When he next expects to meet representatives of Scotland's financial services industry to discuss investment. [41250]

When he last met the CBI in Scotland to discuss prospects for investment in Scotland. [41256]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I maintain regular contact with Scotland's financial services industry on a whole range of matters. He last met the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on 30 January when several issues were discussed, including the favourable climate for investment in Scotland.

Is the Minister aware of weekend press reports showing that Edinburgh is slipping down the league table of European financial centres? Does he agree with the chief executive of Scottish Widows that that will be accelerated if the Government keep giving in to nationalist demands?

I do not accept either of the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question. The financial services industry in Edinburgh, and the rest of Scotland, is in very good health, and employment has increased since the downturn of 1994. No doubt that will continue. I also have no doubt that a constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom is no threat to the financial services industry. The Scottish financial industry does a high proportion of its business in other parts of the UK, and it has no wish to see those places turned into a foreign country.

Has the Minister seen the Scottish chambers of commerce report for the first quarter of 1998, which shows a reduction in investment intentions among manufacturers in Scotland? Does he understand that the Government's high pound policy, combined with their intention to allow taxes and costs on business to rise, is causing manufacturing investment—the wealth-creating sector of the Scottish economy—to decline?

Again, the hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed. There is no intention of allowing taxes on business to rise. The chambers of commerce survey shows the rate of growth in Scotland over the past year at its highest level since—again—1994.

As my hon. Friend knows, 510 jobs are being lost in my constituency following Mitsubishi's decision to close its colour television factory at Haddington—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would take issues like this seriously; it is a very serious matter for my constituents.

Mitsubishi's decision was regrettable, but the company had provided employment in Haddington for more than 20 years. The circumstances that led to the announcement related not to the Scottish economy, but to a restructuring of Mitsubishi, which is taking place in several other countries as well as Scotland. We have adopted a task force approach, and that has worked reasonably well so far. According to the latest figures, 35 per cent. of the work force have already found other employment.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to something that has had remarkably little notice in the Scottish media—the funding package for the Forth and Clyde canal? Various bodies had put together a substantial amount, but the project was in danger of collapse until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues intervened to ensure funding that will bring jobs to my area and along the length of the canal.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to draw attention to an important funding decision—one of several that have been taken in recent weeks, which will have long-term beneficial effects on the Scottish economy. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who played a crucial role in ensuring that outcome, when other sources of funding did not prove as successful as we had hoped. We did the right thing by the project and by the Scottish economy. All that will be good news in the future for jobs and the economic dynamism that will flow from the canal project.

Given the importance to the Scottish economy of exporting, and especially exporting to Europe, is the Minister aware that some Scottish companies must reduce their prices by 20 to 25 per cent. in overseas markets to remain competitive? How does he see profit being generated to fund future investment in Scotland, including important investment in training and in research and development?

I am aware of the difficulties that some exporters are facing, and I am aware of the excellent efforts of Scottish exporters to deal with that problem. They are finding it necessary to trim their costs and to compete even more effectively. Despite that, Scottish export records are extremely good and we are continuing to encourage new exporters. The Scottish export campaign that I launched recently aims at getting 500 more companies exporting by the turn of the decade. I have no doubt that we can do that. We must diversify, encourage existing exporters and help far more Scottish companies to overcome the psychological barriers that dissuade them from becoming exporters.

Scotland has ambitions to be a world-class competitor in targeted industrial sectors. At the same time, Locate in Scotland has targeted certain industrial sectors for foreign direct investment. What assurance can my hon. Friend give me that those are not the same sectors, and that taxpayers are not being asked to pay out money to attract foreign investment into our country, at the expense of crowding out indigenous companies that we are trying to make into world-class competitors?

I have repeatedly invited examples of indigenous companies being crowded out by the allocation of money and support—on exactly the same terms, incidentally—to inward investors. I want more Scottish companies to grow and invest, as well as a healthy inward investment sector. We owe the wonderful success of winning the Cadence and Project Alba for Scotland to the fact that we already have a strong electronics base in Scotland.

What assurances did the Government give the Scottish financial services sector about the consequences of devolution? Have not the sector's fears been vindicated by the fact that the Scottish National party has overtaken the Labour party in the opinion polls? Now that both of the Government's former referendum partners are actively campaigning for a referendum on the full independence of Scotland, what assurances can the Minister give the financial services sector?

It would be an extremely odd financial services company in the shrewd business community of Edinburgh that formulated its policies and actions on the basis of an opinion poll. Perhaps the Tories think that that is how financial services companies conduct their affairs, but I doubt very much whether it is.

Given that some Scottish financial institutions have already located part of their operations in Dublin, does the Minister agree that that is partly because the Irish Parliament has passed some 40 pieces of pro-business legislation over recent years? Does he agree that it would be a good thing if the Scottish Parliament had similar powers?

I imagine that some companies also have business in Ireland, so it is natural that they would locate some of their operations there. I can only point to what the Government have done in terms of corporation tax. The financial services industry is very happy with the Government's performance. The hon. Gentleman conspicuously fails to address the fact that the majority of business for the Scottish financial services industry is in England. I do not think—and I imagine that the hon. Gentleman agrees—that they would want to see the rest of the United Kingdom become a foreign country, as he proposes.

If he will make a statement on hospital waiting lists in the Highland health board area. [41252]

Highland health board's waiting list at 31 March 1998 was 3,616. More than 80 per cent. of people on the list in Highland are seen within three months.

I thank the Minister for that reply and acknowledge the welcome progress that has been made in most areas both in meeting the agreed patient targets that were set between the Scottish Office and the health board and in reducing waiting times. Nevertheless, I draw the Minister's attention to two areas that are causing concern: the waiting time for gynaecology appointments and for orthopaedic out-patient appointments. In both cases, the numbers are falling significantly short of the agreed targets. The Minister has been very helpful regarding the issue of surgical services on Skye and their future provision. Given that the health board is meeting to discuss that matter today, will he—like me—urge it to bear in mind those more disappointing statistics when it comes to deciding on the correct nature and level of future provision for Skye?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was a surgeon at the hospital on Skye and I had a most splendid time on the island. [Interruption] Thank you very much indeed. The Highland health board is trying to integrate the service in Inverness with that in Skye and to open up the service and expand the range of facilities on Skye. I heartily recommend that, as it will have the added benefit of reducing waiting lists and waiting times in the area. We have allocated £44.5 million to tackling the problems that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. He has my assurance that waiting lists and waiting times will come down in the very near future.

Regarding hospital waiting lists, will the Minister make a statement about how Government policy is affecting hospital provision in the north of Scotland?

That question is very wide and I think that Madam Speaker would be upset if I took too much time to answer it.

I certainly would.

I shall highlight only one area. Aberdeen is to have a new children's hospital. That has come about because Government policy has led to co-operation between the trusts. If it were not for a Labour Government, that hospital would never have been built.

Given the Government's failure to meet the targets referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who raised this question, given Labour's pledge at the general election that they would cut NHS waiting lists not in the longer term but as a first step, and given that waiting lists in Scotland have increased by 5,000 overall, rather than being disappointed—as he expressed himself to be—is the Minister now ashamed?

I do not think that I need to take any lessons about waiting lists or waiting times from the right hon. Gentleman. Under his Government, waiting lists rose month by month and year by year. We shall reverse that trend. In Scotland, we have allocated £44.5 million to tackling that problem. The right hon. Gentleman should be a bit careful about what he says because, when waiting lists are lower than the level that we inherited from the previous Government, I will expect him to come to the Dispatch Box and congratulate us heartily.

I do not want to give the Minister a lesson in what direction is up and what is down, but the current figures do not seem to match the pledge given at the election. Can the Minister tell the House why the pledge to cut hospital waiting lists was strangely absent from a recent consultative survey issued by the Labour party asking people how they thought that the Government were performing in relation to their pledges? As that has disappeared, does the hon. Gentleman not think that he should do the honourable thing and go, too?

I am a bit surprised by the right hon. Gentleman: I thought that he was a bigger politician and would not use such cheap jibes. We have put £44.5 million into waiting lists. We shall get them down until they are lower than the level that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

If he will make a statement on the level of business confidence in the manufacturing sector in Scotland. [41253]

I have frequent discussions with many manufacturing firms across Scotland. Underlying business confidence remains strong.

Does the Minister agree that the problems experienced by Mitsubishi and by Lite-on reinforce the need for Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland to retain their autonomy and not to be subject to empire building by the Department of Trade and Industry, which would run counter to the devolution policy for which we are both such enthusiasts?

I am astonished to hear such sound common sense from the hon. Gentleman. It is important for Scottish Enterprise and Locate in Scotland to maintain their ability to work so effectively for Scotland. There will be setbacks with inward investment, just as there are setbacks with indigenous companies, but there is a lot more good news than bad, and that will continue.

Does the Minister agree that, under the previous Government, Locate in Scotland's record of attracting manufacturing jobs to the city of Glasgow was dreadful, probably directly as a result of the anti-Glasgow bias of Tory Ministers in the Scottish Office? Will he give an assurance that he will make every effort to attract manufacturers to locate and expand in Glasgow and that the previous policy will be reversed?

I have no knowledge of such a policy having existed. Locate in Scotland does extremely well in bringing companies to Scotland, but the location that a company prefers is very much a matter for the company, so I shall not go down that road. I can speak only for the past year: Locate in Scotland and the Government have done extremely well in bringing extra jobs into Glasgow through inward investment. I intend that to continue and I assure my hon. Friend that there is more good news on the way.

How can any hon. Member or anyone outside the House accept the Minister's assurances on manufacturing when it is technically in recession, inflation is at a six-year high, class sizes are going up, waiting lists are going up and the Scottish nationalists are on the march—all as a result of this incompetent Administration?

I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the doom-laden world in which he lives. I assure him that if he comes up to Scotland he will find that quite a lot of things are going very well.

How many responses he has received to his consultation document in relation to land reform in Scotland. [41254]

So far, more than 300 written replies have been received from individuals and organisations right across the country.

Has the Secretary of State read the Shelter report on land reform and the housing crisis in rural Scotland? Does he agree that current forms of land ownership block access to and provision of badly needed housing in Scotland's rural areas? What steps is he taking to make available land and homes for Scotland's rural communities?

I accept that there is a problem and I am aware of the points that have been fairly put by Shelter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is going on and a land reform working party is in place and operating. We want the problem to be one of the aspects of the review that is taken on board. I accept that there is work to be done.

What steps he is taking to ensure the continuance of child care provision, following the withdrawal of urban aid funding. [41255]

As part of our strategy for child care for the financial year 1998–99, we will be making almost £4 million extra available to local authorities to develop and encourage child care in their areas. That could be used, among other purposes, to provide funding for child care projects previously funded through the urban programme.

Today, high-quality child care provision, right across the country, has been announced. Does my hon. Friend agree that what rural areas have not received in the past will come through the actions of the Government? Under the previous Administration, rural areas were sadly neglected.

I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Today, we launched our child care strategy which is designed to ensure that affordable, accessible, high-quality care is available for those who need it—right across society.

Will the Minister consider bringing more Departments together to approach such subjects? This country seems to have the fault of isolating individual problems. If we brought together the health service, housing, education, recreation, social work and voluntary bodies, we could deal better with problems than we can by isolating them and having a little fund here and a bigger fund there.

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the Green Paper and the child care strategy document because that is exactly what is being done? Why does he think that I am the Minister with responsibility for children? It is because I am able to co-ordinate all Departments. Other parties talk about altering government, but we have produced joined-up government to produce joined-up solutions that result in benefits for the whole of society.

What discussions have taken place between the Lord Advocate's office and the US State Department relating to (a) evidence for the Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing and (b) the reliability of witnesses' memories of the event. [41257]

It is not appropriate to disclose details of discussions between the office of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and United States officials.

Why not? At what level are they having discussions with the Americans?

In my first response I made it quite clear that we cannot disclose details. The Government position remains that those who are accused of acts of terrorism should not be able to dictate the venue or composition of the court before which they are to be tried. Scotland and the United States have exercised jurisdiction in this case, and Libya should now surrender the two accused for trial in either of those countries, as it is required to do under the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

When he last met representatives of political parties to discuss procedures for the Scottish Parliament. [41258]

I met yesterday representatives of the political parties in Scotland at the third meeting of the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament. That group is charged with taking forward consideration of how the Parliament will operate.

I am glad that the Minister has met the political parties as we proceed towards the Scottish Parliament. The Government have stated that they believe in the Union, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about procedures. Is the Minister not concerned that, given the opinion polls in Scotland, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could end up as Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish nationalists could be the largest party and might use the uncertainty of procedures to undermine the whole business of the Union and the Scottish Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman's main question related to the procedures in which we are involved and the relationship with other political parties. The realpolitik in Scotland is that parties are co-operating on a way forward. The consultative steering group is looking at Standing Orders, working methods and procedures. The Scottish people value their Parliament and want it to work for them. The nation does not want the Parliament to work for any political party.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the new Parliament to present a modern, efficient vision of itself in the 21st century? Therefore, can he assure us that there will be no fancy costumes; that in a multi-religious society there will be no prayers; and that modern technology will be used for voting and in many other aspects of the work of that Parliament?

I do not want to pre-empt the work of the consultative steering group. In a sense, the issues that my hon. Friend raises are the ones which we are tackling. There is no point in having differences between Westminster and Holyrood simply for the sake of difference. We are convinced that this will be a modern substantial Parliament with tremendous law-making powers. The people of Scotland will be proud of it, but, more importantly, we have to make sure that it works properly because legislating will be the essence of the new Parliament.

What constitutional and legislative safeguards are there for the people of Scotland in a one-chamber system?

As part of the work of the consultative steering group, we are keen to explore that issue, because, in terms of constitutional development in the United Kingdom, the Parliament is a significant step. We are looking at the situation that will arise with a single chamber in the new Parliament. I think that a single chamber will work well, but it requires proper built-in safeguards and proper consultation. I take the right hon. Gentleman's question seriously and I can tell him that we have asked the expert panel that is advising the consultative steering group to look at that issue.

What assessment he has made of the advantages of (a) reforming and (b) abolishing the feudal system of land ownership in Scotland. [41259]

The Government favour the earliest possible abolition of feudal tenure in Scotland and have asked the Scottish Law Commission to accelerate its review, which will now be completed by the end of this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Getting rid of this scurrilous system, which is a hangover of the feudal relationships that once bedevilled Scotland, is long overdue. He will be aware of the campaign that is run by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), but is he also aware of the campaign that is run by the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 for people in my constituency and others, who have bought their houses in retirement and have a feudal superior who is abusing the right to charge them extortionate prices for repairs and other landlord-based provision? Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that his revision will deal with that type of scurrilous landlord for ever?

I should like to tackle that problem ahead of the Scottish Law Commission final report. As a result of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raising this issue in the House, the commission was asked to make a report on the specific problem of leasehold casualties. That report was published on 30 April and we are looking urgently at its recommendations and at the possibility of legislation at the earliest possible date.

Among the various options being looked at by the Government for land reform, will the Minister specifically look at the prospect of introducing a way of freezing controversial land purchases such as Knoydart to allow full investigations into the circumstances before the purchases are finalised?

The circumstances around the Knoydart sales certainly raise questions that cause concern to everyone who has the interest of the community at heart. That is exactly why we set up the policy group—to try to find solutions to exactly that sort of situation.

In his reform, will the Minister ensure that there is a time limit beyond which people cannot go back to revived redundant titles, so that we can avoid people being pressured and indeed ripped off by clever, legally qualified people who have made no contribution to wealth creation, but have robbed people who thought that they had clear title?

That is also being looked at as part of the Scottish Law Commission's report. These situations create severe injustices, and the main point of the report is to try to find solutions to that problem.

If he will make a statement on the employment of special advisers in his Department. [41260]

All special advisers are employed under the terms and conditions that are set out in the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for that rather bland statement. Would he care to indicate how many special advisers he has and how he envisages that the role of special advisers will develop when there is a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh? Will it, because it is an inclusive system, not require the use of political advisers at all?

It is difficult to envisage a situation in which Ministers, whether they be in this Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament, will not require advice and help in formulating policy. That is the role of special advisers. That is certainly what is done by the three special advisers whom I have in my Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three?"] These cries of astonishment suggest, if they are genuine, that Conservative Members are far off the pace. Those people advise me and they do it very well.

Has the Secretary of State considered appointing a personal grooming adviser and, if so, would he make that adviser's services available to all members of the Scottish parliamentary Labour party?

I do not believe, because I have great faith in my hon. Friend, that there is in that question any implication of criticism of my standards, although I confess that my other good and honourable friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), once confided to me that he thought that, apart from him, I was the worst dressed Member of the House of Commons, but, of course, since I have become a Minister, it is all different.

When he last met the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Scottish Enterprise to discuss developments in the Scottish economy. [41261]

My right hon. Friend last met the CBI Scotland on 30 January, the STUC at its annual congress, on 20 April, and the chairman of Scottish Enterprise on 15 April.

Why did the Minister find himself quoted in the BBC as attacking the Scottish National party for criticising Locate in Scotland about the inward investment setbacks in Scotland over the past few weeks? Can he produce any statement made by the SNP criticising Locate in Scotland? If not, was he misquoted on the BBC, or was he only running at the mouth? Does he understand that it is not Locate in Scotland that we do not think is up to the job, but the Industry Minister?

Whenever the people of Scotland might be deluded into thinking that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is filling the role of statesman, he falls back into his normal behaviour. If he thinks that name calling is a substitute for policy, he has a personal problem, with which he will have to deal. Instead of asking me such questions, he should speak to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), who is sitting next to him, who will tell him that, on the night of the Lite-On announcement, he called on television for a review of inward investment policy—end of story. However, if the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would like the video, I am sure I can help him.

May I welcome the fact that we have the first Government ever in the history of the United Kingdom to consider child care as an essential part not only of economic policy but of equal opportunities and children's policy? Will not today's first-ever national child care strategy lead both to more jobs in child care and to opportunities for parents to enter the wider labour market?

I not only endorse my hon. Friend's comments but pay tribute to the considerable part that he personally played in the origination of that strategy. He is absolutely right that, if people are to be liberated to work, and especially if women are to be liberated to fulfil their potential in education and in the jobs market, it is essential that child care is available. Child care must be integrated with the needs of the individual and be properly resourced, and the Government are doing all of that. Ultimately, the people of Scotland are interested in child care, education, health and housing. It is those great issues on which they vote—not on the juvenile nonsense that we heard a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.

Does the Minister acknowledge the contribution made to the Scottish economy by the textile sector? When he next meets the STUC, the CBI and Scottish Enterprise, will he undertake to raise with them the issue of creating a strategy for future stabilisation of the textile industry? Will he include in those talks representatives from some of the bigger companies, such as Dawson International? Will he meet those representatives to try to stabilise our current manufacturing capacity, and to help some of the communities built around the textile industry to diversify for the future?

I fully endorse those comments, as there are difficulties in the textile industry. I should like first to apologise directly to the hon. Gentleman for having to cancel a return visit to the borders, which has been rescheduled for early June. However, as I said, I endorse all his comments and realise the very specific problems that the borders area is currently experiencing. I also agree that we must together take action to try to deal with those problems. There are various employment problems both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in other border areas, and together we will have to take action to build better prospects.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, last week, the last shoe manufacturer in Scotland, Clansman Shoes of Kilmarnock, announced short-time working for its 128 skilled workers. The principal reason for the announcement was that the firm's main customer, Hush Puppy (UK) has sought to source its shoes from India. The announcement was made against a background of increasing uncertainty about manufacturing jobs in my constituency. Given the Minister's prompt and effective intervention when 380 jobs were lost, when British Aerospace stopped aeroplane manufacturing in Prestwick, will he consider a similar initiative for my constituency?

The task force approach has worked well in Prestwick, as it has in Haddington in response to the major job losses, which we discussed. In the short term, I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the local authority. I recognise that there are concerns in some of the traditional industries in Kilmarnock and east Ayrshire, and we shall certainly consider whether there is more that we can do. Let us take it one step at a time; have a meeting to discuss the problems; and see where we go from there.

If he will list the meetings on the subjects of fishing, agriculture, education and economic development during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU which he or one of his Ministers has chaired. [41262]

The Minister for Education and Industry will represent the United Kingdom at the joint Education and Social Affairs Council on 4 June. The Minister responsible for health, the arts and children will chair a health conciliation meeting with the European Parliament on 27 May. I have represented the UK presidency in bilateral meetings on the European spatial development perspective with eight member states. In addition, the Secretary of State will represent the UK on 9 June in the regional policy discussions at the informal ministerial meeting in Glasgow.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he believe that that is satisfactory representation of Scotland's distinctive interests in those policy areas? What are his expectations about the incidence of Scottish Ministers representing the Scottish Parliament in such forums after the passage of the Scotland Bill?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is involved in chairing such meetings as part of the UK presidency. The chair is not supposed to advance national interests as such, but, rather, to look after the interests of all member states at the meeting. I expect that arrangements will continue satisfactorily after devolution, just as they do at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Fishermens Federation has expressed strong concern that Scotland will lose its independent voice in Europe after devolution? Is it not a matter of regret that, after devolution, Scottish Ministers will attend European bodies only by invitation, and not by right as they do at the moment?

Attendance will be on the same basis as at present, which is by mutual agreement between different Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the federation recently, and they had a very constructive discussion on just that point.

When he expects the NHS acute services review to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [41263]

The acute services review will be completed on time, at the end of May. The report will be published some time in June and will be made widely available.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he comment on whether Sir David Carter has looked at the future of the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh? Will he give a specific assurance that, contrary to recent rumours, the eye pavilion's services, which are respected throughout the world and serve a wide range of people in the borders, Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, will not be dispersed and that the site will not be sold simply to reap maximum development value for somebody else?

I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the acute services review is not about specific details for each health board. It is a template and the basis for principles on which acute services are organised, in order to ensure that, no matter where one enters the system, one gets the best possible care. Although the eye pavilion is a matter for Lothian health board, I assure the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in the health service is a decision made simply to make money from development. All decisions are made in the best interests of the patients whom we all look after.

What plans he has to encourage greater community participation in local government. [41264]

The Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament is looking radically at how councils can best make themselves responsive and accountable to the communities that they serve.

May I draw to the Minister's attention to South Ayrshire council's new initiative in which more than 1,000 local residents regularly give feedback on council policy? From that, a citizens jury has been set up, which looks in depth at council and local issues. We are currently considering the issue of drinking in public places. Does the Minister agree that the initiative is excellent and should be encouraged in a modern democracy?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. South Ayrshire council is conducting an exciting experiment, to which other councils could look. I hope that the independent commission will take the initiative into account as it completes its deliberations and takes evidence from councils.

In encouraging greater participation in local government, does the Minister have any plans to introduce gender balance in the selection of candidates? If so, is he aware that the vast majority of people consider such an artificial exercise to be purely in the interests of public relations and to be of no benefit whatever to the Scottish people?

It is for political parties to decide on gender balance. I notice that the Conservatives have managed to achieve a gender balance in their representation of zero.

What proportion of local government spending in Scotland is raised by council tax; and what plans he has to change this proportion. [41265]

Just over 20 per cent. of local authority net expenditure in Scotland is funded by the council tax. There are no plans to alter that proportion at present.

Surely Government policy is to extend the amount being collected locally compared to the amount provided by the national Exchequer. The English borders are subject to that policy, but Scotland is not. There is already an enormous inequality between the amount given by the central Exchequer to local authorities in Scotland and the amount given to those in England and Wales. As a result of devolution, must we not re-examine the Barnett formula and come up with a fair distribution of central funds to local funds, because, otherwise, the United Kingdom will come under enormous pressure?

The Conservative Government were happy to sustain and support the Barnett formula. It is odd that Conservative Members should stand on their heads and try to attack it now that they are in opposition. We will consult in the summer on proposals to return some local control over the business rate, but, if that is implemented, there will be strong safeguards to protect the interests of local businesses.

What proposals he has to increase financial support for law centres. [41279]

To deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to create a community legal service, we are seeking to refocus legal aid on social welfare issues. We expect law centres to benefit from that if they are franchised and able to win contracts.

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that law centres are valuable and are the best way of providing good, cost-effective and efficient legal advice for the mass of ordinary people who are being priced out of paying for legal services by escalating costs. As we agree that law centres are to become the kernel of the community legal service that we are committed to providing, is it not necessary now to provide them with more money to expand their number from the present 50 or so towards the 250 envisaged at the end of the war, and to extend the range of legal services that they can provide to fill the gaps in legal aid?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I agree that we should like more money to be made available to law centres, but clearly a prerequisite is that we control the costs of legal aid. We already provide grants to nine law centres and £1.7 million under the green form scheme. If we are to release resources to be made available to law centres, it is important that we are able to control the costs of the traditional legal aid scheme.

What will be gained by making more legal services available to the general public when the need to travel—for example, in Shropshire, where it is proposed to close the court in Shrewsbury—makes access impossible for ordinary people?

No decisions have yet been taken about the court in Shrewsbury. It is important that there should be a balance between the availability of courts and expense. Courts are expensive capital assets which the Government have to maintain. In supporting courts and making sure that as many people as possible have access to them, we have to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. That balance must be struck.

Although law centres are a key element in improving access to justice, many other advice services such as citizens advice bureaux, housing advice centres, welfare rights centres and debt counselling are funded and co-ordinated by local authorities. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the shaping of the future of the community legal service, local government plays a key role in ensuring that services are accessible and relevant to local people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. Clearly it is crucial that we provide local high-quality legal assistance; indeed, to deliver a community legal service is a manifesto commitment of the Government. We are examining the range of help that may be necessary with issues such as social welfare, benefit advice, debt, housing and employment, and there is a task force in the Lord Chancellor's Department working urgently to develop a range of proposals to enable us to deliver such legal advice where it is most needed, to the most vulnerable people in our society.

How many responses his Department has received to the consultation paper on conditional fee arrangements which were (i) in favour of the Government's proposals and (ii) against them. [41282]

Consultation closed on 30 April 1998, by which time we had received 233 responses. That includes the response from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but not the bundle that he submitted of private correspondence between Opposition Members and various law firms, some of which was written before the consultation paper was published, and some of which was clearly aimed at soliciting unfavourable comments. Analysis of all the responses to our paper is being undertaken and we will consider the results in due course.

Can the Minister assure the House that, despite the clearly party political inference that he put into his answer, when the analysis takes place he will note the significant body of opinion, of which the Opposition are aware from our postbags, that opposes the Government's policy? Having done so, will he change the policy accordingly—or is the consultation exercise just a public relations exercise?

It has been made clear—indeed, I have made it clear myself in a letter to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—that we shall take into account all the representations that we receive. There has been a prolonged consultation period. The Lord Chancellor first suggested the changes that we are considering as long ago as October, and there has been a further consultation paper, a statement in the House and extensive discussion involving Opposition Members on how to take the proposals forward. Only when we have considered all the representations will we reach any decisions.

Mention is made in the consultation paper of the continuation of legal aid for defendants and its withdrawal in business cases. Will the Minister assure the House that legal aid will always be available to defendants such as Mr. Gerald James, formerly chairman of Astra Holdings plc, who had to defend proceedings that were subsequently found to be unsound and collapsed, although he had had to face the might of the state in those circumstances?

Legal aid will continue to cover a range of cases, including family cases, housing cases, judicial review and actions arising from the misdeeds of public authorities, as well as to enable people to defend proceedings. I hope that that list is sufficiently wide to encompass the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving publicity to the work that I have done as Opposition spokesman. From my perusal of the press, it seems that I get a rather better press than either the hon. Gentleman or the Lord Chancellor—which I agree is not difficult. Does the Minister realise that it is now widely accepted that the Lord Chancellor's plans for conditional fees, although long on misdirected ambition, are woefully incoherent? Will he undertake not only personally to read every response to the consultation paper—including the letters from solicitors that I forwarded under the consultation process—but to pay attention to, and act upon, the criticisms contained in those responses?

I am delighted to discover that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so pleased with his own publicity.

What action he has recently undertaken to make transparent levels of charges for legal aid work. [41283]

The level of charges is published annually in regulations and in the legal aid handbook.

Was it not misleading and totally unrealistic for the Lord Chancellor to say in an article in The Independent on 18 February that legal aid assistance should be focused on cases either involving novel and significant points of law or with wider implications? As the Lord Chancellor is cutting legal aid across the board, would that not mean that individuals involved in normal cases would pay even more and receive even less?

The reference was to ensuring that legal aid was available in cases in which there were novel or significant points of law. Central to the proposed reforms is the belief that everyone should have access to a lawyer and that scarce taxpayers' money should be concentrated on cases in which it can do most good. It is right and proper that the availability of legal aid should be restricted in that wide range of money-related cases where, we believe, conditional fees are an adequate way in which to provide people with representation. Scarce taxpayers' funds should be concentrated on the cases in which they are justified, such as those involving novel and significant points of law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between the vast majority of solicitors engaged in legal aid work, who make a valuable and often unrecognised contribution and receive modest incomes, and the tiny proportion of people engaged in such work who can claim fees of up to £750,000 a year at taxpayers' expense? Will he join me in commending the contribution of that vast majority, and will he assure the House that, under the reforms, individuals will no longer be able to extract such exorbitant funds from the public purse?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I entirely agree that the great majority of lawyers working through the legal aid system provide a valuable and consistent source of advice and representation—I am the first to pay tribute to that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the fact that as much as £750,000 of taxpayers' money can be paid into the pocket of one lawyer in one year is a matter of concern. It is absolutely right that the Government should publish such figures, as, indeed, our predecessors did.

What estimate his Department has made of the impact on the legal aid budget of compulsory (a) medical insurance and (b) personal injury insurance; and if he will make a statement. [41287]

Although the Government are keen to see an expansion of legal expenses insurance generally, the Lord Chancellor's Department has not made any estimate of the impact of compulsory insurance on the legal aid budget, because that is not a realistic prospect. The Government prefer to modernise the civil justice system to make it quicker, cheaper and simpler—we want to encourage the development of voluntary insurance, wider access to membership schemes such as those provided by trade unions and other organisations, and increased availability and use of conditional fee agreements.

In considering the legal aid system in general, will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the fact that, every day, people bring cases against health authorities throughout the country? Some of those cases are legally aided and others are not, but they all involve a huge amount of public money. People want a simple way in which fault can be recognised when the health service gets something wrong. Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that people's ability to enforce their rights when things go wrong in the health service is streamlined and made far less traumatic?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Health have been engaged in discussions along those lines. In the most recent consultation document, we stressed the importance of channelling legal aid funds to those who specialise in medical negligence cases. Lawyers who deal daily with such issues do a far better job not only for the individual plaintiff but, crucially, in providing a proper and effective service to society.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strange irony in the fact that the Labour Government adopted Tory spending plans and introduced the possibility of cutting legal aid, but are now being condemned for it by Tory Members? Is there not a moral here—that it is time we stopped using Tory spending plans?

I had considerable experience of disagreeing with my hon. Friend in the days when I had the privilege to represent him in the European Parliament. The important point is that the Government do not intend to cut legal aid. Our ambition is to refocus it and save money on traditional legal aid, to ensure that we can help the most vulnerable in our society, many of whom live in Bolsover.

When will the Legal Aid Board become subject to the late payment legislation that is currently before the House?

We are considering that.