What steps are being taken to deal with the problems faced by owner-occupiers in housing regeneration and improvement schemes. [65825]

At present, local authorities can give grants to owner-occupiers to assist with the cost of repairs. The forthcoming Green Paper on housing will consider the housing needs of all tenures, including owner-occupiers. It will be the first Green Paper on housing in 20 years, and is proof of the Government's commitment to achieving better housing in Scotland. From 1 July, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister join me in congratulating North Lanarkshire councils housing department, which this morning received a charter mark award in the presence of the Prime Minister? The Minister will be aware of the specific problems in Scotland's new towns, where a large percentage of owner-occupiers are in former public sector housing. Those houses were built in the 1960s and have particular problems.

Housing partnerships are the way forward in dealing with those complex issues. Cumbernauld housing partnership in my constituency is working hard to find solutions. There is one issue that I should like the Minister to look at. Will those owner-occupiers who do not maintain their properties, and therefore jeopardise their neighbours' plans to take part in the modernisation programme, be dealt with in the White Paper?

I am happy to congratulate North Lanarkshire council. I visited it at the charter mark award ceremony. It has done extremely well.

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is a problem. Local authorities have a wide range of statutory powers available to them. The powers may require some amendment. The question will be raised in the Green Paper.

Will the Minister follow that up by clarifying what the Government will do to help owner-occupiers in tenement areas in Scottish cities, where the main problems are that there is a lack of funding for collective repairs—the amount of money available in Edinburgh and Glasgow is about a quarter of what it was a few years ago—and compelling owner-occupiers who do not co-operate in general repairs to do so? There is a need for a legal change to provide some more money. Will the Minister clarify what he is doing about that?

The latter question, as I have said, will be examined in the context of the Green Paper. There is a problem. Since the dropping of ring-fencing by the previous Government, the amount of money going to owner-occupiers has fallen dramatically. That is something that we will also look at in the context of the Green Paper.

Does the Minister recognise that one of the problems affecting owner-occupiers is the higher mortgage payments by owner-occupiers in the eurozone? Is he aware that the average owner-occupier in Scotland will pay £1,400 more in mortgage repayments because Britain is outwith the single European currency? What is he going to do about it?

The Government have already introduced various measures to try to help with mortgages. We have talked to lenders to encourage them to provide flexible mortgages and mortgage insurance. That has been welcomed by those holding mortgages.

If he will make a statement about the supply of nurses in Scotland. [65826]

The supply of and demand for nurses and midwives in Scotland is assessed annually, taking account of employers expectations over a five-year horizon. This year, the intake to nurse training courses will be increased in accordance with the findings of last years assessment. A new assessment for 1999 is about to be launched.

Currently, the vacancy rate is around 3 per cent., part of which is turnover. At present, there are 1.7 suitably qualified applicants for every place available for nursing or midwifery training courses. From 1 July 1999, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is a good time to go into nursing because the role of nurses is being redefined, particularly in primary care groups? Their role will be one of leadership rather than of following, and they will have a much broader and more enhanced role.

Will my hon. Friend encourage health boards to place less reliance on agency nurses in their staffing of hospitals, because the quality of the service is bound to fall if staffing is too tight and agency nurses are used too often?

Although the use of agency nurses is low in Scotland, it is being reviewed with the option of reducing it even further. My hon. Friend is correct: it is a good time to go into nursing. The nursing profession is enhancing its role and developing new tasks: nurse practitioners, nurse consultants, triaging and handling casualty. They play a vast leadership role, not just in the hospital sector, but in primary care groups, primary care trusts and other sectors. They have a vast horizon ahead of them. I welcome all the nurses and hope that the package that we are putting together in discussion with them will lead to an even greater number of nurses applying for the places available.

What is the total cost of the Minister's bureaucratic reorganisation of the health service in Scotland? How many extra nurses could he employ by saving that money?

The reorganisation involves no costs. The savings produced by reducing the number of trusts by almost half are £18 million and the total savings from slashing the bureaucracy imposed by the previous Government are £100 million.

We are told that under capitalism supply will always increase to meet demand, but as the national health service is a socialist enterprise, does my hon. Friend agree that the only sure way of increasing the supply of nurses is to pay them the full rate for the job? We had 18 years of Tory government boosting the pay of the police and the armed forces. Can we have the next 18 years of socialist government boosting the pay of nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers and public sector workers that make up the fabric of our still too neglected welfare state?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the great assets of the NHS is that it is a system based on need and free at the point of delivery. Its staff are part of the reason that it delivers so well and that is why the Government seek to ensure that their contribution is recognised and rewarded. We trust that the review body's recommendations will recognise the value of nurses and others in a way that the Government can afford.

If he will make a statement on the Governments policy towards the maintenance, repair and protection of Scottish war memorials. [65827]

Responsibility for the maintenance, repair and protection of a war memorial lies with the owner, or the body in which it is vested. Local authorities are responsible for the war memorials that they own. I expect them to take that duty seriously and I shall take steps to draw the matter to their attention.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the sacrifice made by the young is still strongly felt in the highland communities and the long list of the dead is still a reminder in the heart of every parish? Will he remind the Highland regional council that it is entrusted with the safekeeping of our memorials and that it is inappropriate for it to have made no budgetary provisions for their upkeep? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that the modest sums at stake are not used as a pawn in arguments between central and local government about spending requirements?

I concur with those comments. It is a serious matter. Let me take the opportunity to acknowledge that war memorials are important to every family and community in Scotland and to the country at large. Given that we are 80 years on from the end of the 1914–18 war, it is absolutely right that we should acknowledge that. Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I take the matter seriously. I shall take it up with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the Highland regional council. It is not an issue that requires large expense in many communities, but there is a facility that provides the powers to the local authorities that own war memorials. However, the collective view of the House should be that war memorials should be taken seriously and I shall pursue the matter. After 1 July 1999, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I hope that the Scottish Parliament will want to look again at the relevant legislation as we cannot sacrifice the war memorials that fulfil an important function in society.

Will my hon. Friend pay special attention to the commemoration of Scots who died while serving with units based in other parts of the United Kingdom, and English, Welsh and Irish service men who died on active service with Scottish units during two world wars? Will he comment briefly on the extraordinary statement of Colonel Stuart Crawford, the SNP defence spokesperson, who said that the Scots guards who are commemorated on so many Scottish war memorials are

a quasi-mercenary regiment … tainted by their association with England?

However tempted I may be, I do not want to go too far down that road. Suffice it to say that the SNP defence policy is a shambles and we should not spoil the discussion of an important issue with such comments. People who lose their lives in war, no matter what their nationality, should be commemorated. We have proud traditions in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England regarding that. It is the collective wish of the House that we register that concern today and send a message to every council and every owner of a war memorial that they should ensure that they are kept in a proper state of repair. Communities demand that and the House should reflect that concern.

The Minister will recall that although the Ministry of Defence could not pardon those soldiers who were killed—wrongly, in the opinion of many—because they seemed to have deserted their posts in the first world war, there was a suggestion that their names could be put on war memorials. Has that been followed up in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. However, my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will want to look at his comments in the Official Report and respond to him.

I am sure that the Minister—unlike the Scottish National party—would agree that the best way to commemorate those who died in the service of their country, and those who believe in the United Kingdom, is to maintain Scotland's role in the national defence of the whole UK. In view of that, can the Minister tell us what case Scottish Office Ministers have put to the Ministry of Defence that the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton should be kept open?

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is totally out of order. It does not relate to Scottish war memorials. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask another question.

indicated dissent.

In that case, we shall move on.

If he will make a statement on the planned levels of expenditure on hospital services over the next three years. [65828]

We plan to increase net revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services to almost £4 billion a year by 2001–02. That is part of an overall health service expenditure figure of £5.5 billion. We are investing to create a world-class NHS and putting in place the reforms and resources to make that happen.

Of course, from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I welcome the hundreds of millions of pounds of additional money that Labour is putting into our hospital service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it takes more than bricks and mortar to make a good hospital? As we await the outcome of the nurses pay review, does he recognise that it is high time that nurses and other hospital staff obtained the recognition that they deserve for the excellent work that they do?

My hon. Friend will recognise that a pay review body report is pending, and we will know shortly the specific recommendations that the body has made as a result of what I hope has been a careful and sympathetic examination of the situation. Obviously, we will then make an announcement as a Government. I agree about the fundamental importance of staff morale, and about the enormous contribution that not just nurses, but paramedics, the professions allied to medicine, doctors and a range of health service personnel make towards a service that we are determined to keep in first-class order—providing a service on the basis of need, irrespective of the patients income. We are fortunate in Scotland that, in the year 1999–2000, we anticipate spending about £961 per head for every person in Scotland, which is 20 per cent. above the average for the rest of the country.

Will the Secretary of State consider putting some of those resources into the casualty units in Scotland? Is he aware of the survey by the Scottish Association of Health Councils—carried out in casualty units across Scotland yesterday—which came out with alarming statistics showing the length of time that people are having to wait in casualty units, including an 88-year-old patient at the Western infirmary in Glasgow, who waited on a trolley for four hours and ten minutes with a broken leg? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting more resources into collecting proper information on casualty units and other difficult issues such as bed blocking, because it looks increasingly that when the Government are embarrassed about an issue, they stop collecting the relevant information?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we collect the information, which is published periodically. I am sorry that he asked the question in the way that he did. I accept entirely his point about the particular patient and the incident covered in the press release from the Scottish Association of Health Councils. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman should have recorded the fact that although the association pointed to local pressures, it came to this conclusion:

Our survey clearly shows that there are significant problems in some parts of the country but there is no crisis.

It would have been fairer, and a little better for the hon. Gentleman's reputation, if he had made that clear.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Greater Glasgow health board and East Dumbartonshire council on the funding and joint planning arrangement that they have agreed for Lenzie hospital? Given that hospitals service to elderly people, the expansion that is envisaged and the provision of facilities for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna), does he agree that community care can be seen to work if there is a positive attitude, with proper funding and the political will to achieve it?

I agree wholeheartedly. I know that my right hon. Friend, as a local Member of Parliament, has been very much involved in the process whereby the health service, local government and the community have worked together to accommodate change that is right but that, had it not been handled co-operatively, might have led to difficulties, frustrations and problems for individual patients and their families. That co-operative spirit is very important, as is the fact that, if the present plans are carried through—and they certainly will be if Labour Members have anything to do with it—the reforms and modernisation that are required in the health service will take place, against the background of substantial real-terms increases in expenditure, which will mean an enormous amount to patients and health service staff.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Consort Healthcare, the private finance initiative consortium, paid £12 million for the three sites of Edinburgh Royal infirmary, but that the surveyors, D. M. Hall, have estimated the value at £70 million without planning permission or up to £200 million with it? Does he agree that, if those sums were realised, it would be a major scandal? If £70 million were to be realised for the sites, what percentage would be returned to the health trust, in the form of any overage agreement?

The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm is running away with him. I assure him that his facts are simply wrong. On the various sites that were part of the package—very sensibly, because they are surplus to requirement and it makes sense to realise their full market value as part of the cost of building the Royal Edinburgh infirmary—there were two valuations, by the district valuer and by Ryden International. In both cases, the price paid was fully in line with the market value of the estimates. The figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is totally a figment of his imagination or that of those who—

It is in the newspapers.

Before he quotes newspaper reports, the hon. Gentleman should go to the health board, for example, to discuss the situation and find out the facts. Then he would not be in a position to spread irresponsible scare stories, as he has done. As he would know if he had consulted the contract, if there are unexpected planning gains for those who have taken over the sites, the profits will be capped and there will be a claw back.

My right hon. Friend and his ministerial team are very welcome to come back to Dundee, especially if they make announcements such as the one that was made at the start of the month, which will ensure that the purpose-built palliative care unit at Roxburgh house in Dundee can be replaced at the same time as the day-care centre for cancer patients, giving Dundee and Tayside a modern hospice centre for those who require it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him entirely. Clearly, in a city such as Dundee, as in every part of Scotland—rural areas are as important as cities—we will do all we can to maintain and, more importantly, improve services and centre them on patients needs. I welcome, for example, the fact that we have a new accident and emergency centre at Ninewells, which will give very good service to Dundee and its people.

Dr. Brian Potter, the secretary of the British Medical Association in Scotland, has said that NHS management in Scotland is in an unbelievably awful state. Dr. Keith Little, the head of accident and emergency at Edinburgh Royal infirmary, has resigned because he said that his job was impossible. Dr. Rudy Crawford at Glasgow Royal infirmary says that conditions are the worst in living memory. That is the real world of the NHS in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State accept any responsibility for the current situation, or does he intend simply to maintain that everything is all right?

No, I am not going to maintain that everything is all right. We inherited considerable difficulties and we are setting about improving them. It will take time. As I tried to say in what I hope was a balanced approach to the audit carried out on accident and emergency centres by the Scottish Association of Health Councils, which was press released today, I certainly acknowledge that there are local pressures—there always have been. The idea that people have to wait for treatment longer on occasion than we would like at the height of the winter pressure is something that has happened in the past year and never occurred during the 18 years in which the Conservative party was in charge does not stand even a moments examination. We are now dealing with needs and the SAHC has pointed out that the use of the word crisis is not justified. We must continue to deal with the difficulties.

We have initiated the biggest building programme ever for the national health service in Scotland and we are providing resources on a climbing scale, the like of which the NHS has not seen before. I also hope that in the near future, as a result of the findings of the pay review body, we will be able to do something to help on that side as well. The hon. Gentleman's overstatement, which is a natural ability—almost a compulsive addiction—of his, does nothing to support his case.

If he will make a statement on the development of new housing partnerships in Scotland. [65829]

In the next three years, £278 million is being made available to develop and support new housing partnerships. The bids are being assessed by an advisory group that includes representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish Homes, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations Ltd. From 1 July 1999, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I commend my hon. Friend for the enthusiastic and imaginative way in which he has approached new partnerships in housing. I recognise that the community housing trusts will offer financial benefits to councils with high capital debts outstanding. However, will my hon. Friend ensure that councils which do not want to go down the community housing trust road because they do not have high capital debts outstanding on their housing, will not be penalised in any way because they lack the capital that they need to deal with their housing problems?

In a spirit of partnership, will my hon. Friend ensure that ballots for community housing trusts are not rigged, as Scottish Homes ballots were, and that the housing is transferred only when a majority of those balloted vote for such a transfer?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the guarantees that he seeks about ballots and tenants rights. As part of the transfer to community ownership, it is important for tenants to arrange guarantees, for example, on future rent increases and other aspects of the tenancy that they might want to retain. It is important to realise that no transfer is likely to take place in any council for two or three years. Therefore, tenants will have a long time to study any proposals. There is no question of penalising local authorities that do not want to participate.

Instead of the Minister giving more than £1 million to Glasgow city council for a feasibility study on the part-privatisation of its council housing stock, would it not be better to spend that money on building, maintaining and improving Glasgow council houses? When will we get more than £1 million for council house modernisation and improvement, rather than for one feasibility study?

Glasgow is pursuing a project which, if it succeeds, will directly empower tenants, contribute to community regeneration and bring additional money into housing to improve it. Every time the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish National party use language such as privatisation or profiteering, they alienate not merely tenants who are thinking about going ahead with such projects, but the many who are already involved in housing associations and tenants co-operatives, who are certainly not privatised or profiteering in the way that he describes. He should also check on SNP party policy on the subject. This weekend, when reading Inside Housing, I noted that the party's housing spokeswoman, Fiona Hyslop, said that, for the SNP,

stock transfer is not ruled out.

There appears to be quite a lot of confusion on SNP policy. The hon. Gentleman would do best to try to sort that out.

Unlike the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), I want housing standards in Glasgow to improve. I am grateful to the Minister for having taken the trouble to visit substandard and poor housing in my constituency last year. Does he agree that one legacy of the Tory Government was the large amount of BTS—below tolerable standard—housing, mainly that owned or factored by private landlords? That is unacceptable. Will he consider extending housing partnerships to include BTS housing in areas such as Govan Hill and other parts of my constituency, and to any part of Scotland where such poor quality housing still exists?

Local authorities are working hard to tackle the level of BTS housing. We will always assist them with such projects. On new housing partnerships, we are primarily targeting the tenanted sector, because much deterioration and neglect occurred there under the previous Government over 18 years.

Will the Minister review the regulations that apply to partnerships? Will he ensure that, in his desire to put tenants first and let them have first say, where they are happy to maintain the local authority as landlord, there will be no distortions in funding or any temptation to go against the wishes of the tenants?

I repeat that no community transfer is likely until after two or three years of study of the proposals, not only by local authorities but by tenants. They can look hard at the package offered. Only at the end of that process will they be invited to vote on it. That provides a secure guarantee for tenants.

When he will issue guidelines for local health care co-operatives. [65831]

I intend to issue broad guidance for local health care co-operatives this month. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has changed his mind in the week since I raised the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. Will he ensure that social work will be fully involved in local health care co-operatives, that nursing advice and representation will be guaranteed, and that there will be a significant role for members of the wider public? Will the co-operatives be dealt with in the forthcoming health Bill? When does he expect the Bill to be published? Is he sure that this last ever United Kingdom health Bill will pass through this House before health matters pass to the Scottish Parliament?

The purpose of local health care co-operatives is to ensure that everyone involved in the delivery of care across the spectrum is involved. That is the intention, and that is what they will deliver. There is no need to have them in the health Bill because they are not statutory bodies.

Can the Minister confirm that the cost of setting up the new primary care trusts is broadly equivalent to the cost of supplying 150 full-time, fully qualified nurses?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has heard earlier questions from his Front-Bench colleagues and is trying to get some drift on bureaucratic costs. I repeat that reducing the number of trusts in Scotland has saved us £18 million; over the life of the Government, reducing bureaucracy set up by his Government will save the people of Scotland £100 million, all of which can be directly put into nurses, doctors and patient care.

If he will make a statement about the actions the Government are taking to protect the victims of domestic violence and abuse. [65832]

The campaign against domestic violence is a priority for the Government. We have established a Scottish partnership on domestic violence to report with a detailed work plan and timetable by 31 March this year. We have also embarked on a consultation exercise on preventing violence against women; a proposed action plan is intended as part of that consultation. At Christmas, a new advertising campaign was launched, aimed at raising awareness and changing attitudes. It will roll out over the next three years. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I welcome the priority that the Government give to domestic violence. Will the Minister join me in condemning the actions of the former divisional commander of Kilmarnock police, who ordered the release of a man who had been charged with assaulting his wife, because that man was a family friend? Does she agree that that undermines the very positive policy of Strathclyde police, whereby it is presumed that alleged perpetrators of domestic violence will be detained until their court appearances? Does she agree that while changing public attitudes is the long-term solution, Scotland has only half the refuge spaces needed? What will she do to address the shortage?

I share my hon. Friends concern about the incident that was reported in the newspapers over Christmas. I know that the chief constable of Strathclyde has dealt with that matter. May I draw to my hon. Friends attention the way in which the media covered that case? It was done in a sensible and responsible manner and the media concentrated their attention on the negative impact of domestic violence on the well-being of families in Scotland. I pay tribute to the media organisations in Scotland that have signed up to the campaign against domestic violence. It will take time to change attitudes, but it will be helpful to have the support of the community and of the media not only in news columns, but throughout.

As for the resources required to deal with domestic violence, our prime concern must be for the plight of the victims of such violence. So far, the Scottish Office has provided £200,000 to Scottish Womens Aid, the umbrella organisation for local womens groups. That includes more than £83,000 for work on developing refuge and permanent rehousing options for abused women who would otherwise be homeless. More than £111,000 has been devoted to social welfare aspects of the work of Scottish Womens Aid, and £25,000 has been provided for training. Over and above that, considerable expenditure has been incurred by the police, the justice system, the health service and others who deal with the consequences of domestic violence.

I acknowledge and welcome the announcement that the Minister has made about the work that is being done. Does she acknowledge that when I did divorce work as a solicitor, I found that the best way of preventing domestic violence was often to have a refuge place available to which the family could be taken in an emergency? The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) is right that the provision of such refuges is still inadequate. Can the Minister give the House a commitment to do all in her power not merely to make available £73,000, but to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the voluntary sector to establish proper provision of refuges throughout Scotland?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern on these matters. I have pointed out that £200,000 has been given to Scottish Womens Aid. Yes, the issue of refuges is serious, but we want to move to a situation in which domestic violence is so abhorrent in our society that we no longer have need of such refuges. Those in the hon. Gentleman's profession who deal with women from differing social classes also acknowledge that there has to be a multiplicity of routes to assistance for families and women who are the victims of domestic abuse.

I welcome the initiative that my hon. Friend has just mentioned. May I remind her that young victims of domestic violence and abuse are treated with considerable sympathy when they give evidence in criminal cases involving charges of abuse—sexual, physical or violent. Does she agree that the concept of a vulnerable person should be widened to give other fragile, vulnerable individuals the same protection when they give evidence in court cases? I know that my hon. Friend will say that Members of the Scottish Parliament will decide that matter, but it is an important issue.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution is currently looking at that matter. It is an issue that many who are concerned about domestic abuse take very much into account.

Given the importance of tackling domestic violence and abuse, on which there is unanimity in the House, can the Minister explain to us this afternoon why Victim Support (Scotland) has suffered a decrease in its budget despite an increase of 300 per cent. in requests for its assistance?

That is simply not true. I will make that point when I visit Victim Support (Scotland) on Thursday morning, accompanying the Princess Royal.

If he will make a statement on the local government financial settlement for Glasgow for 1999–2000. [65833]

Scottish councils will see the best financial settlement for seven years, with significant funding increases for front-line services, especially education. Glasgow's share of central Government support for 1999–2000 is set to rise in line with the Scottish average by almost 5 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether that will reduce the differential that is paid by Glasgow residents over and above that which is paid by other council tax payers in Scotland? Will he do all he can to ensure that Glasgow's bearing of the metropolitan burden and its difficulties—Glasgow faces the highest rates of poverty and unemployment in Scotland—are adequately recognised in future grant settlements?

I recognise that there are special problems in Glasgow, which is my own city. I also recognise that Glasgow gets a higher grant per head than other local authorities, although there is always an argument about whether the balance is right. The increase in guidelined expenditure in Glasgow will be £47.6 million, or 4.9 per cent., which takes the overall figure to slightly more than £1 billion. Although I am sure he is aware of it in general terms, I remind my hon. Friend that Glasgow is the major beneficiary of the safety net, which is worth about £8 million to the city this year; that the Scottish Office has made arrangements to cover the revenue costs of the transfer by Glasgow from its housing revenue account of capital costs to the general fund relating to demolished houses; and that Glasgow's schools project alone is worth a capital equivalent of more than £130 million. We are trying to help Glasgow and recognise its problems, and we shall continue to do so.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents will be pleased with that pork barrel list of extra help for Glasgow. Will he comment on the fact that he believes that council taxes will rise by 5 per cent.—twice the rate of inflation—which surely flies in the face of the Labour Government's commitment not to put up taxes? Is he confident that Glasgow will keep to 5 per cent., given that most local authorities that have been told by the Government that they should be charging 5 per cent. extra are pushing up to 8 per cent., 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. extra? Is that to be the reality of Labour government, both national and local, in Glasgow?

The hon. Gentleman is becoming an increasingly ridiculous figure, although, to be fair, he is trespassing into areas about which he knows little. He will remember that, under the settlements provided by the Conservative Government, the annual increase in Glasgow's council tax ran at about 20 per cent. That figure has now been halved and I hope that it will substantially decrease again this year. We are making progress and our aim is to provide the people of Glasgow with the services they deserve, while properly recognising the protection required by council tax payers. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the record, he would blush as deep a colour as his hair once was and say little about the subject and the record of the Conservative Administration.

Pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998, Official Report, columns 688–89, on the A83 closure, if he will ensure that fares on the temporarily enhanced ferry service are charged at a rate which reflects road equivalent tariff. [65834]

Road equivalent tariff is not a system we favour generally, because, as the hon. Lady knows, there are winners and losers, depending on the length of the route. However, I recognise the difficulty she points to and I shall make available extra resources to CalMac to allow fares for heavy goods vehicles to be reduced by up to 50 per cent. at off-peak times and for other traffic by up to 25 per cent.; and there will be smaller reductions at peak times. From 1 July 1999, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to restructure fares, but it is not good enough. Even with a 50 per cent. reduction, fares will be far too high for a short, 20-minute, four-mile journey. Does the Minister agree that the Kintyre economy has suffered enough, with the closure of Machrihanish and the Campbeltown shipyard, farmers going to the wall and the effect on tourism? Does he accept that I am asking not for RET for the whole CalMac ferry fleet—not today, anyway—but for arrangements to cover only two or three weekends? That would make an enormous difference to local businesses and I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

I accept that the hon. Lady wants to get the best for her constituents by securing the maximum reductions possible, and she is right to do so from a constituency point of view. However, I have to try to balance the available ferry capacity with what is reasonable in terms of public expenditure, and I believe that the reduction is a balanced one, costing £100,000 extra to CalMac.

What responses he has received on his consultation on land reform. [65836]

If he will make a statement about the economic impact of his proposals for land reform in Scotland. [65838]

We received more than 1,200 responses to our consultation papers on land reform. Our proposals are genuinely radical and have been widely welcomed. I am glad that they are attracting the attention of so many Conservative Members.

I agree that the Secretary of States proposals are, if nothing else, radical, but does he not agree that, in practice, those who look after the land in Scotland are farmers? Would it not have been more relevant to events in Scotland if the Secretary of State had made plans to spend taxpayers money helping farmers in their present crisis instead of wasting enormous sums on his radical but old-fashioned policies on land reform?

May I say to the hon. Lady in a friendly spirit that I would welcome her coming back to her homeland, going perhaps a little wider than Kilmacolm, where she was born, and talking to the National Farmers Union of Scotland about the substantial package of aid twice put together in the past year to help, in particular, those in less favoured areas of agriculture, such as beef and sheep? A great deal of money has gone into that.

We are now putting forward a radical proposal that would allow communities who have lived on the land and invested their lifes work in the land to have a say. They would be able to buy the land if it were on the market and would get the advice, support and encouragement that would allow them do that if they so wished. That is not an easy option and people must be in a position to take advantage of that chance—they must have skills, know-how and staying power. Throughout Scotland, there is popular support for our attempts to deal with the land question and give those small communities, who often live in fragile parts of the country, the right to have a say, so that they do not wake up one morning and find that the land on which they live has been sold from under their feet without their knowledge.

Will the Secretary of State heed the danger that the threat of a compulsory purchase order may reduce the collateral available to landowners on which they could raise loans to develop their properties and business? Will he also have regard to the interim report of the working party to the Deputy Prime Minister, which sets out the entirely sensible, fundamental principle that one precondition of compulsory purchase should be that the public interest clearly outweighs the rights of the individual citizen?

I recognise that there are good landowners and that many struggle, often in difficult circumstances, to maintain their holdings and work them effectively. The hon. Gentleman has obviously given the matter much thought, so I am sure he will recognise that there has been a great deal of support for our proposals, from institutions as well as individuals, some of whom represent large bodies of landowning opinion. I have been very impressed by the constructive way in which many of those organisations have approached the matter.

I do not want to embarrass a noble Lord, but I cannot help reflecting on the words of the Duke of Buccleuch, who said of the reform:

If this had been going through the House of Lords, I would have voted for it.

I should say, in fairness, that he went on to criticise aspects of the reform.

What steps he is taking to ensure that judges declare any relevant interests before hearing a case. [65855]

There already exists a requirement that any individual judge who recognises a potential conflict of interest should inform the parties concerned. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the senior Law Lord on 16 December last year asking that the Law Lords should, before hearing an appeal, consider together whether any of their number might appear to be subject to a conflict of interest and, in order to ensure their impartiality and the appearance of impartiality of the Committee, require any Law Lord to disclose any such circumstances to the parties and not sit if any party objects and the Committee so determines.

That is a very good answer, but does not my hon. Friend share my incredulity that when the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice wrote to members of the judiciary asking them voluntarily to disclose whether they were members of the freemasons, 64 members of the judiciary stayed silent? In the light of that statistic, is there not a compelling case for introducing a statutory register of interests, such as that which applies in the House, to make sure that when judges hear cases, they show their hand first?

I am grateful for my hon. Friends compliment—if that is what it was. Clearly, the Government are anxious to learn all the lessons from the Pinochet case, and will continue to monitor the situation. However, we have no plans at present to introduce a comprehensive register of interests for the judiciary.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) could have found the same response in a written answer that appeared today at column 50 of Hansard.

I remind the Minister that the Lord Chancellor, his boss, is the head of the judiciary. Under the Access to Justice Bill [Lords], he has taken on 17 new powers or interests. Will the Minister justify three of them?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that, once the Access to Justice Bill [Lords] has made its way through the other place, he will have every opportunity to raise such questions on the Floor of this House. I am sure that we can discuss them at the appropriate time.

Will my hon. Friend say whether coroners are required to complete the masonic disclosure forms? If so, have they all completed the forms? If not all have done so, will he publish a list of those who have not?

I am not aware that they are so required.

In what ways he monitors the adequacy and quality of community legal advice services; and what further action he plans to ensure excellence in such services. [65856]

The majority of advice services are currently provided outside the existing legal aid scheme. The Legal Aid Board subjects franchised legal and advice service providers to a continuous monitoring process and receives advice from the 13 regional legal services committees on local need for legal services. As part of the developing community legal service, we are establishing a quality task force to develop a kitemark system for high quality community legal services.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the provision of immigration advice in some parts of the country is still inadequate to meet the needs of the community, and that there are too few franchised lawyers offering immigration advice? What steps are being taken to increase the accessibility of excellent immigration advice where it is needed throughout the country?

I do share my hon. Friends concern. The Government attach great importance to the availability of competent advice on immigration matters. Poor quality advice can be very damaging, both to the client and to the wider community. As a result, the Government have asked the Legal Aid Board to submit detailed proposals to tackle the shortfall of quality advice providers. The extension of the deadline for solicitors to apply for a legal aid franchise will also give practitioners wishing to apply for an immigration franchise further opportunities to do so.

First, may I offer my genuine and heartfelt commiserations to the Minister whose boss once again appears to have vetoed his long-delayed and well-deserved prospects of promotion?

On the subject of the need for community legal advice centres, does he accept that the overlap between such centres and citizens advice bureaux causes great difficulty? Will he examine that problem carefully, as citizens advice bureaux staff are often asked for advice on complex legal questions for which they are not qualified? Sometimes CAB staff find it difficult to know where best to send people with legal problems so that they can receive comprehensive advice from qualified persons.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations, not least because of the sheer pleasure that trying to answer his questions on a Tuesday afternoon each month always gives me. The Government are aware of the potential difficulties caused by conflicting sources of advice. That is why we have established five pioneer areas under the community legal service scheme, specifically to determine how best we can reconcile the needs for first-tier advice of a more general nature with the provision of the more specialised legal advice that is sometimes required.

What progress has been made on securing funding for the proposed new accommodation for the court service in Exeter. [65857]

The Government have accepted my hon. Friends representations about Exeter requiring new courtroom accommodation. It will be acquired through a private-public partnership, and we expect bids to be invited by July.

I am extremely pleased by that reply and grateful to my hon. Friend. There has been much local concern about delay in the realisation of the scheme, so can my hon. Friend go a little further by publishing a formal timetable for the advertisement and for the start of work? Might he also re-examine the reasons given for the magistrates court decision not to relocate into the new complex, as many people—including me—believe that those reasons are fallacious?

My hon. Friend has argued assiduously, effectively and consistently for a new Crown court in Exeter. Now that the Government have accepted his case, it is important to make progress with all possible speed. However, accommodation for the magistrates court is a matter for the local magistrates court committee.

What regional consultations he has undertaken in respect of improved public access to legal services. [65860]

The Government will take account of a wide range of views in planning and funding legal services through the community legal service. The 13 regional legal services committees established by the Legal Aid Board as part of our programme of legal aid reform include members drawn from all sectors of their local communities. The RLSCs have undertaken regional consultations throughout England and Wales to develop regional strategies for the provision of legal services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that consultations in Northamptonshire have revealed considerable concern about access to legal services? Is he further aware of concerns among local mental health organisations, particularly the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and MIND, about the difficulties for people who have mental health problems in pressing their claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Those people cannot receive legal aid or legal help in going to employment tribunals, and they have great difficulty in representing themselves.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The regional legal services committees have already examined, in a general sense, the legal needs of the disabled, and the relevant voluntary groups and representatives have been included in the consultation processes. The Legal Aid Board will also be represented on the quality task force being established by the Lord Chancellor, which will address disability and equality issues.

The flexibility provided by our proposals for a community legal service will allow us to provide, for the first time, specific assistance for the legal needs of the disabled, if those needs are identified as a local priority.

Does the Minister agree that public expectation of access to legal services is rising beyond the level that the budget allocated by the Government can possibly meet? What is he doing to satisfy public expectations?

I agree that demand for legal services is increasing. That is why the Government have set before Parliament a White Paper and a Bill on the need radically to reform the way in which legal advice is given. In particular, we must control the costs of the traditional legal aid system to make more money available, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. I look forward to receiving the hon. Lady's support for the Governments proposals.

A key part of the Governments proposals for access to justice will be the provision of insurance against defence costs. What consultation has the Minister had with the insurance industry? Is the industry ready to underwrite cases, and what sort of costs will be involved?

The Lord Chancellor and I have held a series of meetings with representatives of the insurance and financial services industries. We are keen that they should provide financial support, particularly to underpin the extension of conditional fee agreements, and we have every confidence that such support will be available and will continue to be available.

What is the cost to date in legal fees to British public funds of the attempt to extradite General Pinochet; and if he will make a statement. [65861]

Before the case is concluded, it is difficult to give a reliable indication of costs. The costs of the Crown Prosecution Service cannot yet be separated out because CPS staff are engaged in a variety of cases at any time. However, the fees of counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitors Department are £105,000, of which £18,000 is recoverable under a costs order made against Senator Pinochet in the divisional court.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that in the unhappy event of General Pinochet's managing to escape extradition, his legal bills will be rigorously scrutinised before they are passed on to the taxpayer?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Given the history of this case, the question of who should pay any costs, and in what proportion, is inevitably difficult and rather complex, especially before the case is finally resolved. The matter will ultimately be for their lordships to decide—perhaps after further legal proceedings.

How much did Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare his interest cost public funds? The Minister will recall the fuss about the Scott inquiry in the previous Parliament. Why, in this Parliament, must the President of the Board of Trade resign because he failed to declare an interest, while a judge such as Lord Hoffmann, who had a direct personal interest in the case, gets off literally scot free?

The question of who should pay those costs and those parts of the costs will be a matter for their lordships to determine at the conclusion of the case. I am not able to assist the hon. Gentleman further on that point at this stage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever public money is spent, it will be well justified in trying to bring a former criminal dictator to justice—

Order. The hon. Member knows the sub judice rule in the House. That question was quite unnecessary. I had hoped that it would be rather more positive, and deal with legal fees, as the original question demands.