What plans he has to ensure that low-income clients will have full and appropriate access to legal advice. [81019]

The Government's proposals for legal aid reform will ensure that scarce financial resources are targeted on the people and cases that most need them. We will treat as a priority cases involving social welfare and public interest issues, many of which are likely to involve people on low incomes. That will be supported by the creation of the community legal service, which will make legal help and advice more readily available from a wider range of sources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the poorest people are often concerned about debt, housing, welfare benefits and racial discrimination, which fall outside the ambit of legal aid? Will he confirm his commitment to me to develop those services within the community legal framework? Does he agree that solicitors might better spend their time developing such services within that system for those people, rather than spending £700,000 on a misleading, wasteful, scaremongering advertising campaign?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's plans for the community legal service will target help on those most in need. In particular, we will establish social welfare cases as a priority, which will help people to avoid, or climb out of, social exclusion, especially in cases involving people's basic entitlements to a roof over their heads or appropriate social security benefits. That will mean that poorer members of society will benefit from the reforms as they are precisely the people likely to be involved in such cases.

Does the Minister agree with me and many others, including many Labour Members, that access to justice for low-income clients would be greatly enhanced if the Government were to remove the ban on personal injury legal aid in schedule 2 of the Access to Justice Bill?

I have made it clear repeatedly to the hon. Gentleman that there is a limit to the money that any Government can devote to legal aid. In deciding priorities within that limit, it is important that we focus resources where the money can do most good. If there is a well-established system of conditional fees that is operating well—as there is—whereby people with personal injury cases can obtain representation effectively and efficiently, it is only right that the money that would otherwise go to fund such cases is channelled into the creation of a community legal service to help the most vulnerable in society. I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman many times before.

How then will the Minister ensure—indeed, guarantee—that someone without money who does not have access to a conditional fee arrangement because he cannot afford the insurance premiums necessary to underpin one will be able to prosecute a personal injury claim outside the field of clinical negligence?

The Government are confident that people with good cases will always find lawyers, insurance companies or others willing to fund the initial up-front costs, including the cost of an insurance premium. Many people already have access to a trade union scheme, under which their cases can be taken forward without any up-front funding. Many such schemes are being extended to include the relatives of trade unionists. A range of different schemes will be available. May I suggest something quite revolutionary to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Perhaps the lawyers will be willing to fund the up-front costs, because they will benefit from the profits that they make from winning the good cases.

Can my hon. Friend assure us that the case featured in the Law Society advertisement, of a black man who claims that he has been beaten up by the police and imprisoned, would qualify under his proposals for aid and support? Does he agree with the editorial in today's Evening Standard that the Law Society's claim for our sympathy is genuinely comical and that its advertisement is irresponsible scaremongering?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Law Society seems to have chosen four cases to highlight problems with legal aid in which we have made it clear that legal aid will not be affected. It is irresponsible of the Law Society to spend its members' money on running such a campaign. It is disgraceful that it is frightening people into thinking that they may lose entitlement that the Government have repeatedly made clear that they will still have.

How many magistrates courts have closed since 1 May 1997. [81020]

In the period from 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998, 25 magistrates courts were officially closed following decisions taken by local magistrates courts committees. Since then, I am aware of 12 other courthouse closures against which appeals were lodged and subsequently dismissed.

When will the Minister stop the pretence that local communities are advocating the closure of their magistrates courts? Does he accept that in every case, a quango—the magistrates courts committee—has recommended the closure? In most cases, the local democratically elected councils, county councils and/or political parties oppose the closures. How many more courts does the Minister intend to close while he holds his current office?

I have repeatedly answered this question as well. I have made it clear that the process of closure is laid down in law and is scrupulously followed. It requires a determination by a local magistrates courts committee that a courthouse should close. The only role that my Department has in resolving such matters is in hearing the appeal against closure, which is taken forward only if a local paying authority decides to appeal. If the local paying authority chooses not to appeal, which happens from time to time, the Lord Chancellor's Department has no involvement.

In that case, would my hon. Friend like to look closely at the powers of the Lord Chancellor's Department? Frankly, there is not a lot of point in the Government's advocating through environment and transport policies the sensible placing of basic services, such as magistrates courts, in the centre of communities if there is a continuing programme of closure, over which my hon. Friend has no influence. Will he please have a word with some of his colleagues and point out that this is just a little tiny bit illogical?

I do not accept that it is illogical, but I accept that it is important that the Government continue to review the powers available to them and ensure that there is appropriate access to justice for all our citizens.

The Minister listened courteously to the arguments over the proposals to shut magistrates courts in Biggleswade, Ampthill, Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and myself. We represented our constituents and powerful local views on the matter. Will he explain why our strong arguments were brushed aside and why the decision has been taken to shut down those four magistrates courts? It was the wrong decision.

I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that his arguments were not brushed aside. Indeed, he made a most powerful case. Each appeal is considered on its own merits; the Department follows the procedure laid down in legislation for which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman voted when it went through Parliament. As I pointed out earlier, the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department is simply to consider the merits of the particular case put to it by the local paying authority and the local magistrates court.

What progress has been made in making the magistracy more representative of the communities which it serves; and if he will make a statement. [81021]

Following research into how best to improve recruitment of magistrates from a broad spectrum of the community, the Lord Chancellor launched a national publicity campaign to raise awareness that it is open to most people to apply. The campaign finished recently; it resulted in more than 13,000 inquiries. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committees have continued to undertake recruitment initiatives at a local level.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the progress that has been made. Does he agree that, if magistrates are to be truly representative of the communities that they serve, we need more people serving on the Bench who are in employment, as well as those who are self-employed or retired? Will he tell the House what steps his Department will take to encourage employers to support their employees who are willing to undertake that service, and to end the situation, which prevails in large parts of my constituency—and in other constituencies—in which people feel that they will be penalised at work if they put themselves forward to be magistrates?

My hon. Friend is right. The research demonstrated that far too many people rule themselves out of applying. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons is that, if they are in employment, they do not believe that they will be given appropriate time off. We need to put across the idea that almost anyone may apply to become a magistrate. It is only when we receive applications from—I hope—some of the 13,000 people who have made inquiries during our campaign that we shall have a more representative magistracy.

Will the hon. Gentleman return to his office, examine the letters that are sent to those who have just retired from the magistracy and ask himself whether that sort of letter will encourage others to join? He will see that people are told all the things that they are not allowed to do when they retire from the Bench—including keeping in touch with all the friends with whom they previously worked in the magistracy. I hope that he will consider that matter very seriously.

I have not read a copy of such a letter, but I undertake to do so. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am concerned about the contents.

What progress he has made on reform of commonhold law; and if he will make a statement. [81022]

The Government are committed to introducing commonhold. Many of the issues that are included in the consultation paper on leasehold reform published recently by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will affect how we proceed with commonhold. We expect to learn the results of the DETR's exercise very soon and shortly after that, I shall announce how we plan to take forward proposals for commonhold.

I welcome the snail's pace of progress on the introduction of commonhold. Is the Minister aware that the new build of small flats in Beckenham is proceeding apace, and that people are having to buy under the outmoded leasehold system? Does he agree that new build is the best area in which to introduce commonhold, and will he please give me some assurance that he will introduce commonhold as speedily as possible for new build?

I am sorry that the hon. Lady criticises the pace of progress made by the Government on that matter. At least, we are going forward with those proposals. My recollection is that the previous Government withdrew their proposals, because they could obtain no support for them. Certainly, we are anxious to make progress; it is important to build on the work that is currently being undertaken by the DETR. As the hon. Lady is aware, commonhold is intended to overcome the problems faced by people who live in developments with a long leasehold. Until we have a clear idea of how we can make progress on reform to leasehold, there is no point in setting out precisely what we intend to do with commonhold.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many millions of people who live in outdated leasehold properties believe that the system should be consigned to the dustbin of history and that a modernising Government, such as the current Labour Government, should embark on reforming legislation as soon as possible? The consultation period has finished, so will he give an assurance that action will be taken within the lifetime of this Parliament?

My hon. Friend and I were both elected on a manifesto that contained a commitment to introduce commonhold, and I am sure that the Government are keen to ensure that every aspect of that manifesto is implemented within the lifetime of this Parliament.