To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of hon. Members. [10550]

The full complement of this House stands at present at 651 right hon. and hon. Members. That figure will rise to 659 from the next general election.

After the general election, there will be 34 more Members of Parliament than there were when I was first elected to the House almost 27 years ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has come at least to stabilise the number of Members of Parliament or, preferably, to start to reduce the number?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The steady increase in the number of constituencies in recent years is a consequence of the way in which the rules for the redistribution of seats have been interpreted. I do not think that that outcome was wholly foreseen when the rules were first agreed, which is why I have announced my intention to conduct a review of them.

As the question on the Order Paper is about "honourable" Members, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he has had brought to his attention the new statements of Mohamed Al Fayed on television, which many of our constituents throughout the country have seen, reflecting the gravest allegations—

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a very good point with which we may have some sympathy, but it really does not relate to the question on the Order Paper, which is an important question, and I shall call a couple of hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Does the Home Secretary agree that what is required for this honourable House is many more Labour Members on the Government Benches?

I thought that I was doing the House a service, but it does not appear that I am. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to reply.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to whistle in the wind for quite some time. The truth of the matter is that the House provides a most effective way of representing the views of our constituents, as reflected by a majority on the Conservative Benches. I have every confidence that such a majority will continue after the election.

Would not the creation of a Parliament with tax-raising powers north of the border call into question the number of Scottish Members in the House? Is that not a particularly important issue to address?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not raise the West Lothian question, which he originated and which is central to this issue. The Labour party has still not begun to provide an answer to the question: why should Members be elected in Scotland to come to this place to decide matters of health, education and transport in England when English Members of Parliament will have no say whatever in deciding questions of health, education and transport in Scotland?

Does the Home Secretary not realise that the answer is simple and straightforward? He could reduce the number of seats in the House by 112 immediately by granting proper legislative Parliaments to both Scotland and Wales, which would be to everyone's benefit.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's view of what should happen is entirely shared by Opposition Members who argue the cause of devolution so strenuously. There may well be a logical consequence and a link between the two which the hon. Gentleman identifies, but it is a question and a link that the Labour party has consistently failed to recognise.