recent motion on the Order Paper of the Scottish Parliament called for Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive to take steps to alleviate the poverty of asylum seekers and refugees? What advice has my hon. and learned Friend given on legal measures in that respect, and would such measures be taken by Her Majesty's Government, or by the Scottish Executive, or by a mixture of the two?

As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot disclose the exact nature of any advice that I have given. However, in general terms, I assure him that, where appropriate, I give advice to United Kingdom Departments and Ministers. The Scottish Parliament has its own, separate legal representation.

Pleasant as it is to see the hon. and learned Lady at the Dispatch Box, she knows what she receives by way of her ministerial salary to discharge her functions, yet she informs us that she has made only 14 interventions in the more than 12 months since she took office. In view of the Lord Chancellor's comments about fat-cat lawyers, referring to the self-employed profession, does the hon. and learned Lady think that the Government and the taxpayer are getting value for money from her discharge of her full-time post?

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that I have not only intervened in 14 cases: I have scrutinised about 750 cases and several Bills of the Scottish Parliament, and that work will increase as the Scottish Parliament produces more Bills for scrutiny. I have also formulated a number of opinions; as the hon. Gentleman, who is legally qualified, well knows, it is not and will not be the Advocate-General's practice to reveal those opinions. However, I assure him that I am not twiddling my thumbs.

What discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Home Office regarding the workings of the European convention on human rights. [130593]

What discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Home Office regarding the workings of the European convention on human rights. [130594]

I have regular discussions with colleagues in the Home Office and with Scottish Executive Ministers on various matters, including those relating to the European convention on human rights.

The Scottish Parliament has more reason than most to know about the costs and legislative implications of the ECHR. What assessment has the hon. and learned Lady made of the additional costs that will fall on Scotland from 3 October?

It is not for me to cost those matters, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the following comfort. The assessment carried out reveals that most cases will arise from cases currently before the courts, rather than from individual new cases. However, substantial training has been undertaken on both sides of the border and that has, in itself, resulted in additional costs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that overall it is important that the European convention on human rights be brought into effect and that the costs are commensurate with that.

I have listened with interest to the Advocate-General's response. Welcome though the incorporation of the human rights convention is, she must accept that it has been costly already in Scotland. I understand that the Home Office has recently been given a grant of £60 million over three years to deal with what happens after 3 October. Scotland has had money starting from last year, but will the Minister make representations to the Government to ensure that finance is reconsidered, especially for Scotland, after 3 October, when even more challenges are likely to be forthcoming?

I am sure that the hon. Lady would understand, if she read the Scotland Act 1998, that my function is not that of the Secretary of State. I am the legal officer, and my job is legal. Any submissions about financial costs, if they are to be made, are to be made by the Secretary of State.

What estimate she has made of the proportion of (a) summary-only and (b) either-way cases heard by stipendiary magistrates in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [130596]

Unfortunately, these figures are not collected centrally. However, results from an ad hoc survey of magistrates courts committees throughout the country suggest that about 10 per cent. of either-way cases and slightly less than 10 per cent. of summary cases were heard by stipendiary magistrates in each of the past three years.

I thank the Minister for those figures. As a life member of the Magistrates Association, I welcome the reassurance about the future of lay benches. However, does she acknowledge the fears of many of my 30, 000 magisterial colleagues that there exists a civil service agenda secreted in a Selborne house cellar that envisages a European model of a fully professional judiciary? Is there not a real risk, following the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill, that there will be many more one—person judgments by stipendiary magistrates, which could lead too often to the charge of legal arbitrariness and state authoritarianism?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that there are no such sinister cellars in Selborne house. On the contrary, there is an excellent staff restaurant at that level, which I would invite him to visit.

I do not wish to intrude on the private grief caused by the attack of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on the sinister cellars in Selborne house, but will there be a proper survey following this Question Time into the work that is done by stipendiary magistrates? Will the hon. Lady confirm that, despite the support that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have for the lay magistracy, she recognises that stipendiary magistrates have an important part to play? Might the Government change their mind about the role of stipendiaries under the Football (Disorder) Bill, which is being considered in another place? As she knows, the Opposition certainly wish stipendiaries to have a greater role in the context of that legislation.

I sought to reassure the House that there were no such sinister cellars. I clearly have not achieved my objective. A joint Lord Chancellor's Department and Home Office research project is being undertaken to assess whether the current balance between the use of lay magistrates and stipendiaries is correct, and whether each set of magistrates is deployed in the most effective way. A report on that is due in September. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the review of the criminal courts that is being conducted by Lord Justice Auld. We await his conclusions with interest.

What representations he has received regarding the numbers of McKenzie friends attending legal proceedings (a) in court and (b) in chambers. [130598]

Since my previous reply on 25 January this year to the hon. Gentleman, I have not received any representations about McKenzie friends.

Will the Minister explain to the House how it can possibly be in the interests of British justice for litigants in person to be increasingly deprived of McKenzie friends in court proceedings?

I do not accept the premise of the question. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that McKenzie friends are increasingly being denied access to courts. Judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that justice and fairness do not require that.

If she will make a statement on the review of the Public Trust Office. [130599]

If she will make a statement on the operation of the Public Trust Office. [130607]

The Lord Chancellor announced his plans for the future operation of the Public Trust Office on 11 April 2000. We are consulting all interested parties on the programme of reform set out in "Making Changes: the Future of the Public Trust Office". A number of steps have already been taken to improve the current performance of the Public Trust Office. A new customer services division has been created, a new senior management team has been put in place, and we anticipate a much-improved service to clients.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the work that she has done over the past six months in particular, since I have been involved, to bring together the unions, the management, the clients, the patients and the receivers to deliver a much better service at no increased cost to the clients or the receivers. Will she join me in congratulating Nick Smedley and the management for the open days that they are holding for receivers? I attended one today and saw that many receivers strongly support the changes. Will my hon. Friend ensure that in the distribution of assets below £10, 000, those are not under any circumstances handed over to nursing or care home managers? Concern has been expressed to me that "granny farming" could result if care home managers were in receipt of those moneys.

I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the work of the Public Trust Office. He raises an important point. Each case is reviewed individually by a senior case worker in the Public Trust Office, who will check that, among other things, all accounts are accurate and up to date, and that the case file and visitors' reports, if there are any, demonstrate that the receiver is taking an active interest in the patient's welfare, and that no concerns have been raised by third parties—for example, the nursing home or social services.

I am pleased to hear of the improvements that are taking place; they certainly seem to be needed. I am pursuing a case on behalf of a constituent, the mother of a disabled boy, who is gravely dissatisfied with the investment programme undertaken by the trust in connection with his settlement. Has not the Public Trust Office been a highly incompetent organisation up till now? That is illustrated by the fact that it only recently obtained computers. I know that computers are not the answer to all the problems in the universe, but assistance in that regard and the other improvements that have been mentioned may help to ensure that the situation that I described does not occur again.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's constituent's case. The Public Trust Office needs to be overhauled to deliver a better service to clients, but a great deal of good work has been done in the past and we do not want to introduce change for change's sake. At each stage we are consulting the users—the receivers and, in many cases, clients—to ensure that the service that we deliver is appropriate to the needs of the clients whom we seek to serve.

Given that in July 1999 the Public Accounts Committee concluded that the Public Trust Office was failing properly to protect the financial interests of people suffering from mental incapacity, and, furthermore, in the light of the reform proposals to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, what improvement has she so far detected in the training of staff?

At the outset we had to suspend some of the training programmes because of the enormous pressure that we were placing on the staff. It is recognised that the Public Trust Office is in the midst of a major and complex programme of change, so I was happy to be able to announce to the staff some two months ago that we were reinstating and improving the training programme. As I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, the total programme of change cannot be successfully implemented without the requisite skills, which often are not available in the civil service, so, on occasions, we shall seek the support of external consultants to take the work forward.

I welcome the review, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to concerns which were brought to my attention at my surgery on Saturday about annual administrative costs for those in the lowest income band. Relatives of pensioners whose total income is used to pay for private and residential homes simply do not have the annual £180 minimum administrative charge. Will my hon. Friend consider that issue closely?

Nursing home fees are a matter for the Department of Health, but I am conscious of the concerns expressed about the imposition of fees. The Treasury has agreed to changes to the mental health fee system and we plan to introduce new fees in the autumn which should meet some of my hon. Friend's concerns.

If she will make a statement on future prospects for rural magistrates courts. [130601]

The hon. Gentleman asked similar questions on 9 November 1999, and this year, on 25 January, 18 April and 27 June. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he is still waiting for an answer, but, as I said on each occasion, the Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in an MCC area, whether rural or urban, are for the committee to determine, but I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attendance at our Question Time.

When I meet the chairman of Shropshire's magistrates courts on Thursday, may I give him a clear reassurance from the Minister that, should Shropshire's magistrates desire to keep all their magistrates courts, the Government will not push them into a policy of centralisation, as has happened in Hereford, where there is now only one court?

As I have just said, the organisation of the courts in Shropshire will be for the local magistrates courts committee, so when the hon. Gentleman meets the chairman he might like to point out just how committed the Government are to modernising the service provided by magistrates courts committees. The public have a right to expect well-equipped and secure court rooms. The hon. Gentleman might also like to tell the chairman that we are spending £16 million this year on magistrates courts improvements. He might also like to suggest how he would arrive at the programme of cuts that the Conservative party would introduce if it were ever returned to power.

The closure of rural magistrates courts leads to the denial of justice for many people. Furthermore, it undermines the morale of the lay magistracy. For how long will the Government persist in their policy of imposing 3 per cent. per annum cuts on magistrates courts committees throughout the country?

The comprehensive spending review renewed the requirement for efficiency gains for a further three-year period. I reject the proposition that there are cuts of 3 per cent. year on year. That is not the case. If we consider courthouse closures in recent years, most magistrates courts that have closed so far are those that committees no longer felt able to justify because they lacked the necessary facilities. It is absolutely essential to provide courts that are modern and fit for their purpose.

The slight hazard with that is that, if membership of a magistrates courts committee is not balanced in relation to a specific rural area, there will be some inclination to believe that the decision has not been totally independent and is therefore not unavoidable. I presume that my hon. Friend will examine the composition of magistrates courts committees.

I shall certainly do that, as I have done on previous occasions when my hon. Friend has raised the matter. I undertake to do it again.

What further proposals she will bring forward to improve access to Parliament for the media. [130611]

The Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee have worked together to remove restrictions on the use of tape recorders in the Gallery, end the ban on interviews in Members' offices and ease the restrictions on photography. In addition, there are now facilities close to the Chamber for interviews with hon. Members, as well as several more minor changes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House is best served not by the frothy, gossipy media reporting that often occurs, but by proper coverage of our serious debates not only in the Chamber but in Committee and in Westminster Hall? In the next Session, will she consider the way in which we can enhance facilities close to Westminster Hall and on the Committee Corridors?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that hon. Members from all parties sometimes resent the fact that the more serious—and in many ways more interesting—part of our work gets the least coverage. I certainly undertake further to consider what we can do to extend coverage of, for example, Committees and Westminster Hall. I know that the Modernisation Committee wishes to do that.

Will the President of the Council confirm that the prospects for further enhancing facilities for the media will be realised when Portcullis House is occupied later this year? Does the right hon. Lady find it as astonishing as Members of other Parliaments do that it will be possible for each Member of Parliament to have his or her own private office only when Portcullis House is occupied?

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the media facilities that will be available in Portcullis House. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the new building will make it possible for every hon. Member to have an office for the first time. Many people find it astonishing that that has not been the case hitherto. It is a pity that the provision of accommodation does not feature more in the coverage of Portcullis House.

What matters relating to facilities for visitors were discussed at the Commission's last meeting. [130613]

A decision to include plans for a visitors centre was taken by the Commission during recent consideration of the next three-year rolling programme of expenditure.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. It is one of the most welcome answers that I have received as a Member of Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on personally pursuing the matter. Flushed with success on the issue, there is another that I wish to raise with him. I shall do that later in the year.

Let me return the compliment. The hon. Lady's intelligent and persistent use of oral and written questions on the subject—[Interruption] Hon. Members may groan, but the hon. Lady's questioning helped to persuade the Commission of the urgent need for visitor facilities to be established in this place as soon as possible.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider increasing dining facilities for hon. Members so that they could invite more than three guests, especially to Portcullis House? Could the three-guest limit for each Member of Parliament be increased?

That is an absolutely fair point. The Catering Committee will be able to reconsider the rules because more dining facilities will be available to hon. Member when Portcullis House is commissioned, which we hope will happen in the autumn. Hon. Members may be able to take more guests into the accommodation provided by the Catering Committee, but, strictly speaking, that is a matter for the Committee.

It is.

If she will make it her policy to allow the tabling and publication of early-day motions and the publication of written answers during parliamentary Adjournments. [130614]

No. This matter has been raised frequently—not least by my hon. Friend—but it has considerable implications on time and resources.

That is a very disappointing reply. I hope to table an early-day motion today in an attempt to assist Moorside Mining at Eckington, which is in my constituency, to survive into the future. I would not be able to do that if something similar happened next week or at any time in the next three months. Given that we shall be away for three months, I shall not have the opportunity to table parliamentary questions that will receive an answer. That seems to me to be a minimum requirement in a period when we are Members without Parliament, not Members of Parliament.

My hon. Friend asks about early-day motions as well as written answers. Of course I understand the concern that he expresses, but it is not reasonable, for example, to expect the staff of the House to be available for 52 weeks a year, and Madam Speaker would have a role in adjudicating whether the questions could be accepted. The matter has been considered repeatedly over the years, but it has further implications than are sometimes realised on the use of resources and on the pressure on Members of all kinds.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the fashion for Ministers to issue holding answers is increasing and that even simple factual questions take many weeks to answer? I am still waiting for an answer from the Health Secretary to a simple question about hospital waiting times that goes back to 17 March. If that answer does not appear before the end of this week and the question is then answered at the end of October, I will have awaited more than five months for the answer to a simple question. Could not those questions that have been outstanding for a long time be answered during the recess?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but the experience of the Scottish Parliament, which began to take questions in the recess, was that far more holding answers, even than the norm, were generated for reasons that I suppose are fairly obvious. Certainly, I share his view that it is disappointing if factual questions cannot be answered reasonably speedily, but long experience of tabling such questions suggests to me that sometimes what may seem a simple question to the Member tabling it requires a lot of work and causes complication in the Department. However, I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

What representations she has received on the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance". [130616]

I have received no representations as such from any hon. Member, although I am aware that in the House and outside a number have expressed views on it.

Has my right hon. Friend heard the cruel and callous rumour, which is full of calumny, that the Government might try to kick into touch any consideration in Parliament of the Liaison Committee's report "Shifting the Balance"? Can she give the House an assurance that, despite the fact that there are varying views on the report's contents and recommendations, the Government intend to bring the matter to a head and allow hon. Members a free vote, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised last week, on "Shifting the Balance" in the not-too-distant future and certainly in time for the implementation of any decision flowing from that debate to be triggered if we are returned after the general election?

I anticipate that there is likely to be a debate on the matter, perhaps in the overspill. Of course it is a House matter, so the Government will certainly allow a free vote, although it is far from clear to me that Conservatives Members will be allowed a free vote, but I very much hope that they will be. I urge hon. Members to study the report with great care because it has profound implications for the rights and responsibilities of individual Members, which I fear many seem to be overlooking.

I assure the right hon. Lady that there will be a free vote for Conservative Members. Can she confirm that we will debate a substantive motion to allow the House to express a clear view? If a clear view is expressed, will the Government undertake to put all the necessary procedures in place so that the Select Committees can be set up under the new procedure without delay at the beginning of the new Parliament?

First, how the debate will be taken and under what circumstances remains to be settled. Secondly, it was my impression that the Liaison Committee was anxious to bring the procedures into being, should the House agree to them, before the new Parliament begins. As for the reference to delay, the Liaison Committee makes the point that the records show that new procedures are usually introduced at the beginning of a new Parliament. I think that that happened at the beginning of this Parliament and, considering the substantial change in personnel, the process was particularly speedy. Finally, what happens in a new Parliament is particularly pertinent to a method of selection involving a few Members, which is proposed by the Liaison Committee. However, it is far from clear to me how, without a separate information gathering network, it would make judgments on a new Parliament and new Members.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the role of the Back Bencher could not only be expanded, but produce positive results? Far from it being unusual for a Committee of the great and the good to decide the membership of a particular Committee, until very recently it was the habit of a small Committee of Members of all parties in the House to decide the membership of a number of important bodies. That was not only accepted, but it worked efficiently.

I am afraid that I do not accept that such a system would offer any expansion of the role of Back Benchers. Indeed, one of my anxieties is that the proposals might create a two-tier system for Back Benchers. In effect, there would be three classes of MP: members of the Government, members of Select Committees—who would select each other—and the rest. Of course I accept that there is a powerful case for expanding the role of Back Benchers and for taking a positive attitude to their work and that of Select Committees, which I in no way criticise—indeed, I applaud it—but that can happen under the system we have now.

Whatever the minute detail for the terms of appointment might be, does not the right hon. Lady agree that there is a case for greater democratisation of the process of appointment to Select Committees or, for that matter, to the Chairmen's Panel?

I have no wish to intrude on private grief and the Select Committee appointments procedures operated by the Conservative party are not a matter for me, but it is open to Labour Members to self-nominate. Nominations have to be ratified by the parliamentary party and the procedures that we are to adopt, which will produce the list put forward by the Whips, are in many ways similar to those proposed by the Liaison Committee.

If she will make it her policy that a substantive motion be tabled in the House, at the earliest opportunity after the commitment of troops to armed conflict, allowing the House to express its view, and allowing hon. Members to table amendments. [130618]

No. Although I well understand the wish of Members on both sides of the House for a decision-making procedure of the type that my hon. Friend describes and suggests, that has not been the practice of the House.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that my question purloins exactly the words of a recommendation of our careful colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee? Is it wise to simply say no to it? Do Ministers recognise that had they seen both the mess that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and I saw in Serbia and the Albanian ethnic cleansing in reverse in Kosovo and had the House of Commons been given the chance to excavate the difficulties of going into the Balkans, we might have had wiser policies from the Prime Minister and the United States?

My hon. Friend and his colleagues have had the opportunity to go to Serbia and Kosovo. Governments of both complexions have often given Members ample and quick opportunities to raise those issues properly in the House.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about this prerogative issue and about sending our young men and women into battle without the matter being debated in the House? Would not it be of assistance to the Executive to have a clear endorsement from the House?

There is no problem at all with the House and its Members having an opportunity and a platform to debate these issues. The Government can benefit from that discussion. What is at odds with that in tactical terms is that it clearly does not make sense for the House to pre-empt any military operation.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply to my question, I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

The point has been noted.