When he next plans to meet the Scottish Council for Independent Schools. [33155]

I have arranged to meet the Scottish Council for Independent Schools on 7 April.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House, and will he be telling the council, how many youngsters are being denied places at independent schools as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme? While he is at it, will he tell us how many classes of over 30 have been reduced or disappeared as a result of the transfer of moneys from the assisted places scheme into that objective?

I shall tell the Scottish Council for Independent Schools, as I am pleased to tell the House again, that Labour Governments are about serving the interests of the many and not the few. I shall tell the council with immense pride that, in my own constituency, hundreds of children are benefiting from an early intervention programme, in contrast to the remarkable total of 17 children who go to private schools under the assisted places scheme. In the Motherwell constituency, in which the hon. Gentleman has a family interest, precisely one child goes to a private school under the assisted places scheme.

Is not investment in early years education a far better use of resources than an initiative for private schools that benefits 19 children in my constituency and some 3,000 children throughout Scotland?

Even the word "benefits" is a little pejorative. Certainly I am delighted that we have already been able to transfer £24 million into the early intervention scheme in Scotland. In every constituency, including mine and that of my hon. Friend, there are hundreds of children with literacy and numeracy problems. Money is now being spent on providing them with the best possible early education, with tremendous benefit to the education system and society in general.

How many tenders he has received to date for the design and construction of the Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood. [33156]

We called for expressions of interest in the provision of architectural and design services and, by the closing date of Monday 2 March, had received 70 applications.

I thank the Secretary of State for that informative reply. Does he recognise that the information in the White Paper before the referendum about the cost of the new Scottish Parliament was—like so much of the information in that White Paper—not absolutely accurate? As it is now clear that the new building will cost much more than the promised £40 million, where will the Secretary of State get the extra money? Will he cut the budget for schools, that for roads or that for hospitals, or will he raise taxes?

None of the options that the hon. Lady was good enough to suggest seem appropriate or attractive, but I can assure her that finding the money will not be a major problem. The explanation for the change in the ceiling figure is that we have increased the floor area of the accommodation available in the building. That is essential, as the building will be there for a very long time and will occupy a central position in Scottish democracy and the democracy of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues take a penny-pinching attitude, they will find themselves even more out of sympathy with Scottish public opinion than they are at the moment, if that is possible.

In view of the expenditure involved and the need to keep costs down, does my right hon. Friend agree that the bid by Glasgow city council for the Parliament's temporary home is the best in practical and economic terms? Will he therefore ignore the vested interests of civil servants and others, and confirm that Glasgow's bid will be considered seriously?

There is no question of vested interests, most certainly in the civil service, or, to be fair, in the wider public debate. We were looking for a suitable site. Above all, we want one where there can be a collegiate approach in the first years of the new Parliament, where all those in the Parliament can be together, working out its new solutions. We want to find the right setting for that, and we shall look for it either in Edinburgh or Glasgow on the merits of the bids that are made.

What instructions has the Secretary of State given on the configuration of the debating chamber? Does he agree that recent opinion polls have driven a coach and horses through his naive prediction of a new age of consensual politics in Scotland, and suggest instead a political struggle between separatists and those who support the Union? Would it not be wise now to abandon thoughts of the consensual horseshoe configuration and replicate this Chamber, within which the real political battle for Scotland's place within the United Kingdom can be fought and won?

The right hon. Gentleman is developing a most unexpected characteristic—it is called a sense of humour. The answer to his question is no. I am touched by the fact that he has recognised that the Conservative party apparently has no part to play in the Scottish political scene. It is a little bit of a defeatist attitude, but I understand why he has reached that position.

Learning from the sense of humour failure of the Secretary of State at his Scottish conference recently, and given the current evidence that he was totally wrong in claiming that the new Scottish Parliament would weaken Scottish nationalism, will he concede now that he made a massive political miscalculation in cavorting with the Scottish National party during the referendum campaign, and that his misalliance with it was, to paraphrase a term used at the Scottish Labour party conference, politically inept,

"morally repugnant, and spiritually bereft",

and is it not about time that he started fighting for the Union alongside us?

As a coherent intellectual argument, that is third-rate. I do not cavort with anyone. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will be glad to know that he is not on my cavorting list, if such a thing exists. We do what we do in this area of policy because we believe that the policy is right, that it will serve the democracy of the united kingdom of Scotland effectively, and that it is the settled will of the Scottish people. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quarrel with that, that is his business, but we shall hold to what we believe is a matter of principle.

Obviously, the design and construction of the Parliament must be of a high standard. Why has not the Secretary of State applied for millennium lottery funding? After all, the dome down at Greenwich will receive £400 million. Surely the Scottish Parliament, which is a symbol of the new democracy and the future of Scotland, should also be eligible for some lottery funding. This is the third time that I have asked this question, and I should be grateful for an answer today.

Hear, hear.

I do not know whether the hon. Lady was being cheered by her party leader in Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), because of her engaging manners, or because she is speaking for the Liberal Democrats. The answer is simply that I do not think that such an application would fall within the remit of the lottery funding. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that, if there is any possibility of additional funding for the Parliament, I shall be happy to consider it. The hon. Lady is right to stress that we want a building that is worthy of its purpose and will be a genuine ornament to Scotland as well as a good home for Scottish politicians.

Given the national and international significance of Scotland's new Parliament, and given the importance of consensus in Scotland on the design of the new Parliament building, will my right hon. Friend arrange for short-listed designs to be put on public display and for public opinion on the issue to be gauged before a final decision is made? While I am at it, may I express my personal prejudice in favour of stone walls and pitched roofs?

My hon. Friend used to live in a particularly splendid example of stone walls and pitched roofs—almost an aristocratic example of that genre.

And with some good paintings.

And with some good paintings as well, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend seems to have caught a current fashion and borrowed some of them from the national gallery.

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We have already anticipated that people will wish to see the designs on the short list, and we shall ensure that they are available in due course and at the right time.

What initiatives he intends to take to encourage tree planting in Scotland. [33157]

We are fully committed to increasing the area of woodland in Scotland, and we shall continue to provide grant aid and advice to landowners, crofters and rural communities to encourage them to plant trees. Special initiatives include challenge funds for the creation of more woodland in the Grampians and the Cairngorms.

Instead of all the bread and circus events to mark the millennium, would not a more practical and appropriate scheme with longer-lasting benefits be to encourage people to plant or donate trees to mark the millennium? As this is the 25th anniversary of national tree year, in which some of us played a modest part many years ago, will he use his good offices to encourage local authorities in Scotland to identify sites and organise schemes to encourage people to contribute to planting trees in towns, which would help to soften the impact of many urban developments?

I undertake to consider that interesting suggestion. As part of the millennium forest scheme, some £12 million will be spent in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend recall that St. Mark's gospel contains the sentence:

"I see men as trees, walking"?

With that in mind, will he consider planting trees outside the Scottish Parliament to commemorate the giants of the Labour movement who fought for a Scottish Parliament this century, such as Kier Hardie and John Wheatley, but above all the great Jimmy Maxton, who once said that we should achieve more in five years of a Scottish Parliament than in 25 to 30 heartbreaking years' work in the British House of Commons? Could we have a plaque to that effect outside the Scottish Parliament?

That is an equally interesting suggestion, which I am sure the Scottish Parliament will wish to consider.

Does the Minister accept that there is absolutely no point in planting new trees if, at the end of the departmental spending review, he reverses the current moratorium on large-scale block transfers of forests? Will he assure us that, when the departmental spending review is complete, there will be a period of consultation before the disposal of any Forestry Enterprise land in Scotland is considered, on the ground that many people in Scotland are concerned that there will be a short-term gain of a long-term asset?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that matter is being looked at as part of the review of forestry strategy, which is also part of the comprehensive spending review. Obviously, any proposals that come out of that review will be put out for full consultation with interested parties—those in the industry and those interested in forestry.

If he will make a statement on the recent findings of the international court relating to the (a) venue and (b) jurisdiction of the trial of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing. [33158]

The International Court of Justice made no findings in relation to the venue or jurisdiction for the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing, but has held that it cannot determine, as a preliminary issue, the effect of the Security Council's resolutions on Libya's claims under the Montreal convention.

Is it really more important that a trial should take place in Scotland than that any trial should take place at all?

Those accused of acts of terrorism should not be able to dictate the venue or composition of the court before which they are to be tried. Scotland and the United States have exercised jurisdiction in that case, and Libya should now surrender the two accused persons for trial in either of those two countries, as it is required to do under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Does the Minister accept that, once a Scottish Parliament is up and running, given the devolution of powers over the legal system, a future Scottish Administration could decide to allow the Lockerbie trial to be held outwith Scotland? Does he accept that, if that happens, Westminster must not attempt to interfere with the decision?

It is worth re-emphasising that both the United States and this country are sticking by an important principle: the solution to that problem lies in Libya, and it is vital that Libya abides by Security Council resolutions and delivers the two accused persons for a proper trial.

I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Minister. There is great pressure on him to consider holding a trial in a neutral country, but, even if the Government were to consider doing so, must not the Libyan Government first give a clear guarantee that they would hand over the two suspects?

Such a guarantee has not, to date, been forthcoming from the Libyans. It is important to repeat that the suspects should be given up. There must be a fair trial, and one has been offered within the jurisdiction of the United States or of Scotland. That is the best way forward. We expect the Libyans to abide by Security Council resolutions, and that is the simple matter on which the case rests at the moment.

What plans he has to meet representatives of women's groups in Scotland to discuss equal opportunities. [33159]

I shall be meeting members of women's organisations at a conference on Friday 24 April. I shall consult them on the setting up of a consultative forum for women in Scotland. I expect various aspects of equal opportunities to be discussed at the meeting.

Will the Minister confirm that equal opportunities means people achieving posts through merit, and not because of positive discrimination? Will he resist the temptation to create a gender balance in the Scottish Parliament?

I agree that we live in a meritocracy, but significant obstacles are placed in front of women in many areas of public life. On gender balance, the Labour party accepts that equal representation is a worthy objective. We are putting in place a twinning system, which will further it, and I sincerely hope that, in addition to the Labour party, the other political parties in Scotland will take equal representation seriously and consider how best they can move that objective on.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's twinning proposals for the Scottish Parliament are intended not to give an unfair advantage to women, but to ensure a broadly equal outcome? Does he also agree that, although a man could take a case to court because he was not selected as a candidate, a woman could do so with more justice because women have been unrepresented and under-represented throughout the history of parliamentary democracy in this country?

Let me first acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend has played in promoting the equal representation issue in Scotland. This is clearly an important matter for us, and the establishment of the Parliament represents a unique opportunity to get it right. We anticipate that the twinning arrangements will proceed, and that there will be a positive outcome. The Scottish Parliament could give a lead not only to the United Kingdom but to Europe in promoting the interests of women in the political arena at this important time.

If I may borrow a phrase from the Conservative representative on the consultative steering group, does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of devolution, there being no incumbency in the Scottish Parliament, is that we can try to achieve better and fairer representation of men and of women? When did he last read the treaty of Amsterdam provision that states:

"the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity"?

What measures do the Government intend to propose to achieve that? If they fail to do so, would political parties that tried to achieve it be indemnified against being taken to court?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that changes are being proposed to the equal treatment directive and the treaty of Amsterdam, but that they will not take place until June 1999. The Government have examined the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but the point is that it is up to the political parties to move ahead on the issue. We cannot avoid the possibility of legal challenge. That said, I invite the Liberals to join Labour in ensuring that women get a fair deal. We want a twinning system: the Liberals should decide now how they are to proceed.

When my hon. Friend met women's organisations in Scotland, did they ask about the under-representation of women on public bodies, and, if so, did he give an assurance that, if such under-representation is proved, he would be able to act against it? Did they ask about domestic violence, and was he able to give an assurance that domestic violence was high on the Scottish Office agenda?

I am pleased to give my hon. Friend an assurance that we have made significant progress on both counts. Domestic violence is an important issue for us. We must stamp out this abuse of male power. In Scotland, we are putting a strategy in place and leading the United Kingdom.

We want to make further progress on equality in public appointments. We believe that 50 per cent. of places on all public bodies should be held by women, and we want more women to hold chairs. We also want to ensure that women are represented not only on soft issues, but across the economic spectrum.

Does the Minister accept that equality of opportunity depends not only on social action, but on economic action, which is why the cuts in single parent benefit were so damaging to the economic position of hundreds of thousands of women in Scotland? That measure was described as

"economically inept, morally repugnant, and spiritually bereft."

Was not the Scottish Labour party conference perfectly entitled to make that criticism of the Government?

I do not want to inject a discordant note, but that was another pathetic contribution from the leader of the nationalists. The participation of women in significant parts of Scottish life is a serious issue, which can best be dealt with by practical policies and not by the narrow sloganising that we hear from those under the banner of the Scottish National party.

Does the Minister agree that the principal barrier to women's participation has been the selection process? Will he congratulate the Scottish Labour party on its commitment to the twinning process? The Opposition parties should have the courage of their convictions, and should take part in the process that will, deliver a gender balance in Scotland.

I can reinforce my hon. Friend's sentiment. The Labour party is giving a lead, and the Liberal Democrats are also involved. We want to hear from the SNP and the Conservatives about what practical measures they intend to take to ensure that women are promoted. Next year, there will be a unique opportunity in the Scottish Parliament to enable more women to do a good job for themselves and for Scotland.

If it emerges that the Lord Chancellor's advice is right and the Secretary of State's legal advice is wrong, and that candidate selection procedures that favour women are illegal, will the Government amend the Scotland Bill so that political parties will not be prosecuted and will be free to select women candidates according to their own rules and in a manner of their own choosing?

It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to make such a comment, given that the Conservative party is not interested in promoting equal opportunities. The Lord Chancellor's advice did not state that such procedures would be illegal. We cannot rule out a legal challenge under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the equal treatment directive, but that is different from a party taking a principled stand to make progress on equal representation. That is what Labour is doing, and we want to know what the Conservatives are doing.

If he will make a statement on trends in NHS waiting lists in Scotland since May 1997; and what targets he has set over the next four years. [33160]

The number of people waiting for in-patient and day-case treatment increased from 84,649 to 87,438 between March and December 1997. Nevertheless, all patients needing emergency treatment are seen at once; over 80 per cent. of patients are treated within three months, and 99.6 per cent. within 12 months.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for answering only the first half of my question. He has not answered the second part of the question, even though the Labour party's manifesto said that it would reduce waiting lists over the next four years. Will the Minister consider the amount of money being spent per head of population in Manchester compared with Glasgow, and in Fife compared with Dorset, and ask himself why there are waiting lists, given the additional money that is being spent in Scotland?

That was a somewhat confused question, and contained the usual nark against Scotland. Our performance in Scotland is good because we attach importance to reducing waiting lists. We concentrate not just on the total numbers, but on the waiting times. More than 80 per cent. of patients are treated within three months. Unlike the previous Government, when we get the waiting lists down, we shall keep them down.

Does the Minister agree that people are most concerned about speed of admission and quality of treatment for the most serious conditions? What action have the Government taken since the election on cancer treatment? What measures does he propose to take in response to the recent report by the Accounts Commission, which highlighted the failure of certain trusts to follow agreed guidelines on the treatment of ovarian cancer?

Again, we in Scotland like to think that we are well down the road of development. We have a national cancer strategy, under which every patient, no matter where he or she is in the system, should receive the best care available. Like my hon. Friend, we are also concerned about speed and the removal of uncertainty. That is why we recently provided £3 million for the establishment of a one-stop clinic. A woman with a breast lump can go into the clinic and be examined, have a mammography, have a needle biopsy and be given a decision all on one day. I think that we would all agree that that is the way forward. [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who asked the main question, must not leave the Chamber until the supplementaries have finished.

Since the last Budget, we have seen the Labour party's commitment to both the people's prescription charges and the people's waiting lists. As the Chancellor has made it clear that the cost of setting up a Scottish Parliament must be met from within the Scottish block, will the Minister now assure us that any savings made elsewhere will not come from the health budget, and that the Government's plans will not involve simply swapping beds for bureaucrats?

The hon. Gentleman should look at the record, and note what we have delivered. Since the time of the last Government, an initial £10 million in savings on bureaucracy have been put into the front line. We have found another £25 million to deal with winter pressures, and we are committed to saving a further £100 million when we get rid of the internal market, which was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pumping more money into the health service than has ever been pumped into it before.

How many jobs there are in the timber processing industry in Scotland. [33161]

The most recent employment survey shows that there are more than 7,500 jobs in the timber processing industry in Scotland.

Will not the jobs of Scottish workers in the timber processing industry be even more secure as a result of investment by the Canadian company CSC Products in the Cowie plant in my constituency? Some £40 million is being invested to prepare new lines, which will both secure the jobs of many workers and make a sizeable contribution to the balance of payments through import substitution.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he has supported that investment and worked to secure it, and I congratulate him on doing so. I think that it will provide his constituents with benefits for many years to come.

Is the Minister aware that public investment in timber in the north highlands is now being put at risk by the failure to spend enough on strengthening roads, a number of which are subject to bans in regard to the carrying of heavy weights? If the Government do not allow and, indeed, promote investment in those roads, literally millions of pounds of public expenditure will be put at risk.

I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I think he is being unduly pessimistic. According to the latest estimates that we have, investment in the wood processing industries is likely to increase, and to amount to some £2 billion over the next 15 years. Against that background, the prospects for the right hon. Gentleman's constituents seem quite bright.

If he will make a statement on the future of the uniform business rate in Scotland. [33162]

The future of local business taxation in Scotland will ultimately be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We shall be consulting on options for change later this year.

Does the Minister recall the time when Jenners in Princes street had to pay more in rates than Harrods in Knightsbridge? Is he aware of the concern expressed recently in the Scottish business community that we may be about to return to those bad old days?

I certainly acknowledge the benefits of the equalisation that has been introduced in the current rating system. We have committed ourselves to consulting on the possibility of some localisation, but no decisions have been made. When we have proposals, we shall ensure that there is full consultation with both local authorities and local businesses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any change in business rates, at a local or Scottish level, should be made in full consultation with local businesses? What plans does he have to ensure that that is done, so that the many hundreds of local businesses in my constituency, which work effectively and profitably, can be reassured by any review and future consideration?

We have not decided whether there will be any changes as yet, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any proposals should be subjected to full consultation with all sectors. Both local businesses and local authorities want the same thing: stability in the financing system for local government.

Does the Minister plan to undertake any consultation on proposals that were recently advanced by the Federation of Small Businesses for low business rates for small companies, particularly those that are based in town centres?

I have not seen those proposals but, if the federation gets in touch with me, I shall be interested to examine them.

I congratulate Scottish Office Ministers on attracting to Scottish Office Question Time the size of audience that their talents deserve. That is enough grovelling for one day.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that business rates that are raised in Glasgow are kept within the city and not dispersed elsewhere in Scotland, resulting in rates in Glasgow being much higher than elsewhere in Scotland and far higher than they should be?

My hon. Friend knows that the same system for deciding rates applies in Glasgow as elsewhere. The pooling system is designed to be fair throughout Scotland, as is the distribution system, which allocates the amount that Glasgow receives from non-domestic rate income.

As the business rate—and local government finance generally—is key to any consideration of local government in general, will the Minister consider reversing the Scottish Office decision not to include local government finance in the remit of the committee, headed by Mr. McIntosh, which is studying the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government?

The hon. Gentleman can make his own submissions to that committee. We thought it sensible to include local government finance within the general review that we are conducting anyway as part of the comprehensive spending review. It would have been absurd to exclude local government finance from that review, which would have destroyed any notion that it was comprehensive.

Does the Minister accept that the equalisation of the business rating system can cause local problems? In my city of Aberdeen, for example, it is estimated that £30 million of business rates is lost to the city in that process. Of course, that has caused immense strain on this year's local budget.

As my hon. Friend suggests, there are different views on the principle of equalisation. That is why we are considering the possibility of some localisation of business rates, but we have come to no conclusions as yet.

What representations he has received about the payment of tuition fees for four years by English students attending Scottish universities. [33163]

I have had representations from student organisations, university bodies, Members of Parliament and others.

Is the Minister aware that, although applications to United Kingdom universities are down overall, applications by English students to Scottish universities are down even more? How can this Government defend a policy that disadvantages students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as compared with, say, students from Greece, Spain and Portugal?

The Scottish higher education system welcomes and will continue to welcome many students from other parts of the UK. In fact, the number by which applications to Scottish universities have decreased is less than the number by which admissions increased last year, and the reduction in applications from Scottish students is slightly greater than the reduction in applications from English students to Scottish universities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that English local education authorities could, in fact, give the same confidence to four-year courses in Scotland by funding that extra year for their students? I wonder whether the Minister has looked at the problems that will be faced by part-time students and mature students, and what plans does he have to deal with their financial problems in the coming years?

My hon. Friend makes the important point that there is a great deal of mythology about free education. Many students in our universities and further education colleges already pay for courses. I am certainly interested in addressing the problems of part-time students in particular. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is a matter for the funding bodies to decide. I have decided that, where a four-year course is the norm for Scottish students attending Scottish universities, we will take up that extra year. I fully understand the position of the other United Kingdom Departments which might have made a different decision. Every student who decides to opt for a Scottish four-year course knows the length of the course and the extra cost involved.

Is the Minister aware that applications from England and Wales to Dundee university are down by 12 per cent. this year, and that the latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures show an even more dramatic 23 per cent. fall in applications from Northern Ireland? If the Government claim that their policies have no effect on student numbers, how does the Minister explain those figures?

Dundee is very much the exception to the rule; perhaps its reputation has suffered from the fact that I went there. The normal trend in Scottish universities is much better than that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why, for instance, the number of applications to Paisley university, whose students are, largely, less well off, has increased by 8 per cent. There is nip and tuck in this, but on the whole, there is no evidence of a reduction in the level of applications from eligible students to Scottish universities.

Does the Minister accept that all students who attend Scottish universities, irrespective of whether they are from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, should be there on the same terms? Will he undertake to discuss with his ministerial colleagues in England, Wales and Northern Ireland how they can give the same preferential treatment to students attending Scottish universities as he has offered and afforded to Scottish students?

We have had those discussions. The point is that the school qualification system in Scotland is geared to the higher education system in Scotland. As soon as one tries to match the school qualification system in other parts of the United Kingdom with the four-year degree course in Scotland, these difficulties and anomalies arise. I am conscious of the fact that a problem would arise as soon as my colleagues in the rest of the United Kingdom addressed this anomaly, which is a relatively small one in their terms, because even bigger anomalies would be created. The basic problem is the mismatch between school qualifications and higher education degree courses.

What recent representations he has made to the Treasury about taxation of the North sea oil and gas industry; and if he will make a statement. [33164]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are well aware of the issues involved and we have made appropriate representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes. We shall find out later how effective those representations have been. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to my constituents and the many people in Scotland who depend on the oil industry—those within the industry and the many small and medium-sized businesses contracted to it—that, despite the views of some Back Benchers, the Scottish Office understands how crucial oil investment is to the economic well-being of the manufacturing base in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

It may be that, even at this moment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is watching Scottish questions and has taken notice of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Scottish Office is extremely well informed on the importance of the oil industry to the Scottish and United Kingdom economy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the appropriate representations have been made.

I may be a minority voice, but may I tell my hon. Friend that I think that it is perfectly reasonable to make representations concerning a comprehensive review of the current North sea fiscal regime? However, given the current price of Brent, it may be that this is not a propitious moment for such a review. I remind my hon. Friend that the companies involved under the regime of the job lot who formed the previous Government made massive profits from the North sea, year in and year out.

We are all concerned to balance the proper taxation structure for the North sea oil industry against the incentives required to ensure that there is further exploration and exploitation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have noted my hon. Friend's argument.

If he will make a statement on the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway. [33165]

My right hon. Friend and I believe that the proposed railway will make a welcome and significant contribution to tourism and to the highland economy.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the serious financial difficulties now faced by the Cairngorm Chairlift Company and serious doubts about European Union backing for the scheme, does the Minister think that the £12.5 million might be better given to other, more viable, projects in the highlands?

The hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic. As he knows, the Commission is considering the scheme, but will have to await the outcome of legal actions. When those actions have been resolved, the Commission will proceed to reach its decision.

I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and thank him for his interest in my constituency. On the funicular issue, I take more notice of the residents of Carrbridge than I do of Uxbridge. What are the Minister's views on the future of the funicular as an all-year-round tourist event, and on its great effect on jobs for the highlands?

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. The scheme's importance is that it will help to sustain jobs and economic activity throughout the year and not concentrate them in the winter months—which is an important objective for the community of Aviemore and for all the highlands, of which Aviemore is a very important centre.

When he plans to meet the chairman of the Bar to discuss conditional fee arrangements and legal aid. [33185]

Both my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I, and our officials, have had meetings with representatives of the Bar Council to discuss conditional fees and legal aid. Last Wednesday, 11 March, I met the chairman of the Bar to discuss conditional fees and legal aid. We shall have further meetings as and when necessary.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that legal aid is an important part of the welfare state, enabling people who need legal assistance, but who cannot afford it, to receive such help? Exactly how many people will be denied legal aid because of his reforms?

The consultation paper that we have presented to Parliament, and have discussed with hon. Members on both sides of the House, is designed to ensure that we target scarce taxpayers' money where it can do most good: on social welfare law, which has previously not been properly protected by legal aid.

When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the Bar, will he tell them how popular conditional fees have become, and that increasing numbers of clients have signed conditional fee agreements? Will he also tell the Bar whether he has received any complaints from clients who have signed conditional fee agreements, and compare the number of those complaints with the number of complaints received from those whose cases were funded by legal aid?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. Almost daily, I receive complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the operation of the legal aid scheme. Hon. Members have expressed considerable dissatisfaction with that scheme. Conditional fees have now been agreed in more than 30,000 cases and, to date, I am not aware of a single complaint from an hon. Member about the operation of that system.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's far-reaching proposals for legal aid reform further demonstrate the importance of having an independent Secretary of State for justice who is accountable directly to the House—as proposed in early-day motion 961, which has now been signed by more than 100 hon. Members?

All matters relating to the machinery of government are for the Prime Minister. The Government are committed to delivering results, not to interfering unnecessarily with the building blocks of government, especially when they have stood the test of time. That is particularly true of the office of Lord Chancellor—a position that is currently occupied by someone who is using his very considerable skills and intellect to promote the Government's policy and to implement their manifesto commitments.

What new proposals he has to improve the accessibility of legal aid. [33186]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government plan to modernise the legal aid scheme. Our proposals were debated in the House on 21 November last year. He also knows that, in my statement to the House on 4 March this year, I announced the first stage of the modernisation plans. We aim to promote access to justice for everyone through the wider availability of conditional fee agreements. We shall also begin to focus legal aid on priority areas of social welfare that are of particular concern to the most needy in our society.

Is it not intolerable that the legal aid system, which costs the country a fortune, is completely worthless to the great mass of people? It provides aid to only two groups: rightly to the very poor, but very unjustly to millionaires. How will conditional fee arrangements provide access to justice for the great majority of the people who are excluded by the legal aid system that we inherited, which is unfair, unjust and thoroughly discredited?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The existing legal aid scheme fails almost everyone. It certainly fails the great majority of people who pay for it through their taxes, because they are not financially eligible for it. They cannot go to law for fear of the considerable legal costs that they might face. By extending the availability of conditional fees, we create the opportunity for everyone, rich and poor alike, to go to court regardless of their financial position.

Is it not clear that the Lord Chancellor's announcement last October was an example of economic illiteracy and social division? Does the Minister accept that early-day motion 961, signed by 66 Labour Back Benchers, demonstrates that they have lost faith in his Department's ability to improve access to legal aid? They want his Department abolished. Why are they wrong?

I have made it clear that questions on the organisation of the Government are solely for the Prime Minister.

The October statement announced our determination to consult as widely as possible. We have consulted widely. We have published a further consultation document, which allows the hon. and learned Gentleman a total of six and a half months to give his views. That is a reasonable way in which to take forward new policy.

Are we considering targeting some funds on the industrial tribunal system, which has long been excluded from all forms of legal aid? Given that some complex cases go before such tribunals, could some money be so targeted for important cases?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her practical and constructive suggestion. The traditional legal aid scheme has failed the great majority of our people. It has failed those who are not financially eligible, but it has also failed those with certain sorts of cases, especially those concerned with employment and social security. It is important that, as we bear down on the cost of legal aid, we use the savings that can be achieved to direct scarce taxpayers' resources into areas of law such as social welfare, employment and social security law. That is a constructive way in which to approach the proposals.

If he will list those non-governmental agencies with which the Lord Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary have held discussions about the consequences for access to justice of his proposals for legal aid reform. [33187]

If he will list those non-governmental agencies with which his Department has held discussions about the consequences for access to justice of his statement on proposals for legal aid. [33190]

There have been discussions at ministerial or official level with the Law Society, the Bar Council, representatives of the insurance industry, the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council, Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, the Legal Action Group, the Personal Injury Bar Association, the Society of Labour Lawyers, Law For All, the Law Centres Federation, the Advice Services Alliance, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Justice, Liberty, the Public Law Action Group, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, Shelter and various local law societies and law firms. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I met 13 of those groups last week in separate meetings to discuss the proposals in our recent consultation paper, many for the second or third time.

One of the colleges of law is based in my constituency, and I have also consulted the many firms of solicitors in Guildford. Is the Minister aware of the deep disquiet at his Government's proposals to take away legal aid from people with personal injury cases? How can he possibly defend taking away that right to justice from people when they are at their weakest and need it most?

I had not hitherto been aware of the deep disquiet in Guildford, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for communicating it to me. To judge from my meetings last week, most of the groups were pleased that the Government had listened and that our proposals were a practical, constructive way in which to ensure access to justice for the great majority of people. I hope that solicitors in Guildford will eventually recognise that.

Why has the Minister spent less on consultants to advise him on his reforms of the legal aid system than the Lord Chancellor has spent on wallpaper?

We have certainly used consultants, and those consultants have been invited to look at the financial implications of our proposals for individual firms of solicitors. In due course, we will publish the results of those consultations, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the emerging findings make it clear that there is absolutely no reason why solicitors should not take forward cases on a conditional fee basis, thereby securing access to justice for the great majority in our society.

Does the Minister agree that the current perceived wisdom is that the overall result of the redirection of legal aid to housing and social security cases, and the growth of contingency fees will be that more people receive greater assistance and gain greater access to the law?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is certainly the case that the Government are determined to control the cost of legal aid so that we can transfer scarce taxpayers' resources to meeting the needs of the poorest in our society. The present legal aid system fails in that. Only by controlling the traditional legal aid system shall we be able to provide advice and assistance to those who have problems with employment, social security, housing and so on.

What plans he has to meet representatives of the National Consumer Council to discuss his Department's plans to reform legal aid. [33188]

What plans he has to meet representatives of the National Consumer Council to discuss his Department's plans to reform legal aid. [33189]

I and my officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of the National Consumer Council. I met them most recently on Wednesday 11 March to discuss our plans to promote greater access to justice. We shall have further meetings as and when necessary.

If the Minister has had those meetings, he will be aware that law firms are dropping the offer of legal aid in droves. Does that not represent a double whammy? The Government are denying access to justice to many thousands of ordinary people while undermining many law firms that are already reeling from the prospect of penal taxation on work in progress.

I have not had the slightest indication that any law firms are not providing legal aid. They are certainly not doing so in droves.

Does the Minister agree with many consumer groups that conditional fees will deny access to justice to many people?

I do not agree. In the meetings that I have just described—productive, useful meetings with both the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association last week—consumer groups recognised that we had listened to the various problems that they had identified. They were pleased that we had produced a measured programme of modernisation which would achieve a legal aid system of which we could all be proud, but which would guarantee access to justice for everyone in our society. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. Conversations are too noisy at the moment.

What plans he has to ensure that people entitled to compensation are able to claim it. [33191]

We set out the first stage of our plans to improve access to justice in a consultation document published on 4 March. We plan to reform the civil justice system to make it quicker, cheaper and more certain. We will improve access to justice by extending the availability of conditional fees so that the vast majority of the population who, at present, cannot afford to go to court can do so. We shall also take control of the costs of legal aid and concentrate scarce taxpayers' money to bring the right help at the right time to those most in need in our society.

Is the Minister aware that I have consulted most solicitors' firms in my constituency, which could perhaps be described as provincial firms, and that they are fearful about the abolition of legal aid for personal injury cases, because they believe, as most people do, that many deserving cases will not go to court? What does he say about that? It is the most appalling state of affairs. Surely he should not be in the least proud of what he is doing.

I have had a considerable number of letters from the hon. Lady complaining about the operation of the existing legal aid scheme and complaining that her constituents are not eligible. She has indicated her anxiety to make sure that more people have access to court. The Government's proposals achieve precisely that, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not welcoming them instead of criticising them.

What effect the Government's proposals on legal aid will have on improving public access to the legal system. [33192]

The legal aid system that we inherited failed everyone. The previous Government reduced eligibility to the point where only the very rich and the very poor have access to justice. We are going to build a modern system that will provide justice for all, by targeting legal aid where it can bring the right help to those most in need and by creating a community legal service. In partnership with the legal profession and with the assistance of the insurance and banking sectors, the Government will enable everyone to have access to the courts, regardless of their financial standing.

I welcome that answer. Can my hon. Friend confirm that, for most people in my constituency, the circumstances in which their legal rights are most important are when they suffer unfair dismissal from their job or when they are denied benefit, and that both occurences fall outside the scope of traditional legal aid? Does he agree that Labour's manifesto commitment to create a community legal service will mean that those needs can be addressed, so that Government-supported legal assistance can be given where it is most needed and to those who most need it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her constructive suggestion. The Government will certainly carry through their manifesto promise to create a community legal service which will concentrate scarce taxpayers' money on the areas of greatest need—in particular, social welfare law, including social security, employment and housing cases.