When he expects to receive advice from the United Kingdom screening committee on targeted diabetes screening. [80989]

At the last meeting, on 17 March, the national screening committee agreed that a major focus of its work for the coming year would be to consider the case for a co-ordinated approach to screening for cardiovascular disorders, diabetes and the complications of diabetes. I hope that the committee will be able to make recommendations to Ministers by the end of this year. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. He will be aware that diabetes is the main reason for blindness in under-65s. It contributes to half the lower-limb amputations in Scotland and consumes more than £2 billion of national health service resources in the UK as a whole. Does he share the view of the British Diabetic Association and its American counterpart, which have argued for a focused screening approach to diabetes to protect the high-risk groups such as the over-40s, the overweight and those with a family history of the disease? Does he share my view that early action and intervention is vital to fight what has been described as Scotland's silent killer?

First, I acknowledge once again my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and the tremendous contribution that he has made to the debate, to the benefit of all those involved. I do not want to prejudge the screening committee's conclusions, but it is important to tackle the serious complications of this disease. That can be done, in many cases, by making the diagnosis early.

As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to the St. Vincent declaration to cut by a third end-stage renal failure due to diabetes, and diabetic retinopathy and blindness due to it, and to cut by half limb amputations due to peripheral vascular disease. That is a good package and he is to be congratulated on being partly responsible for pushing the issue for so long.

If he will make a statement on the work of the consultative steering group on procedures for a Scottish Parliament. [80991]

The consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament held its final meeting on 12 March. I have written to the Secretary of State outlining the group's further recommendations on the matters considered, including recommendations on the code of conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament and the relationship between the Parliament and the media.

First, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as this is his last Scottish questions, on the sterling work he has done over the past few years. In particular, I congratulate him on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and on the victory that he and the Labour party will win on 6 May.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the work done by the consultative steering group in looking forward to a new, democratic, open Parliament for the 21st century, rather than looking back, as some people do, to some mythical Parliament of 1707. Does he agree that the innovative use of new technology that has been proposed for the Parliament, including electronic voting, should set an example that this place would do well to follow? Does he agree that if it is possible to introduce electronic voting in such an old building, which will be used only temporarily, it should be possible to do so in this place as well?

I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. The Scottish Parliament will be fit for the information age and it will have new technology. In the longer term, it may influence other institutions in the United Kingdom. On 1 May 1997, the United Kingdom voted for a Parliament. On 11 September, we in Scotland voted for a Parliament. On 6 May, the Labour Government will deliver a Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people.

What implications do today's revelations that secret deals have been struck in London to carve up the Scottish Parliament have for the cross-party consensus that has underpinned the work of the consultative steering group? Is not that further evidence that Scotland's Parliament under new Labour will be Scotland's Parliament taking London's orders? Scotland needs a Parliament run by Scotland's party, delivering for the people of Scotland.

That pathetic contribution reflects the fact that the hon. Gentleman's party is not doing well in the current election campaign in Scotland. We had an all-party consensus on the work of the consultative steering group, which should be welcomed on both sides of the House, but suggesting that one party is Scotland's party shows contempt for the Scottish people. Scotland will decide on 6 May which party it wants to deliver the Parliament, and I am in no doubt that the Labour party will be chosen in those elections.

Perhaps I should begin by apologising for not congratulating the Secretary of State on anything much at all. Has the Minister explained to the consultative steering group why there is no provision for recounts at regional level in the Scottish elections? [Interruption.]

My hon. Friends, from a sedentary position, suggest that we might not need them. This has been explained to the Conservatives, who say that we did not address the issues when they were raised. The reason is sensible and straightforward: one simply cannot have the recount that they envisage for an additional member system. More to the point, the election will be fought hard by the Scottish people on 6 May. We have no doubt that they will take it seriously—and it is high time that, if the Conservatives in Scotland are taking it seriously, the Conservatives in this House did so as well.

If he will make a statement about the impact of the minimum wage on the Scottish economy. [80992]

It is estimated that the national minimum wage will benefit 2 million workers in Britain as a whole, and 157,000 in Scotland. The Low Pay Commission has statutory responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the minimum wage and is expected to report to the Government on it in December 1999.

What is the Government's answer to the extra unemployment, estimated at 10,000, that will be caused in Scotland by the minimum wage? Will welfare to work use public money to subsidise people back into employment?

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's estimate. What I do know is that the claimant count in Scotland now is the lowest since 1976. That is an achievement by this Government which people in Scotland widely recognise. The national minimum wage is an important part of the Government's strategy to target poverty and to achieve a fairer society in Scotland, and we shall continue to develop and build on those policies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish people are extremely proud that we have delivered the minimum wage, among many of our other promises? They are particularly pleased that the Labour party did it in the face of opposition from the Conservatives and with the Scottish National party tucked up in bed? Let us take, for example, the tourist industry, which was represented on the independent commission that made recommendations to the Government. Does my hon. Friend accept that, far from deploring a minimum wage, that industry welcomes it because it wants a well-trained, motivated and well-paid staff, consistent with the Scottish traditions of fairness, decency and a refusal to exploit those who seek to serve us?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage was a landmark achievement by the Government in their bid to create a fairer society in Scotland. It was achieved against the opposition of the Conservatives and it is regrettable that the SNP did not even bother to turn out to vote for the national minimum wage, which has delivered benefits to people on low incomes in Scotland.

While agreeing with the Minister that the minimum wage is an important development for Scotland, does he accept that the 14,000 job losses in Scotland since the general election are a damning indictment of the Government's record, and that, with so much of Scotland's economy dependent on exports, an early commitment to a single currency is essential for the country?

I certainly do not want to minimise the impact of any job losses on the families or individuals concerned, but the hon. Gentleman and his party should recognise that there has been a net gain in jobs in Scotland since the last election. As I said, unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest rate since 1976. That is a significant achievement, and all credit for it is due to the efforts of, and economic policies followed by, this Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that under the Tories so many Scots worked for poverty pay? Will he confirm that 157,000 Scottish employees will benefit from the statutory national minimum wage, which, complemented by the working families tax credit, the 10p income tax rate and a reduction in national insurance contributions, will help to ensure that work pays?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage is only part of our strategy to tackle poverty. Taken together with, for example, the working families tax credit, which he mentioned, it means that the effective minimum wage for, say, a single earner with two children is not £3.60 but £7 an hour. That is an important contribution to tackling poverty among low-earning families.

The Government's figures on the Scottish economy show unemployment rising by 1,200 last month and 16,000 fewer jobs in Scotland than there were a year ago. Why does the rise in unemployment in Scotland account for half the rise in the United Kingdom as a whole? Why is the Scottish economy performing so badly compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? What measures will the Minister take to deal with the special problems that seem to be afflicting the Scottish economy under Labour management?

The claimant count for March was 5.6 per cent., which is exactly the same percentage rate as for February. That is the lowest since 1976, which is a huge achievement by the Government. There have been particularly large reductions in youth and long-term unemployment. We are not complacent about those achievements, and we intend to build on them in the future.

What representations the Crown Office has received from the Dutch legal authorities over the handling of circumstances surrounding the trial of the Lockerbie suspects. [80993]

Although no such representations have been received from the Dutch legal authorities, my noble Friend the Lord Advocate and I have been very pleased with the constructive co-operation of the Dutch legal authorities in ensuring the orderly and secure handover of the two Libyan accused to the Scottish authorities in the Netherlands.

Has the Lord Advocate followed accepted good prosecution practice by making provisional lists of Crown witnesses and productions available to the defence in advance of service of the indictment? If he has not already done so, does he intend to do so in the near future? If he does not so intend, what are his reasons?

The Crown Office has already supplied to the defence a provisional list of witnesses, detailing a substantial number of the witnesses who may be cited to give evidence at the trial. In addition to that, a large number of copy documentary productions that may be adduced in evidence at the trial have also been offered to the defence. Further provisional lists of witnesses and copy productions will be made available to the defence in due course in the discharge of the prosecution's duty to provide such material. This matter is now sub judice.

Will the Minister give the House an estimate of what he understands to be the likely cost of the trial itself and the charge to the legal aid fund from public funds? The cost of the trial and the likely level of legal aid support will be substantially greater than normal. Are those sums to be met out of the usual Scottish Office vote or has a special arrangement been made with the Treasury?

I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman specific details of the amount of funds involved, but I wish to do so and will pass them on to him. The sourcing of the funds will be from within the legal aid budget. We obviously want to consider the extent of the legal aid involved in such a case.

How many modern apprenticeships the Government intend to create in Scotland. [80994]

The Government set a target of 15,000 modern apprenticeships by 2002 in the lifelong learning paper "Opportunity Scotland", published in September 1998. There are currently 10,500 modern apprentices in training, and 67 modern apprenticeship frameworks have been approved in Scotland. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate the impact that modern apprenticeships and the new deal are having on many thousands of young Scots? What plans does he have for modern apprenticeships under the Scottish Parliament, of which he will be the First Minister?

I never anticipate events; I am a cautious man. I am not sure that it is right for me to speculate in this House on what that Parliament may do. Those who read carefully the public prints will know that the figure of 20,000 as a target for modern apprenticeships has been mooted, and it seems to me to be a splendid idea. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we expand higher and further education and increase skills in other parts of the economy if we are to compete effectively. Modern apprenticeships have been a real success as part of the skill seekers programme, and there is widespread support for the expansion of that provision.

Given that the new deal has so far managed to fail 60 per cent. of those participating, and given the Secretary of State's appalling, abysmal record of job creation—7,000 jobs were lost in Scotland last year, and 16,000 in the first year—would not the right hon. Gentleman do better to recognise that, rather than pushing yet another hopeless scheme of apprenticeships—and having imposed more than 2,500 extra regulations and £3.5 billion in extra taxes—the Government should get out of businesses' hair and let them create real jobs?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman, poor soul, has been listening to the Scottish Conservatives. That is a great mistake. I do not recognise the figures that he gave. Let me make a serious point. The new deal has been a remarkable success, and has received widespread support from employers in Scotland—not initial support that has tailed off, but support that has been maintained and has grown over the months. It has had a remarkable impact on the unemployment rate among 18 to 24-year olds, which has halved over the period.

Of course there will be failures. The clients have difficult records; otherwise, they would not need to be involved in the new deal. However, the flexible gateway, the dedication and positive approach of the Employment Service and the co-operation between employers and the voluntary sector have produced real benefits and gains for Scotland.

If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of this Labour Government, he will see that since we came to office the number of people employed in Scotland has risen by about 17,000, while the number of those unemployed has fallen by 35,000. I recognise the difficulties; I recognise that parts of the economy are experiencing genuine problems. The situation is not helped, however, by a Greek chorus of misery from Conservative Members, which I do not think can be any excuse for the fact that the hon. Gentleman is not often seen in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend will know that many young people in Scotland have been cynical about previous Tory schemes. Does he share my concern, and that of my young constituents in Eastwood, about the way in which the Scottish National party has sought to exploit that concern and cynicism by undermining the new deal?

The new deal has undoubtedly been a success. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, as part of his drive to increase the skill level and to give young people in Scotland fresh opportunities, the new deal will not be replaced by modern apprenticeships, but the new deal and the modern apprenticeships vision will work in tandem to unlock the potential of many thousands of young Scots?

I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend about that. There are some 38,500 skill seekers in Scotland at present, 72 per cent. of whom are receiving a wage. I believe that the concept of skill seekers has been a success, but it is true that we must work, through skill seekers and in other ways—on other fronts on which the new deal is won—to try to achieve an interlocking pattern of provision. We need to skill and encourage our people into the labour market, so that they can have the dignity and, importantly, the wages that go with regular employment.

I do not want to be too difficult about the cynicism of the SNP at the moment. I see that the party is represented by one lonely outpost today. Lest any of my hon. Friends should say anything nasty, let me add that we should have some consideration for those who are worried about their seats.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the job increases to which he rightly adverted have been mainly in the service sector, and that they have involved mainly part-time jobs? Will he further acknowledge that a real contribution to manufacturing industry can be made through modern apprenticeships? Will he give a guarantee that the central industries, such as the textile industry, that can be assisted by such apprenticeships will be properly consulted? Will he look carefully at the German model, in which there is a close relationship between schools, industry and trade unions, in doing what he can to assist manufacturing industry north of the border in the future?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of the interface between school education, further education and industry. Of course he is right in saying that there have been problems in manufacturing industry, but I do not think that those problems are unique to Scotland. It was encouraging to see the last quarterly report of the Bank of Scotland, which suggested that some sites were viable and could be improved. I have no doubt that there will be disappointments before we surmount the present difficulties, but the framework generally is encouraging, and it was important that we were able to announce a substantial input of financial services jobs a few weeks ago.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be fair about this. If he considers the successful efforts to preserve the Longannet deep mine over the past few weeks, and the work of Gavin Laird and his colleagues in the task force to deal with the difficulties in the shipbuilding industry, 1 think—or I would like to think—that he would be one of the last Liberal Democrats to accuse us of inattention or indifference to the problems.

What steps the Government are taking to improve access to further and higher education in Scotland. [80996]

Last month, we announced major steps to improve access to further and higher education. We challenged further education colleges to widen access to under-represented groups—a challenge that we are backing with more than £100 million, which will create an additional 40,000 places for such students. In higher education, in the next three years we expect to spend £60 million on measures to help widen access for students from less-advantaged backgrounds, and particularly to assist low-income or disabled people to study part-time. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous system of funding further and higher education failed to reach the majority in our most deprived communities and to give them access to educational opportunity? Because of the Government's introduction of the Scottish grant for widening access, and the partnership between Fife council community services and Lauder college, I had the pleasure of opening a learning centre in High Valleyfield, which is a former mining community in my constituency that has some of the area's highest levels of deprivation and unemployment. Since January, 115 people have applied for courses, the range of which is being expanded, and some people are considering establishing a community business.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to all those who have been involved in the centre? Does she agree that it is a step-by-step example of how the Government are delivering lifelong learning and giving people new skills, greater belief in themselves and real hope for a better future?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her involvement in the High Valleyfield project. I have visited a number of projects in Fife that testify to the accuracy of her comments. The Government are committed to widening access, especially for those who are particularly disadvantaged. On higher education—which has a proud record in Fife—I have been talking to the Higher Education Funding Council for Scotland, encouraging it to examine means whereby premiums could be paid to higher education institutions that make particular efforts to enlarge the number of people from disadvantaged communities who attend those institutions.

When, 16 days before the general election, the Prime Minister uttered the words:

"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education",

what did he mean?

Prior to the general election, the Prime Minister was awaiting the result of the Dearing committee, which was established by the previous Government. I deplore the scaremongering of opposition parties in trying to dissuade people from entering applications to higher education institutions. Last year, there was a 4 per cent. increase in the number of those entering higher education, and there are now two applications for every higher education place in Scotland. It is deplorable that one party in Scotland is determined to ensure that those who are most disadvantaged in information technology and do not have access to computers should have to give up that opportunity so that tuition fees might be removed for those who are the wealthiest, coming from families who earn more than £35,000 a year. We are in favour of widening access.

It is a pity that the right hon. Lady—with such an ability to reinterpret political history—has become the invisible lady of the Scottish election campaign. The truth is that within a couple of months of uttering the words that I quoted, the Prime Minister announced a £3,000 tax on learning and the abolition of the student maintenance grant. Moreover, in complete contrast to what the Minister has just told us, there has been a 12.8 per cent. reduction in the number of Scottish students applying to go to Scottish universities. The numbers are already going down. After the Government's betrayal of Scottish students, we cannot believe a word that they say on education in advance of the Scottish elections.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman refers to me as the invisible lady; my diet must be working. To the invisible man, whom we have not seen during the Scottish election campaign, I say that as there are no Conservative Members of Parliament for Scotland, he might at least have felt able to join in the collective apology from his colleagues in Scotland to the Scottish people for the policies of the previous Government.

Forty per cent. of students from low-income families pay no tuition fees, and only a minority pay the full fees. As a consequence of the Government's policies, there will be more places in higher education in Scotland. Our aim is to have 750,000 young people in further and higher education in Scotland—a considerable achievement, and a great improvement on the record of the previous Government.

May I assume from my right hon. Friend's answer that the Government will never consider benefiting better-off tertiary education students by plundering millions of pounds from schoolchildren and divorcing them from computers, as is proposed by the Scottish National party, which is scarcely represented here today?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is no surprise that the Scottish National party is scarcely represented; it seems likely to be even less well represented in future.

I visited Clackmannan primary school yesterday, where I saw primary 4 pupils working on computers as part of the success makers programme, which gives an opportunity to those who, perhaps because of their parents' lack of income, do not have access to information and communications technology. Those will be the skills required in the 21st century, and although I am aware that the Scottish National party has a great affection for Scotland's history, I regret that it expects our children to live in Scotland's past.

If he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. [80998]

The role of the Secretary of State for Scotland after devolution was described in our White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament". The Secretary of State will be expected to promote good communication between the two Governments and Parliaments in Edinburgh and London, to represent Scottish interests in reserved matters within the United Kingdom Government, and to exercise certain specific responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that courteous reply. Does he accept that devolution will bring about a massive transfer of power from his Department to the Scottish Parliament, not least in such major policy areas as agriculture, health and education? Bearing in mind the fact that this House will still make a major contribution through revenue support, can he tell us how Scottish Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, and this House, will clearly monitor such matters?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on going to the nub of the matter with uncharacteristic speed. He is absolutely right—devolution represents a massive transfer of power. That is the point of the exercise, and on this side of the House we are rather proud of it.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a logical and strong division of responsibility between Westminster and the devolved Parliament in Edinburgh. Each will have areas in which its writ runs. To those on our side of the argument, including me, that seems a sensible arrangement. Of course, there are important matters, fiscal matters among them, that will remain at Westminster. Scottish Members of Parliament who represent Scottish interests in the House will not lose their tongues, or their interest in what is happening, and I suspect that they will closely and properly scrutinise such matters.

What measures his Department is taking to assist the oil and gas industry in Scotland. [80999]

The Government have set up the oil and gas industry task force under the chairmanship of the Minister for Energy and Industry, who is based at the Department of Trade and Industry, to examine the key issues facing the industry and to produce recommendations for action by the summer. My noble Friend Lord Macdonald, the Scottish Office Minister responsible for business and industry, is vice-chairman of the task force, and Scottish Office officials sit on the main task force group and on three of the working groups.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the people from the oil industry in Aberdeen with whom I have had contact are pleased with the setting up of the oil and gas industry task force, and speak highly of the progress made so far. Can he confirm that the Labour Government will continue to support the oil industry, which is the major employer in my constituency, and will not treat it as some kind of "liquid plug" to fill the gap in Scotland's finances that would be caused by the Scottish National party's plans for divorce?

I am pleased to hear that the task force is being well received. It is working hard, and includes representatives from industry and the unions, as well as from the Scottish Office. It was set up in the context of a 25-year low in oil prices but, although the price of oil is rising now, it is very important that we continue to support the task force and enable the industry to compete in very tight international markets.

Will the Minister explain what will happen to the functions of the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the oil industry? My constituency has the largest oilfield in the European Union, but will it have to rely on civil servants in Aberdeen to decide certain aspects of oil policy? Will we have to ask the Scottish Parliament, to which oil policy may be devolved, for details of what is happening in the oil industry in Dorset?

Energy policy will remain a reserved matter. I am sure that there will continue to be good co-operation between the Scottish Office and Westminster on that policy, as on all other issues.

I was one of many Labour Members who visited the Kvaerner Govan shipyard last Friday. We all wholeheartedly supported the upbeat and optimistic presentation from management and shop stewards. Does the Minister agree that that excellent yard has a future, and will he say whether the task force will be able to put any oil and gas work the yard's way, to enable it to overcome its short-term difficulties?

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend and other Labour Members have visited the yard and talked to management and unions. I am sure that that will have been a boost to the morale of the work force. We have set up a task force to examine how to find prospective buyers for the yard. It is working extremely hard, and I am sure that we all wish it every success.

I welcome the task force and acknowledge that it is working hard and constructively, but it will be judged by the outcomes that it achieves. The Minister has said that the oil price is rising, but will he assure the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has learned the lesson of the Government's first two years in power, and will not regard the higher oil prices as an excuse to re-examine the tax regime and increase taxes on the oil industry?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor but, through the task force on the oil and gas industry, we will examine a range of measures to support and develop the oil industry, some of which are already being implemented.

How individuals who have (a) been victims of and (b) committed male rape are dealt by the judicial system within Scotland. [81000]

The term "male rape" does not exist in Scots criminal law. A man who forces another man to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with him would face charges of indecent assault and sodomy. The penalties for such offences are limited only by the court in which they are tried—that is, up to life imprisonment for a case heard in the High Court. The needs of victims of sexual assault are increasingly recognised by the agencies in the criminal justice system, which provide support as appropriate.

From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply; he has written to me previously to the effect that male rape is a foreign concept in Scots law. However, given that it is not a recognised criminal offence in Scotland, there is no point in reporting incidents or providing official trauma counselling for victims, and perpetrators are not brought to justice. Male rape is recognised in England and Wales as a specific criminal offence: does not that mean that, in this instance, the law in England and Wales is superior to that in Scotland?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate in England and Wales over the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to which he refers. However, as I said, Scots law does provide for the offences of indecent assault and sodomy. We in Scotland see no need to change the current definitions, and we consider that the common law of Scotland is sufficiently flexible.

In addition, we are doing a great deal in Scotland to help the victims of all crime, and I have just completed a consultation report on the matter of intimidated and vulnerable witnesses. I assure my hon. Friend that indecent assault and sodomy are covered by Scots law, and that we are also doing a great deal for victims of crime and for intimidated witnesses.

When he last met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses to discuss economic and monetary union. [81001]

My right hon. Friend last met the Federation of Small Businesses on 21 April. Economic and monetary union did not feature on that occasion, but the federation is a member of the Scottish EMU co-ordination group, which is taking forward business preparation in Scotland for EMU. The group last met on 12 April.

From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I am sorry to hear that economic and monetary union did not feature on the agenda of that meeting. Had it done so, small businesses would have been able to inform the Secretary of State of their overwhelming opposition to the abolition of the pound and its replacement by the euro. They might also have drawn to his attention the result of last month's ICM poll, which shows that 30 per cent. of the population are in favour of EMU, but 60 per cent. are against. That makes a 2:1 majority, and it marks a 6 per cent. increase in the majority against EMU since last October when the same question, with the same wording, was asked. Does that not show that the Government are wasting their time trying to brainwash people into abandoning our currency and merging our economy with that of the European continent?

There are different views in the business community. The Scottish CBI, for example, supports the principle of UK membership when the economic conditions are right, and that reflects the Government's position. We are preparing industry for the possibility of that decision, and the Federation of Small Businesses is playing a constructive and positive part in preparations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that economic and monetary union will be attractive to Scottish businesses when they are able to appreciate the full import of the competitiveness White Paper, which contains a range of opportunities and assistance for small business? In addition, small businesses depend on large businesses operating alongside them. Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of small businesses in my constituency on the work done by the Secretary of State and Lord Macdonald of Tradeston to smooth the path to ensuring the future of coal mining at Longannet? A multitude of jobs depend on the mine, both in Longannet and in the industries and small businesses in west Fife and Clackmannanshire that depend on it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Government are pursuing a range of measures to help small businesses. We certainly do not need a penny increase in income tax, which would severely affect many unincorporated small businesses.

Is the Minister aware that polling evidence reveals that although small business men are overwhelmingly against economic and monetary union, they nevertheless have a sense of its inevitability? In other words, they fear that people less intelligent and informed than themselves may vote for it.

The Federation of Small Businesses has set out its views in a press release, saying that

"the FSB is not telling its members to ignore EMU and stick their heads in the sand and hope that it will go away. It won't."

The hon. Gentleman might take that advice.

What plans he has to assist with the development of the Crichton estate in Dumfries as a base for higher education provision. [81002]

Some £1.8 million has been awarded jointly to the universities of Glasgow and Paisley by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to develop higher education provision at the Crichton site. The first students will be admitted to courses in September, and there are plans to have 500 undergraduate places there by 2001–02.

From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who fully appreciates the significance of the site as both a future business terrace and a university campus. Will she confirm that, as a Government priority, new information technologies, such as the national grid for learning, will be embraced to provide educational opportunity to rural communities in Scotland?

I can confirm that, step by step, we will ensure that the national grid for learning is developed throughout Scotland. Scotland's higher education institutions are already linked. We are also rapidly developing the university of the highlands and islands. With the development of broad-band information technology for the higher education sector, we are proceeding apace to introduce it to schools and further education institutions.

What steps he will take to advise hon. Members of the activities and decisions of the Scottish Parliament. [81003]

The Scottish Parliament will be expected to publish an official record of its proceedings and a journal recording its decisions. Those have been provided for in its initial Standing Orders as contained in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions (Standing Orders) and Parliamentary Publications) Order 1999, which was laid on 12 April. I am not sure that that was the most exciting answer that I have ever given, but as it may be my last—at least in this capacity—I hope that it helped the hon. Gentleman.

Some of us consider that the devolution business will end up as a costly and divisive shambles, but obviously, we pray that we are wrong as 1 July approaches. What steps does the Secretary of State believe should be taken to encourage co-operation between the two Parliaments? What will he be answerable for in the House of Commons? Does he see any meaningful role for Scottish Members in Westminster after devolution?

Of course there is a role for Scottish Members in Westminster. The hon. Gentleman may think that fiscal affairs, foreign affairs, macro-economics, defence, labour law and all the things that would preserve the integrated and level playing field for business in this country are unimportant, but I do not. Scottish Members will be here to represent Scottish interests and their constituents' interests, as they are now, in respect of those important matters. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about lack of co-operation. He and I have been shouting abuse at each other for about 30 years, and he will want to ensure that that level of admirable co-operation continues.

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.