What discussions he has had with Greater Glasgow health board on the Green Paper, "Working Together for a Healthier Scotland", in respect of inequalities in health in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [37613]

On 9 March, I met representatives of Greater Glasgow health board to discuss the Green Paper and its approach to reducing inequalities. I also visited a number of projects that are currently under way to tackle health inequalities in disadvantaged communities in Glasgow.

Has the Minister studied the recent report by Bristol university, which stated that seven of the 10 constituencies with the poorest health statistics in the United Kingdom were in Glasgow? Is that not a shocking legacy of 18 years of Tory government? Does the Minister agree that poor health is related to poverty, unemployment, housing and education? Therefore, will he review the share formula and allocate additional resources to Glasgow that are based not upon population criteria but upon health needs?

Yes, I have read the Bristol report, which highlights what we have known for some time—that there are huge health inequalities in Scotland. Our method of tackling those is not to blame individuals or to nanny or nag them. Our policy is to get at the root problems and deal with life circumstances—education, jobs, health care and housing, and we have put in an additional £900 million to deal with those. The Government put their money where their mouth is. We are reviewing the share formula. It is based partly on population and partly on deprivation, but the issue is whether deprivation, which is reflected through the standardised mortality rates, is properly indexed. We expect a result on that later in the year.

When my hon. Friend met the Greater Glasgow health board, did he discuss the section of the Green Paper relating to fluoride in the public water supply? If he did, did the board agree with him, and with me, that that is the best way to solve some of Scotland's dental health problems?

There is no question but that one of the main markers of inequalities in health relating to deprivation is the poor state of oral health in deprived communities. There are three ways to tackle that. One is by reducing sugar intake and another is regular brushing of the teeth, but unquestionably the best, and overwhelmingly most effective, way is to put fluoride in the water, and that is supported by all health boards and by me.

What recent discussions he has had concerning the criminal justice system in Scotland. [37614]

If he will make a statement about current trends with respect to criminal convictions in Scotland. [37618]

In addition to periodic meetings of the criminal justice forum, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Accurate reading is sometimes a mistake. I and my hon. Friends have frequent contacts with the various agencies and organisations involved in the criminal justice system.

Is not confidence in the police absolutely essential for an effective criminal justice system? There is clearly a huge issue in Scotland at the moment, in that confidence in the Grampian police force has been much dented. I think that there is cross-party agreement that the current chief constable of Grampian should go. The Secretary of State did not institute procedures yesterday to sack him. If the news from Aberdeen today is unsatisfactory, will he do that today and will he say whether he has plans to introduce more effective public accountability of the police in Scotland?

As the House almost certainly knows, earlier today the Grampian police board passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in its chief constable. I have not yet had it confirmed, but I understand that, despite that, he has not stated an intention to resign. No one can take satisfaction from what is a sad and unfortunate story, but, in the light of the considered and damaging reports from a senior independent officer and the chief inspector of constabulary, I believe that the board's vote was fully justified. I have not heard formally from the board, but, in those circumstances, statutory powers are available to it if it feels that those are necessary.

With the greatest of respect, I do not believe that, by any stretch of the imagination, the Secretary of State's statement answered Question 6 on the Order Paper. Will he therefore kindly answer it and, in so doing, say why, when Scottish chief constables asked for £28 million, he gave them only half of that for a standstill budget?

That was a question full of character, but little sense. If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will find that, this year, there was an increase in spending for chief constables. He will also know that recorded crime in Scotland was at the lowest level since 1981. I hope that he will congratulate the police on that fact.

Given the difficulties that delay can cause when, as has been referred to, the Government, the police board and the public totally and deservedly lose confidence in a senior police officer, could we review the procedures, so that a situation such as Grampian can never happen again?

This is a most unusual, exceptional and distressing set of circumstances. It is important that we have balance and that the police's independence is protected. That is done in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, but, as I have said, in the light of the police board's unanimous decision today, procedures are open to the board to resolve the problem. I do not want to anticipate a request to me, but I am ready to help in any way that I can. My one wish is not to exacerbate the position, but to see confidence restored and a future built on the energy and ability of the many excellent police officers in the Grampian force.

I endorse what the Secretary of State has said about a new start and the need to start immediately on restoring public confidence in Grampian police—and, indeed, on restoring morale within the service—but will he turn his mind to another event that happened earlier today: the decision of the sheriff in the borders to throw out the case against Mr. Jim Sutherland in relation to the regulations on beef on the bone, and his description of a part of the regulations as "defective"? Does that not prove what my colleagues and I said when we tabled the prayer against the regulations earlier this year—that the regulations are inoperable?

I saw Sheriff Paterson's judgment only this morning. In any event, it is the Crown Office that will decide whether to appeal on the basis of the arguments. The regulations remain in place and leave to appeal was given. This is an important matter. Clearly, it deserves careful consideration and it will get it, but, above all, health considerations will remain paramount.

Is not the tragic case of Scott Simpson only one of a large number of issues that have dented public confidence in the police service in north-east Scotland? Does the Secretary of State accept that the public are mystified as to why democratic accountability does not seem to be easily enforced in the higher echelons of the police service, although I can tell him from experience that sergeants and constables have been subjected to draconian discipline in that very police force? What procedure does he think needs to be put into place, so that it is possible to sack a chief constable when there is justifiable cause, without going through all the difficulties that both he and the police board have faced over recent weeks and months?

The hon. Gentleman will have gathered from recent events that I take these matters seriously. I repeat my point, which is important, that a balance must be struck. Sacking a chief constable is an exceptional and serious matter. That is why the 1967 Act builds in procedures that mean that it cannot be done on a whim or in a moment of anger.

Following what the Secretary of State just said, does he believe that it was in the interest of the criminal justice system that the serious and sensitive circumstances surrounding the Scott Simpson murder should have become the subject of a personal and unseemly spat between the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, and the chief constable of Grampian region, culminating in his own extraordinary public intervention yesterday? Would not the interests of this serious and sensitive case and of the criminal justice system have been better served with more dignity, gravitas and responsibility on all sides?

The right hon. Gentleman must make his own judgment. If there was any sort of spat, it was rather one-sided. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the energetic and totally justified way in which he called for an independent report. The results of that inquiry put beyond argument the fact that he was justified in so doing. On my intervention, I came to the conclusion—it was a personal decision, my own judgment and I stand by it—that I had to make my position clear in the circumstances, given the widespread anxiety and the damning nature of the two reports published yesterday.

What action the Crown Office has taken on the depositions and statements made by the Iranian defector, Mr. Abolghasem Mesbahi, to Mr. Gunter Rath, state prosecutor at Frankfurt, in relation to the Lockerbie bombing; and what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the Governments of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany on the matter. [37615]

It would be inappropriate for the prosecuting or investigation authorities to give details of investigative steps that have been taken. I can assure my hon. Friend that appropriate action has been taken in co-operation with our German and American colleagues to investigate the allegations made by Abolghasem Mesbahi.

Can the Minister at least tell the House whether Mesbahi has been interrogated by the police in charge of the criminal investigation? If he has not, why not?

With his usual courtesy, my hon. Friend has given me a copy of the letter concerning this question that he received recently from the Lord Advocate. I am afraid that I am unable to take the matter further other than to confirm to my hon. Friend that statements given by Mesbahi have been discussed with the German and American prosecuting and investigating authorities, as would be the case with any other significant matter. In the circumstances, I will be happy to pass on again to the Lord Advocate the comments of my hon. Friend.

What progress has been made in reducing the number of NHS trusts operating in Scotland. [37616]

Detailed proposals for new trust configurations are currently the subject of public consultation in each health board area. Subject to the outcome of public consultation, I expect to be in a position to take decisions about the new configurations in late summer.

How much investment are those changes likely to free up for patient care in Scotland?

We hope that, over the course of this Parliament, it will be possible to redirect about £100 million to front-line patient care. When fully implemented, I hope that the dismantling of the internal market and the streamlining of the trusts will produce around £40 million a year. Major reform in the health service, as elsewhere, depends on teamwork, and I greatly value the efforts and commitment of the civil service. In particular, I pay tribute to my permanent secretary, Russell Hillhouse, who retires in a few days. He has been a skilful and expert guide, philosopher—indeed, friend—to me, and, I suspect, to many of my predecessors.

On behalf of my colleagues, I endorse what the Secretary of State just said. Surely the consultation documents on health service trusts are a complete sham. It seems that, across Scotland, they are just going for a preferred option. Who on earth is being consulted, and why? Can the Secretary of State assure me that he or the Minister responsible for health will make the final decision on the trusts, as the Minister promised that it will be based on what best suits the needs of particular communities?

We shall certainly listen to the consultation exercise. We shall also listen to hon. Members. I heard what the hon. Lady said. The plan is radical, but it is not a preconceived rigid framework into which every area will necessarily be fitted. Reducing the trusts from, I think, the present 46 to something under 30—depending on the results of the consultation exercise—makes sense and will provide a more efficient machine to drive patient care, but we shall, of course, listen to local opinion. While Ministers take the final decision, they will be influenced by what is said by the hon. Lady and others.

How will the saving of £100 million affect waiting lists in our hospitals in Scotland?

Waiting lists, which now stand at about 87,000, are a considerable worry to us, and our concern is apparent from the decision to allocate £44.5 million to bring them down. Our expectation is that they will be below their present level in a year's time. The £44 million is being used not only to depress waiting lists temporarily but to tackle the obstructions, the bottlenecks and the structural difficulties that have allowed waiting lists to rise to their present level. We shall want to keep that campaign going. I have no doubt that the additional funds will have a part to play in that, although I hope that the substantial saving by stopping the paper chase that is the internal market will be used on a wider spread of improvements than simply on waiting lists.

What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents in the non-city areas of Angus and Perthshire, in implementing the Government's desire to reduce the number of trusts, that health care services will not be concentrated in the major cities and that local services will continue in areas where people need them, in the county areas of Angus and Perthshire?

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there is always a balance to be struck between centres of excellence and expertise and the need to spread throughout the community adequate and top-class health care. We certainly do not consider the streamlining of the trusts to be a death sentence for local hospitals and local centres of excellence. The use of GP co-operatives and reform of primary care functions are also designed to ensure that people who live in more remote communities always have adequate medical care within reach. That is important. I accept that entirely. We hope that we get the right balance. Again, it will be a matter for consultation. We shall look at acute service review and other matters.

Should not the aim of the reorganisation of NHS trusts be to look after the generation of people who built the national health service, far too many of whom were deprived of a national health service bed because of the previous Tory Government's agenda, which was to shift ever more people out of the NHS into private sector nursing homes? If so, will my right hon. Friend investigate the situation in the Forth Valley health board area where, under existing plans, by 2000 there will be an NHS bed for under 0.4 per cent. of the elderly population? Will he therefore intervene and change that agenda to ensure that there is an NHS bed for every elderly person who requires one?

I certainly accept that there should be a national health service bed for everyone who requires one, although there may be some argument about how to define that term. I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The important thing is that there is adequate, supportive care tailored to the needs of the individual in whatever setting may be best for that individual. A great deal of emphasis is now placed on keeping people in the community if at all possible and in familiar surroundings. There is always a balance to be struck, but we are undoubtedly committed to investing in the health service. We are well aware that people from the older generation—I am beginning to have a pressing personal interest in the matter—have particular demands to make on the health service and have to be properly catered for.

On behalf of the official Opposition, I also offer my best wishes to Russell Hillhouse and wish him the very best of health for his retirement.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in every particular, but it is of course a matter of judgment. I have talked to many GPs, and I did not get the impression that that was their opinion at all. The proposals in the White Paper have been widely welcomed by official bodies and individual GPs. I believe that the proposals will allow GPs to be very influential within the health service and will, if anything, increase patient choice. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that this year, for example, very nearly an additional £7 million is being invested in GP premises. Indeed, I had the pleasure of opening a new surgery at the edge of my constituency only the other day. I spoke to a range of general practitioners there, and I did not get any of the gloomy forebodings that darken the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the advent of the new primary care trusts and, within them, of the GP health co-operatives, will signal the end of the pernicious system of GP fundholding and of Tory attempts to create a two-tier national health service in Scotland? If he can confirm that, does he agree that the socialist principles that helped to establish the national health service are as relevant today as they were 50 years ago and that therefore what we need from a Labour Government is more of those old Labour ideas, not fewer?

I can do better and give my hon. Friend a date: 1 April next year will see the end of that particular form of fundholding in Scotland. It is very important that we win the support and trust of the public because of our values, not despite our values. There is no more important set of values than the essential principles that the health service is comprehensive in cover, free at the point of delivery and pays no attention to the size of the patient's bank balance.

What plans he has made to ensure that computer systems used by the emergency services in Scotland will be millennium compliant. [37617]

In common with all NHS bodies in Scotland, the Scottish ambulance service has a strategy in place to tackle year 2000 computer date problems and is working to ensure the compliance of all critical systems by December 1998.

I do not think that the House will be reassured by the vague nature of that answer. Can the Minister guarantee that all computer systems in the emergency services will be millennium compliant? Particularly in the light of yesterday's report in The Scotsman that up to 1,000 patients could die and that up to three quarters of Scotland's NHS trusts say that they will not have enough money to deal with the problem, will he guarantee that no one will die because the Scottish Office has invested insufficient resources?

I can confirm everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I can guarantee that all critical systems will be compliant by the end of this year—a year ahead of the deadline—and that no one will suffer because of a lack of resources.

Although the answer has come from the Health Minister, the question related to emergency services. Can the Minister give an idea of the likely cost to all public services in Scotland? Has he secured satisfactory guarantees from the power generating system that there will not be critical failures? The Prime Minister has estimated the cost as £3 billion; private estimates are £6 billion. What will be the cost to the Scottish Office?

The final figures are not yet available as the returns had to be made by 31 March and we are still looking at them. We shall soon be in a position to provide definitive answers. However, we are monitoring the costs and we shall be able to meet them within the budget.

It is a rather quaint idea that the ambulance service is the only emergency service in Scotland. Leaving that aside, are the Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Office satisfied that the air traffic control system at Prestwick will be millennium compliant? What investigations are they making to ensure that?

The terms that apply to the Scottish ambulance service apply also to all emergency services, including the fire brigade and the police. As for air traffic control services, as someone of the right hon. Gentleman's standing and long service in the House should be aware, that is not a matter for me, but I shall pass it on to the Minister responsible.

What proposals he has to reduce social exclusion in rural areas and communities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [37620]

If he will make a statement on the level of response to the consultation process on the social exclusion unit. [37624]

The consultation paper on social exclusion has now generated over 200 responses. The Government are determined to tackle social exclusion in rural and urban areas through a range of policies, including welfare reform, education and training, health and housing policy.

Has the Minister had a chance to study the recently published Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on poverty and exclusion in rural Britain? It shows that, by 1995, the proportion of those unemployed in rural areas was identical to that in non-rural areas, and that applies to men and women. It also reveals that poverty is prevalent among the self-employed, particularly in rural areas, and that the incidence of low pay is more common and more persistent in rural Britain than elsewhere. Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the social exclusion unit will make rural conditions a central part of its study and work in the coming weeks and months on the ground that confining attention to cities and peripheral estates is not justified simply because rural poverty is less visible? Action needs to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. He rightly said that social exclusion occurs in rural areas as well as in urban areas and that rural areas may have a special dimension in respect of remoteness and difficulty of communication. The network will take all those factors into account. I have encouraged people who want to contribute to the consultation process to write to the Scottish Office.

May I remind the Minister of why we need a social exclusion unit? Yesterday afternoon, a 19-year-old man was brutally murdered 100 yd from my home. He came from a loving family, but he did not have the best breaks in life. The social exclusion unit addresses school truancy, drugs and crime. Will the Minister bear it in mind that it is needed to tackle those problems and ensure that all our young people have the safe life that they so richly deserve?

I do not think that I can add much to what my hon. Friend said, except to say that the whole House will share his sentiments. He makes the point powerfully that social exclusion is not an abstract concept or a theory—it has a direct impact on real people in real communities.

Does the Minister agree that nothing more quickly creates social exclusion in rural areas than a collapse in farm incomes such as that which has occurred under this Government—a collapse caused as much by their mishandling of the economy and the pound as by their lack of understanding of farming issues? What does the Minister intend to do about that? Or is rural despair part of his policy for the nationalists and the midges to feed on?

The hon. Gentleman will know that rural incomes go up and down according to fluctuations in prices, and that happened when he was a member of the previous Government. I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that we are putting more investment into the farming community than any previous Government. We are supporting farming communities in what, as we appreciate, is a time of real difficulty.

I am surprised that my hon. Friend did not take the opportunity to remind the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) who claimed, as Secretary of State for Social Security, that no such thing as poverty existed in this country. That is why we need a social exclusion unit. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibility across education, health and housing, the Scottish Office is uniquely placed to deal with social exclusion in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are the first Government to put tackling social exclusion right at the heart of our policies, and we are putting money where our mouth is. Since 1 May, more than £900 million has been dedicated to programmes which will help to tackle social exclusion in, for example, education, health and housing.

What proposals he has to achieve consistency in sentencing in the criminal courts. [37621]

Sentencing is a matter for the courts. We have just published sentencing profiles for the Scottish courts in order to make sentencing information more widely available and to assist in consistency in sentencing practice.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, even during the years of Tory obsession with prison building and longer prison sentences, there was one glaring inconsistency in sentencing—the disproportionate use of custody by the sheriffs in Kilmarnock sheriff court. However, since 1995—and thanks to the work of the social work department of East Ayrshire council—the sheriffs have been persuaded to make greater use of non-custodial sentences. My hon. Friend will be aware also that social work services and the criminal justice system are 100 per cent. funded by the Scottish Office, and that this year's allocation of grant—despite a national increase broadly in line with inflation—represents a 7.2 per cent. decrease for East Ayrshire council. In considering East Ayrshire council's submissions to him about that allocation, will my hon. Friend take into account the need to reinforce that trend in sentencing at Kilmarnock sheriff court?

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and I would like to put on record our appreciation of the work being done by East Ayrshire council's criminal justice and social work department. We need to find not uniformity, but consistency, in sentencing throughout Scotland. That is why my hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise non-custodial sentencing. We are endeavouring to do a great deal more than the previous Government in relation to that matter. We have provided £2.5 million for criminal justice and social work services this year, and I sincerely hope that we will be able to invest even more over the coming months.

Why does not the hon. Gentleman understand that, in abandoning plans for honesty in sentencing, and in failing to abolish automatic early release from prison, the Government are displaying not toughness on crime but serial wimpishness? [Interruption.]

I shall not reflect on my hon. Friends' comments in response to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will say that he is simply wrong. One cannot pretend to be pursuing a tough policy on law and order merely by sending more and more people to prison, regardless of the consequences. The point about abandoning parole is sheer nonsense, as the Opposition know—they will have to realise that the Government are moving forward with a progressive policy, under which people will be put behind bars when necessary but non-custodial alternatives will be sought for others.

Can my hon. Friend offer an explanation for the dramatic increase in lock-up rates at Cornton Vale in recent months? Does he agree that sheriffs should consider alternatives to custody rather than continuing to lock up vulnerable women?

My hon. Friend is right to express her concern about Cornton Vale—we, too, are concerned about the rising prison population there. We shall publish a report very soon, which will go some way to tackle the outstanding difficulties. As my hon. Friend suggested, we want to invest in alternatives to custody, which seems a sensible way forward not only for the people involved but for our prisons.

I welcome that answer, but does the Minister recognise that, to achieve equality of sentencing, we first have to catch the criminals? As has been said, morale is crucial to the effectiveness of the police force, so will he assure the House that he will give all the necessary support to Grampian police board to ensure the early appointment of a new chief constable? Will he assure us, too, that that chief constable will receive the resources and back-up to restore morale so that we can take advantage of the existence of a good-quality police force in that area?

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. We hope that the new chief constable will be in place as soon as possible, which will be a tremendous boost to the force. Morale and public confidence are vital, and, in the aftermath of recent events, we hope to work in partnership to secure those objectives.

What progress has been made on the new deal in Scotland [37622]

The new deal came on stream throughout Scotland on 6 April, having had a successful pathfinder area in Tayside since 4 January.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the measure of the success of the new deal in Scotland will be the number of young people who become more employable and find permanent jobs. There is a hard core of young people who are very disillusioned, however. There are many such youngsters in Aberdeen, where, despite the fact that unemployment is slightly lower than in other areas of Scotland, youngsters tend to be unemployed and may not have the qualities that employers seek. Is there any evidence—I accept that it may be anecdotal at this stage—that these hard-to-place youngsters are being given extra opportunities and are succeeding under the new deal where previous schemes have failed them?

There is a great deal of evidence from the Tayside pathfinder area and from other experiences—the evidence is growing—that young people have a tremendous willingness to recognise that the new deal is different from, and better financed than, anything that has gone before, and that it is carefully tailored to their individual needs. On that basis, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right—the new deal will ensure not only that more people are employed, but that an awful lot of young people are employable, which is their first hurdle on the way, ultimately, to the world of work.

I hope that the Minister will accept that prevention is better than cure, and that some of the available resources should be put into careers guidance in schools and into enabling people who have missed out on such services to develop self-esteem and the ability to benefit from training. Will he help people to reach the threshold where they can benefit from the training that is provided?

Absolutely—the careers service is fully involved in the delivery of the new deal. For many young people, the challenge is not simply to go directly into work, although many will do so—more than 100 young people have already found long-term employment in Dundee through the new deal. The challenge for the many others is to get over the hurdle of confidence and self-esteem, and to recognise that someone really is working to find an opportunity that is right for them—I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly what the new deal is about.

Many young people are putting a great deal of faith in the new deal, as we have asked them to do. What steps are being taken to ensure that the partnerships involved in delivering the new deal are robust, and to evaluate and monitor those partnerships?

An immense amount of work is going on in Scotland to ensure that the partnerships in every area are strong. Everyone is involved: the Employment Service, the enterprise companies, the careers services and the further education sector are all working well together. Centrally, the Employment Service and the Scottish Office are in touch with the partnerships to ensure that everything is going well. It is important that there should be a quality control mechanism for the young people themselves, so there will be a hotline to ensure that any abuses of the new deal can be reported. Another important factor is that in every area we have involved the trade unions in monitoring the programme's quality.

If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's role in drafting the Scotland Bill. [37643]

As chairman of the ministerial committee on devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English regions, the Lord Chancellor was much involved in securing collective agreement to the policy content of the Scotland Bill. The actual drafting of the legislation, as is normal practice, was carried out by parliamentary counsel, on instruction from the Scottish Office, acting under ministerial direction.

If The Times is to be believed, the Lord Chancellor himself claimed,

"I wrote it. All of it"—

All criminal prosecutions in Scotland proceed at the instance of the Lord Advocate of the day. That will remain the case after the devolution legislation comes into force. More broadly, the handling of the international aspects of the Lockerbie incident, including any Security Council matters, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Is the Minister seriously saying, as his Scottish Office colleagues declined to say in response to earlier questions, that if the Scottish Parliament decided to accede to the move to hold such a trial in another country but under Scottish jurisdiction, Westminster would try to frustrate such a move, which is widely supported by public opinion in Scotland, and even by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who at last has found a reason for supporting a Scottish Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me yet further from my proper ministerial responsibilities. I am sure that if he renews his question to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters, they will give him a full answer.

On the matter of gender balance in the new Scottish Parliament and whether the law should be changed to achieve it, have the Government taken the Lord Chancellor's advice or the entirely conflicting advice of Ms Cherie Booth QC?

I am tempted to respond to that ingenious question by referring the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave a few moments ago; but the answer is neither.

If he will make a statement on his policy towards the recruitment of (a) special, (b) policy, (c) press and (d) public relations advisers to his Department. [37644]

The special adviser to the Lord Chancellor was appointed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which is available in the Library. The recruitment of all permanent staff, including those working in policy, press and public relations, is carried out in line with the standard procedures set out in the civil service management code and the civil service commissioners recruitment code.

Will the Minister tell the House the exact cost to the British taxpayer of the additional advisers the Lord Chancellor has recruited to his Department since 1 May? Whatever the cost, does he accept that that is yet another extravagance from the self-styled Cardinal Wolsey, who needs those additional advisers to cover up his misdemeanours and incompetences?

Only one special adviser has been appointed to the Department since last May and I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the precise cost. I must make it clear that the appointment was made by the Lord Chancellor strictly in accordance with the usual procedures. Successive Administrations have appointed special advisers in precisely the same way. As someone appointed as a special adviser on three different occasions and, I understand, in three different Government Departments, no doubt the hon. Gentleman is something of an expert on the matter.

Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House on which aspects of the Department's policy he and his Cabinet colleague most feel in need of advice?

As the hon. and learned Member will know, the Lord Chancellor's Department is comprehensively reviewing civil court procedure. The special adviser in question has had a distinguished career in the law and will be able to give the Department valuable experience based on his considerable knowledge of the legal process.

If he will make a statement on the backlog of cases before the immigration appeal tribunal. [37646]

The backlog of outstanding adjudicator appeals is starting to come down. It has fallen by 5,670 appeals since the end of July 1997—from a total of 34,909 then to 29,237 at the end of February 1998. The abolition of the primary purpose rule, the appointment of more adjudicators and the better listing of cases are factors making that reduction possible.

I am grateful for that answer and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the work that has been done to reduce the backlog of cases before the tribunal, but does he accept that any delay in processing the cases causes enormous distress to applicants? Someone who is refused permission in, for example, Bombay still has to wait a year and a half before his or her spouse entry case is considered in either Birmingham or London. Will my hon. Friend consider targeting resources more effectively to cut that backlog, and also the necessity for more new information technology equipment, which it is to be hoped would allow information coming from a post abroad to be brought to the tribunal as quickly as possible?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Certainly, it is important that we continue to bear down on the backlog of cases, and since my appointment to this position I have been grateful for the valuable help and advice that he has been able to give me. We need to continue to work on the matter. There is, however, no necessity for applicants within the United Kingdom to wait for such periods provided that they are willing to go from London to the provinces. Although there is a considerable backlog of cases in London, waiting times at other hearing centres are much shorter, and anyone who wants a case to be dealt with urgently can say that it should be transferred elsewhere.

Is not the reality that the backlog of appeals is getting worse? At the moment, we have some 100 applications for asylum each day, excluding dependants, and more than 50,000 asylum applications are still awaiting an initial determination. All applications have to go to an appeal, and it seems to me that the Government's problems are getting worse and that they are not acting to solve them. Does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to appoint more immigration adjudicators, or to grant any form of amnesty? He must agree that the asylum appeals in the pipeline are vast in number and that matters are getting worse by the day.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the appeals process. The backlog is being reduced. The immigration appellate authorities aim to deal with up to 31,000 asylum appeals in the current financial year. That is a projected increase of some 40 per cent. over the previous year.

What provision his Department is making for asylum appellants who have no means to pay fees for legal representation at the hearing of their appeals against refusal of refugee status. [37647]

Legal aid is not available for representation before the immigration appeal tribunal. Asylum seekers can receive legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme, including help in preparation for the hearing and the attendance at the hearing of a Mackenzie adviser. The Home Office funds the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre, which provide advice to asylum seekers and, in some cases, representation at hearings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that good-quality legal representation at appeals is in everyone's best interest? As the Home Office has not been able to renew spend-to-save funding for the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre, is there not a danger that fewer asylum seekers will be represented properly and that more will end up in the clutches of unqualified so-called advisers? Will he keep the situation under review and consider the case for legal aid to ensure that people are properly represented in such appeals?

The Government share my hon. Friend's concerns. That is why the whole system is being reviewed. The first step will be to resolve the inconsistencies in approach at different stages in the appeals process which appear to allow the unscrupulous to exploit the system and create backlogs that leave genuine asylum seekers facing long periods of uncertainty. Once we have an improved process, we can consider the best way to provide legal help to asylum seekers while promoting the effective operation of the system overall.

If he will make a statement on progress of the civil justice review and legal aid reforms. [37649]

Since I responded to a similar question from my hon. Friend on 17 March, there have been certain developments. First, the Lord Chancellor has proposed to the rule committee that the small claims general limit should be £5,000, with a limit of £1,000 for personal injury and housing disrepair cases. Secondly, we have announced a comprehensive review of the enforcement of civil court judgments. We are still receiving responses to our consultation paper on conditional fees and legal aid. The consultation period closes on 30 April this year.

The recognition of the problems with certain sorts of personal injury work, particularly medical negligence, in the Minister's paper on conditional fees is welcome. However, there are many other difficult sorts of cases, such as industrial disease cases. In his further consideration of representations, will he bear that in mind in deciding what cases should qualify for the transitional fund?

I am again grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance. We have provided a wide range of opportunities for those with an interest in these matters to make representations. We have met many firms and representative groups. We have commissioned research based on hypothetical exercises in which a wide range of lawyers took part. We are conducting a detailed analysis of the information that we have gathered and expect to make an announcement in due course.

Will the Minister say whether his Department is considering different merits tests for different categories of claim and when it will publish its views on the matter?

We are considering a variable merits test. We will proceed to consultation on that once a paper is published.

If he will make a statement on his Department' s policy in respect of the geographical distribution of magistrates courts. [37651]

In accordance with section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, decisions on the provision of magistrates courts are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine after consultation with its local paying authority. Each magistrates courts committee has a statutory responsibility to provide an efficient and effective service to court users. It is for the individual magistrates courts committee to decide the number and location of court houses.

That is a disappointing answer, but it fits with previous answers. The Department does not know how many courts it has shut, let alone which are left. It is time that the Government worked out where magistrates courts are and discussed what is happening with hon. Members of all parties. Does the Minister agree that large-scale closures are taking place against the wishes of local communities? There does not seem to be a policy at all.

I have answered that and similar questions from the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. I understood that he represented a party that believed in local decision making: I should have thought he would support the approach that both this Administration and previous Administrations had set out.

But does the Minister accept that the essence of successful magistrates court justice is that it should be local justice and that the tradition over hundreds of years in this country has been that local justices of the peace in a local court know their area best and often know the criminals and how best to deal with the local regular offenders? Is not the Minister simply washing his hands of the matter? Should not the Government take note of the concern in so many communities around the country about the threats of closure of magistrates courts?

The hon. Gentleman knows the process full well. It is for local magistrates courts committees to take a decision as to the location and number of court houses that they retain within their jurisdiction. In the event of their making a decision and a proposal for closure, it is for the local paying authority to determine whether it appeals. Only if there is an appeal do central Government become involved. In those circumstances, one of the factors taken into account by the Lord Chancellor in deciding whether to accept the appeal is the importance of local justice. Precisely the points that the hon. Gentleman has made will be taken into account in making that decision.