How many applications were made to Scottish universities for undergraduate courses starting in the 1998–99 academic year by students whose principal residence is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; and how many such applications were made for courses starting in the 1997–98 year. [45570]

According to recently released figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the number of applicants to Scottish higher education institutions from the rest of the UK in 1998 was 33,081 by 16 May 1998; that compares with 34,527 on the same date in 1997.

As the figures suggest, there has been a significant fall in the number of applicants from the rest of the United Kingdom—and, of course, they have not yet taken up their places. Is it not time that the Government acknowledged the unfairness of the extra year's £1,000 tuition fee being charged to students from the rest of the UK? Do the Government recognise that they are driving a wedge between Scottish students and those from other parts of the country and, in doing so, yet again playing into the hands of the independence movement that they claim to oppose?

From the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, who composed—or received —that question, I imagine that the fall I have reported is disappointingly small. I wonder how he squares his thesis with the fact that the reduction in applications from Scotland to the rest of the UK is greater than the reduction in applications from the rest of the UK into Scotland. The reduction obviously has nothing to do with tuition fees; applications have held up extremely well. If we take account of the fact that there has been a substantial increase in admissions to Scottish universities in the current academic year, there has been no drop-off at all in applications to university from any part of the UK.

Is the Minister aware that in a speech yesterday Lord Dearing indicated great concern about the public funding of universities and warned of overcrowded classes, declining standards and soaring student failure and drop-out rates? Will the Minister take this opportunity to give an unequivocal undertaking that any sums raised from the payment of fees will be ring-fenced and put right back into higher education?

With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must explain his position as well. We can say exactly where additional money will come from for universities and for further education because we have had the courage to take decisions about funding. The Liberal Democrats, nationalists and Tories have resisted those difficult decisions in terms of their own policies. I can say with confidence that, as a result of our changes— based on the Dearing recommendations—substantial additional money will go to higher education.

Does my hon. Friend agree that university education was regressive and did not help to increase participation by young people from working-class families? Does not the new system still take account of three quarters of the cost of tuition? Is not it much fairer, in the sense that the individual and society benefit, while sharing the cost?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, there is 11 per cent. entry into higher education in Scotland from the two lower socio-economic groups, whereas there is more than 80 per cent. entry from the two highest socio-economic groups. That is the status quo which all Opposition parties appear anxious to defend. On the contrary, we have said that on all grounds access must be extended. That is why people from households with below average earnings will pay absolutely nothing in tuition fees and why we have abolished fees for part-time students from lower income backgrounds in Scotland. All those measures are aimed at widening access, and there is nothing in the proposals to limit higher education access for people from less well-off backgrounds—quite the contrary, and potential students, whose life prospects depend on decisions taken now, understand that. That is why applications have held up so well, in spite of the efforts of some Opposition Members.

I am sure that the Minister will shortly receive the cool Britannia medal from the Prime Minister for the calm way in which he responds to his figures. Will he give the House a firm assurance that he will at no time during this Parliament increase the tuition fee in Scotland?

I welcome the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to the Dispatch Box; I am sure that he will join me in wishing Scotland well tonight. Opposition Members must live with the basic fact that, despite the changes in student funding, applications for higher education in Scotland have held up extremely well. The systems of higher education in Scotland and in England are different—school qualifications are different and university degree courses are different—and cannot be matched perfectly. Addressing that anomaly would create a much greater anomaly for people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example.

What representations he has received about the level of road deaths in Scotland. [45571]

I am aware that the number of road accident casualties is a matter of great concern to a great many people. The Government share that concern and are committed to bringing about further reductions in the toll of people killed and injured on our roads.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the recent investigation by the statistical office of the European Commission shows that 118 people per million are killed on roads in the highlands and islands—the highest proportion in Scotland? The Automobile Association argues that one factor is the number of single-track roads. Will he undertake to end the folly of single-track trunk roads in Scotland and to aid road safety in the highlands and islands?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the recent statistics, but there is no one simple reason for the problems in the highlands. To put the figures in perspective, every day in Scotland 62 people are injured, 11 people are seriously injured, one person dies and there are 22 proven drink-driving charges and 250 speeding offences. We live in a dangerous situation, where people act irresponsibly. I should like to think that we will be taking further steps not only in the highlands, but across Scotland, to tackle this evil on our roads.

What comparison has the Minister made between the Scottish and English statistics, and what reason does he give for the discrepancy?

I have made no comparison with the English statistics.

Will the Minister confirm that the current roads review will take cognisance of safety issues and not be purely Treasury driven? There are still too many accident black spots in my constituency—as he will see when he visits it later this year—and in others that have gone unremedied for far too long.

The trunk roads review is based on a number of criteria, of which, of course, efficiency, the environment, the economy and safety are very important. I have met, in London and in Edinburgh, many hon. Members from both sides of the House to discuss their concerns, and I have committed myself to an exhaustive programme of visits in August to ensure that I receive the information at first hand. We are determined to make roads safer and to get over to drivers the message that they can kill. The bigger message is: do not drink and drive; do not speed; and be careful in a motor car around children.

My hon. Friend may be aware that a soldier is seriously ill in hospital following the most recent collision on the single carriageway Al trunk road in south-east Scotland. Will he acknowledge the need for safe and efficient communications between Scotland and England? As the Government are in favour of strong communications between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, will he please press ahead with the dualling of the A I trunk road?

I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend was one of the Members of Parliament whom we visited to discuss, as part of the roads review, the problems of the A I . We shall issue criteria for the review soon and I shall have the final report at the end of the year. We intend to ensure that safety is the greatest consideration, not only on the A1, but on every trunk road in Scotland. That will, of course, apply equally to the cross-border flows.

Why did the Minister duck the question from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) about single-track roads in the highlands? Is he not aware that literally thousands of miles of such roads, through the most beautiful parts of Scotland, draw in visitors who are used to driving on the right and that the statistics about accidents, including deaths, in the highlands are disturbing? Have the Government no policy to deal with such roads in the highlands?

My response was not intended as a ducking of the central issue. In the past few years, a number of measures have been taken to improve road safety in the highlands and islands, such as improvements on the A82 between Tarbert and Inverness, and signing, lining and anti-skid surfacing. For foreign drivers, especially during the summer season, who have difficulty moving from dual to single carriageways, we are trying not only signposting but are having multilingual leaflets printed. We appreciate the problem and are trying to ease the plight of foreign tourists to the highlands and islands. The right hon. Gentleman can be reassured that everything that can be done is being done to improve road safety.

What level of support the Scottish Enterprise network is giving to indigenous companies, with particular reference to small and medium businesses. [45572]

Scottish Enterprise's budget for 1997–98 amounted to £466 million and supported programmes predominantly aimed at assisting indigenous small and medium enterprises. Scottish Enterprise resources devoted to foreign direct investment during the same period amounted to £40.2 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the recent initiative to support and set targets for the survival of small businesses. My recent experience of campaigning for whisky jobs in my constituency has led me to the conclusion that the best results are obtained when the local enterprise companies work in partnership with the local authority, the local work force and the private sector. Will my hon. Friend consider putting in place, or encouraging, mechanisms to ensure the delivery of that initiative through local partnerships?

My hon. Friend is right: partnership is the way forward in each area on all aspects of economic development. Our strategy directions to Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the network are to work closely with local authorities and other partners to get a coherent approach in every area. As my hon. Friend says, we have increased the target for new business start-ups in Scotland to 10,000 a year, which is building on the existing strategy for the development of small and medium enterprises. We think that that is achievable and partnership is the way forward.

The Minister likes to appear to be the friend of small businesses, as he has just said. How can he possibly expect us or the people of Scotland to believe that he wants to defend small businesses when he and his colleagues continue to defend the irregular practices of direct labour organisations that provide unfair competition to small businesses in their area, and Ministers refuse to take action against them?

As a former small business man, I do not expect the hon. Lady to accept anything I say. However, I draw a distinction between that and expecting the people of Scotland to accept what I say.

The Minister will be aware of today's announcement of 250 job losses at Volvo bus in Irvine. He may not be aware that, last week, 40 redundancies were announced at Phoenix Cables and that, next week, there may be 600 job losses at Digital in Irvine. Can he give us some indication of what should be done in the Irvine area? Does he remember that when the previous Administration wound up the development corporation, I predicted that, rather than attention being focused on job attraction, such events would become the norm?

The Volvo decision does not take effect until 2000 and involves an international restructuring. The initial loss of jobs will be in Germany and in Austria. I hope that measures can be put in place before then and that market conditions will be such that the job losses may not happen in Irvine in 2000, although there are difficulties there.

What representations he has received on the conduct of East Ayrshire local authority. [45573]

May I first apologise for the absence of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who would normally have answered this question? He has been dispatched—very willingly —to France to represent the Government at the Morocco game. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating Craig Brown and the team on their achievements so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] I think those shouts were a little more hearty on our side than on the other. There is something of an air of disappointment on the Opposition Benches this afternoon—with which, of course, I sympathise. The Scottish team has done well and we are proud of it. Our thoughts are with it as we look forward to what we hope will be a famous victory.

We, too, would like to congratulate the Scottish team and wish it well for tonight's match. However, we wish that Labour local government in Scotland could perform as well and as effectively. The situation in East Ayrshire is testimony to the fact that sleaze is rife in Labour local government in Scotland. When will the Secretary of State maintain the Prime Minister's dictum that for members of the Labour party it should be one strike and then out? When will he tackle the problems of local government in Scotland? When will he set up a proper public inquiry to deal with gross misuse of public money?

I take the situation in East Ayrshire very seriously, but I must caution the hon. Lady against jumping to conclusions. Sleaze is an unfortunate choice of word. On the face of it, there has clearly been a total collapse of financial control and management control.

Only that?

Yes. Sleaze suggests dishonesty and personal corruption. If I were to accuse the hon. Lady—I stress that I do not—of sleaze, the authorities of the House would take a poor view. Perhaps she should consider waiting until she knows all the facts before she makes a rather pejorative judgment.

I welcome the Secretary of State's swift and decisive action on the current problems. It is vital to the future of local government in Scotland, as will be the deliberations of the McIntosh commission, which is currently consulting on relations between local government and the Scottish Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take no lessons from the Tories about local government in Scotland? They spent 18 years trying to undermine and destroy it, culminating in their disastrous local government reorganisation, which was executed purely for party political reasons.

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. The important thing is to get the matter put right. If there is one thought that should unite the House it is that properly funded and organised, effective local government is an important part of our democratic structure. I suspect that Tory Members are a little more confident on this matter because they do not control one council in Scotland. That gives them a gung-ho approach. I hope that they will take the matter seriously and support the effective actions that we are taking. In case they become too complacent, the word Westminster should be at least whispered.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that for value for money, efficiency and high-quality services, the top three mainland authorities are all Scottish National party controlled? Should he not recommend them as models of best practice to the inefficient, poorly run Labour authorities that have brought the whole Scottish local government system into disrepute?

I take efficiency very seriously. The best defence for local government is efficient local government and effective delivery of local services. I looked with interest at the table to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I noticed that the important characteristic was not which political party was in control but the catchment area and make-up of authorities. Smaller, rural authorities tended to do well. To use one illustration, I think that there are about 10,000 public sector houses in Angus; in Glasgow, there are 100,000. A different scale and range of services have to be provided. I am becoming ungracious in my old age, but before the hon. Gentleman takes off to polish his halo I should tell him that Perth and Kinross direct maintenance department is running a deficit for the second year running—this year, it is £650,000.

Events in East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire and the Grampian police fraud squad investigation into Moray council concern all hon. Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his prompt response to many of those concerns. In the longer term, what thought has he given to changing the structure of local government in Scotland to bring about the direct election of mayors or provosts? If it is good enough for London, it is good enough for the towns and cities of Scotland. The big advantage that they would have over London is that Jeffrey Archer would never be a candidate.

That is a vision of danger which I never share with my hon. Friend, but I shall think about it seriously tonight. He makes an important and fair point. Anyone looking around local government will agree that there is an atmosphere of change. Many people in local government are thinking about such problems. The McIntosh commission is in session, and on its agenda will be electoral voting systems, the possibility of electing leadership of the sort mentioned and the introduction of a cabinet system. There are many ways to change the internal dynamics of local government. I look forward to the report of the McIntosh commission and taking forward an agenda for change that will benefit local government and reassure those who rely on its services.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no council tax payer in East Ayrshire or North Lanarkshire will pay any extra money this year or next as a direct result of the wrongdoings of his councillors?

I cannot give such a simplistic assurance. If I did, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to question its practicality or propriety. We will consider the situation. We are waiting for the report of the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Today, we will receive the replies to the statutory request from the councils, which we must consider. It would be foolhardy and misleading for me to say that there will not be problems in meeting the gap that has appeared in the finances of the departments concerned. There are a number of ways and time scales over which that can be done.

It is clear from the Secretary of State's response that he is unwilling or unable to protect taxpayers from the malpractice or incompetence of Labour councillors. He is unable to protect Labour Members from deselection by members of the Blairite tendency and, indeed, unable to protect himself from the whispering campaign against him in his party in Scotland. As the senior Labour figure in Scotland, what responsibility does he take for that shambles?

I believe in political accountability, and I am taking energetic action on that matter. I would be prepared to have a serious discussion with the hon. Gentleman about that, but, judging by the irrelevancies, that he dragged into his previous remarks, he is not interested in serious political debate.

I am delighted to say that my wife is on the list of candidates—and no way is she a Blairite.

That will clearly be an interesting debate. We want the McIntosh commission to have time to do its job properly. I do not rule out the possibility of an early report, perhaps on a limited number of issues, but legislation may be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which fast approaches.

How many times he has met the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1998 to discuss energy policy. [45574]

Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chief executive of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to discuss nuclear issues.

We have learnt that in March the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority had already recommended closing Dounreay. That was at about the time the Prime Minister agreed to accept a further nuclear shipment from Georgia. Was the Prime Minister informed of that UKAEA recommendation and, if so, why did he not tell the full story to the House? If he was not informed, who at the Scottish Office was responsible for the failure to inform him? If that failure was the fault of the Scottish Office, is that not another reason why the Secretary of State's reputation is fast approaching critical nuclear meltdown?

If I knew who the hon. Gentleman was, I would be able to reassure him personally that the Secretary of State's reputation across the political spectrum in Scotland is extremely good, and it is based on integrity over many years in public life. The decision to accept the Georgian shipment was based entirely on our international commitments and it would have been a dereliction of duty not to accept that small cargo when we had the capacity to do so. I am proud of the fact that we in this country are willing to accept our international obligations—and we shall continue to do so.

My hon. Friend will remember the BBC programme "Frontline Scotland" that exposed last year the existence of the waste shaft at Dounreay and nuclear hot spots on the beach there. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the Dounreay site is safer?

We are doing a great deal. My hon. Friend mentioned the waste shaft. The problems associated with it did not arise after 1 May last year; they developed over many years —and Conservative Members have the brass neck even to raise this issue. The previous Administration completely ignored the problems, presumably in the hope that they would go away or not be noticed. This Government came to power, recognised the problems at Dounreay and acted on the waste shaft, just as we acted on other issues that arose at Dounreay over a long period.

The Minister will be newly aware of the fact that 75 kg of weapons grade plutonium will shortly be on its way to Dounreay. Will he now advise us how many other commercial reprocessing contracts are outstanding for Dounreay?

It is the usual stuff from the SNP. To throw in—

It is a straight question.

If it were a straight question, it would not be the usual stuff from the SNP; the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) should listen to the answer. She threw in the words "weapons grade". Is the implication that Dounreay is being used in connection with nuclear weapons? Is that the scaremongering impression that she tries to convey to people watching our proceedings?

On the Minister's recent visit to Dounreay, what did the shop stewards and professional associations say to him, and what did he say to them, about their future?

I had many conversations during my recent visit. It was a very positive occasion, because it was the occasion of the announcement of a major inward investment in Thurso, as a spin-off from the presence of Dounreay in Caithness. As a result, some 500 jobs will be created by AEA Technologies and its Japanese partners in the manufacture of renewable batteries; that was extremely positive. As always, when I speak to people who have given their life to Dounreay and have contributed so much to the Dounreay economy, they say that they despair of the ignorance, the scaremongering, the hysteria and the utter disregard for the feelings of families in Caithness who have lived with the plant for a long time and have a very much fuller awareness of what goes on there, and has gone on there, than the hon. Member for Perth will have if she lives to be 100.

Perhaps I can help the Minister by asking a question to which there is a very simple answer. How far into the decommissioning process will we be able to fulfil our international treaty obligations at Dounreay?

I am not quite clear about the question, but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman addresses it to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it will give him a far more technically reliable answer than he would expect from me at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I wish that anyone who was a member of the previous Government would make the slightest effort to defend the fact that, for 18 years, the Tories allowed the problems of Dounreay to accumulate and did absolutely nothing to address them. The Government are addressing the problems, but we are also determined to maintain employment for people in Caithness, because we are aware of social and economic factors as well as of the legitimate safety concerns that have been expressed.

What steps he intends to take to regulate direct labour organisations. [45575]

The Government will not tolerate incompetence or inefficiency. I expect all councils to look critically at whether direct provision is required, and to put performance and value for money at the centre of all that they do.

What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the appalling problems that have arisen in Scottish local government do not afflict the new Scottish Parliament?

I remain an optimist about the Scottish Parliament, and I am sure that that optimism is shared by the hon. Gentleman, who always has the slight air of a rebel on the Conservative Benches. I do not believe that comparison with local government is relevant. At the end of the day, Westminster's powers will go to the Scottish Parliament; local government will not be raided. The Scottish Parliament will be a policy-making legislative body; local government, essentially, is involved in the provision of local services. I do not therefore believe that the machinery is the same, or that the parallel is relevant.

What effect does my right hon. Friend believe compulsory competitive tendering and local government reorganisation have had on the regulation of direct labour organisations?

The consequences of the last reorganisation of local government—which was very much a pattern imposed by a Government who, however honourably they may have acted, did not command widespread support in Scotland—were undoubtedly a great deal of disruption, financial difficulties and unavoidable expenses that are still being met by council tax payers and taxpayers. That is perhaps an answer for Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen who now worry about such matters.

If he will make a statement about the current level of non-housing debt in the North Lanarkshire local authority. [45576]

Hurry up.

My apologies, Madam Speaker. It is worth waiting for, though—it is all good stuff and a very precise answer. Non-housing capital debt in North Lanarkshire council was –256.8 million at 31 March 1997.

That is an unusually helpful answer from the Labour party. Did Labour not know about those problems when Neil Kinnock was Leader of the Opposition, but nothing was done; when the late John Smith was Leader of the Opposition, and nothing was done; and when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, and nothing was done? Only now, when Labour is in government—and because those councillors have served their purpose and got Labour into power—is the Labour party prepared to do anything. For all those years, the people of Monklands and North Lanarkshire have had to pay through the nose for incompetence or worse.

I totally failed to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, which seemed to have many of the characteristics of any early Monty Python without the humour. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the £256.8 million is long-term debt for financing a number of capital projects. There was repayment of more than £10 million in the last financial year. That matter is not in dispute; the situation is under control. Interest payments are, of course, met directly from Government grant. I hope that that provides some consolation for the hon. Gentleman, and that he will go home a rather happier man.

I think the thrust of the Opposition's second question was about the performance of local authorities in general. Will the Secretary of State take the trouble to commend the many local authorities in Scotland that have done a wonderful job in the face of adversity and attack from the Conservatives over 18 years? Will he give the House a possible timetable for the publication of performance indicators that the Government will release? When are the performance plans of local authorities likely to be presented to the public? I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in saying that, in many cases and for many services, they will show the excellent performance of local authorities in Scotland.

Of course I am glad to pay tribute to the very many effective and hard-working councillors—many of whom are my personal friends—who dedicate themselves to delivering in local government. It is a service to them to try to root out and deal with any abuse that occurs. However, we must be very careful about how we judge such matters. For example, I am informed that Bedfordshire county council, which is Conservative controlled, is running a debt of £120 million in its housing department for the current year. I do not know the circumstances in Cambridge, so I do not condemn that local authority; I suspect that those on the Opposition Benches would sometimes be wise to exercise a similar caution.

If he will make a statement on the effect of the current exchange rate on business confidence in Scotland. [45578]

I have frequent discussions with businesses in all sectors across Scotland and I am fully aware of the extremely competitive trading environment that companies face at home and overseas. However, the latest official data show that Scottish manufactured output rose by 7.7 per cent. in 1997.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that exchange rates are influenced to an extent by the level of interest rates, and we have had about seven interest rate rises under the Labour Government. The House will be well aware of my particular concern about manufacturing and textiles. Is the Minister aware that many of his trade union colleagues are deeply concerned about the redundancies that are being declared in Scotland as a result of a range of factors—not least the exchange rate and the depressing state of the textile industry in Scotland, which is an important industry for the Scottish people?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the textile industry. I know that it is going through a difficult time and that, although there are many successful firms, others are suffering pressures which include the current level of the exchange rate. However, their interests and ours lie in the medium and long-term stability of the economy. If some hard decisions had been taken by the Tories in the last months of the previous Parliament, perhaps the textile and other industries would not be feeling so much pain now.

On the question of business confidence, is my hon. Friend aware that I have asked for an inquiry into the running of Motherwell Enterprise and Development Company, whose board called in the liquidators a fortnight ago? Can the Minister give an assurance that local companies that find themselves victims of the MEDCO situation will receive all possible public help at this dangerous time?

We are keeping in close touch with the MEDCO situation, as is the Lanarkshire development agency, which is our instrument of economic intervention in the area. Its first obligation is to ensure that the services and training provided by MEDCO are kept going, in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents and the businesses in his constituency.

If he will make a statement on his policy towards the availability of county court services in rural areas. [45600]

In considering the future of any county court, whether in a rural or an urban area, the Lord Chancellor must take into account a variety of factors, including accommodation; work load; the number of personal callers; the number of judicial sittings and costs. A further consideration is the alternative arrangements that could be made for court users after closure, as well as access to those facilities.

Does the Minister understand that in the Vale of Evesham there is real gratitude for his decision to grant a reprieve to Evesham magistrates court, but growing concern about the new proposal to close Evesham county court? Does he understand that the same arguments apply to both courts and that, whenever a rural court is threatened with closure, a rural community is threatened with losing its access to justice? Will he instruct the Court Service to withdraw the proposal immediately?

Clearly, different principles apply as between magistrates courts and county courts, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when, in March, the Lord Chancellor gave permission for public consultation on the future of Evesham county court, a careful process was started. A counter survey of users was carried out between 3 and 28 November and every single person attending the court was asked to complete a questionnaire. Some 246 questionnaires were completed and the results showed that the average daily number of personal callers to Evesham is 12. Of the 246 users, only 76 attended for court hearings and the rest made visits on business that could have been conducted over the telephone or by post.

What representations he has received on his proposals to amalgamate the magistrates courts committee in Cornwall with that in Devon. [45601]

The Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committees decided that a voluntary amalgamation of their two committees was desirable. Consultations took place in April, and 14 responses were received to their proposals. Those responses formed part of the MCCs' submission to the Lord Chancellor requesting an amalgamation. I should also mention that I have received one letter on the matter from a Member of Parliament—not the hon. Gentleman—and my officials have received one letter on the matter from a member of the public.

Does the Minister accept that, under the previous magistrates courts committees amalgamation proposals and the current proposals, although a case can be made for appropriate collaboration and partnership on a professional level, bringing together the magistrates courts committees will involve a great deal of travel and will remove magistrates from their local community, which might favour male and older members in taking up the magistracy and work against younger females?

I do not accept any of that. The Government will be concerned to ensure that any amalgamation will result in a more efficient and effective service in the area in question while clearly retaining those aspects of the previous administration that will best serve the new committee. It is the Government's policy that an alignment between criminal justice agencies will lead to a greater consistency of approach throughout the country. Aligned magistrates courts committees, police forces and Crown Prosecution Service areas will assist in the speedier consideration and implementation of national criminal justice policy.

Does my hon. Friend understand—I say this in the kindest possible way— that what he has said about Cornwall echoed similar things said by his predecessor in a different Administration? However, in Cornwall, or even in the area that I represent, the result will be less justice delivered locally. I thought that a Labour Government would start turning back some of these so-called efficiencies and drives to better regulation so as to put justice back where it belongs, which is locally, in local communities.

With the greatest possible respect to my hon. Friend, who indicated that he would be kind to me, may I be equally kind in response and say that I do not accept that any of our proposals are likely to lead to less justice delivered locally? We are considering the administration of the magistrates courts. By more effective administration of these courts we may be in a position to save money and thereby preserve local justice.

What documents in relation to terrorism have been passed to the Lord Chancellor in the proper form under the Great Seal of the Realm. [45602]

None.

Among the documents, is there the Organisation of African Unity's resolution of last night, to which I drew the Lord Chancellor's attention, which emphasises that non-compliance is in line with the judgment of the International Court of Justice and is also based on the fact that the resolutions violate paragraphs 3.33 and 36 of article 27 of the United Nations charter? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend accept that because international law is involved it is not sufficient just to pass by on the other side of the road and say, "This is a matter for the Crown Office or for the Foreign Office lawyers"? The whole Government are involved. Would they therefore ask independent international lawyers, possibly in universities, for an opinion? It seems that our country is violating international law.

I am sure that the document to which my hon. Friend has referred will be studied with great care by my colleagues in Scotland and in the Foreign Office. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that relevant Security Council resolutions require the Libyan accused to be surrendered for trial either in Scotland or in the United States. At the moment, the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers is not strictly consistent with the relevant Security Council position.

If he will make a statement on levels of charges for legal aid work. [45603]

The levels of charges for legal aid work are principally determined under the Legal Aid Act 1988, passed by the previous Administration and no doubt supported by the hon. Gentleman. Within the limitations of that legislation, we are introducing standardised fees where it is legally possible to do so. However, we recognised quickly after taking office that the existing legislation does not afford a satisfactory level of control. That is why we announced last year that we see contracting for the provision of legal services as the most effective means of controlling the cost of legal aid.

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and, if I may say so, encouraging response. Does the Minister believe it right that somebody who is well known for his support of left-wing causes, Mr. Michael Mansfield QC, should submit a legal aid bill for £22,000, which was ultimately cut to just £12,000? The fees of his junior, Miss Baird, were reduced from £22,000 to just £7,800. That relates to just three days' work. Is that right? Is it value for money? When will this abuse of public resources be stopped?

I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I hope that he and those Conservative Members who appear to support his assertions will support the Government when they introduce legislation effectively to control the costs of legal aid. I also hope that he will be able to persuade Conservative Front Benchers to support the proposals that we have outlined, because the Government are determined to control the costs of legal aid.

Michael Mansfield?

I am not in a position to comment on a case that is currently being considered, nor should I, but I can say that there appears to have been a persistent pattern of overclaiming by members of the Bar. Indeed, statistics that I can publish suggest that, in certain high-cost cases over the past two years, barristers have claimed more than double what they have received.

Is it not interesting that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned only two barristers, whom he considers to be left wing? Michael Mansfield is doing an excellent job in the Lawrence inquiry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I have made it clear that the Government are determined to get the costs of legal aid under control. He is right: the most expensive cases in the Crown court—the top 1 per cent.—account for more than 40 per cent. of criminal higher expenditure, which is £125 million; the most expensive civil cases—the top 15 per cent.— account for about 15 per cent. of gross civil legal aid expenditure, at £167 million. That is why the Government are determined to control the costs of legal aid.

The Government propose to replace legal aid for civil cases with conditional fee agreements. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that insurance premiums for defendants' costs in personal injury cases, which have a high degree of success, have risen in the past year from about £85 to about £161. When the Government's changes have taken effect, in what circumstances will the Legal Aid Board pay such premiums?

It is clearly important that the Government control the costs of legal aid. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recently issued a consultation document setting out in principle our view that the cost of insurance should be recoverable against an unsuccessful defendant. That would clearly go a long way to assisting plaintiffs who bring cases under conditional fees to recover the costs of going to law, and would thereby increase access to justice. We are considering that carefully.

What assessment he has made of the earnings of senior barristers relative to other professions requiring similar qualifications and skills; and if he will make a statement. [45604]

Each year, the Government, in assessing the level of public sector pay, must have regard to the professional skills and qualifications possessed by different groups. In the past, no regard appears to have been had to the total amounts paid out annually to self-employed barristers out of public funds on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason in principle why the overall amount of public money paid to barristers in any given year should not be open to public scrutiny and debate.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. He read out some remarkable statistics; I had thought that the previous Government had abolished all closed shops, but one is still very much in operation. Is my hon. Friend aware of the outrage among professional people who serve the state so well in, for example, medicine and higher education? They have to qualify in their profession, work just as hard as barristers and skill themselves just as much, but the amount of money that they receive from the public purse is not remotely similar. I am not inviting my hon. Friend to go on "The Moral Maze" to discuss the matter, but will he at least consider whether the structure within which banisters work should be examined seriously to bring costs under control?

My hon. Friend is referring to the position of QCs. The Government have no present plans to abolish that position. This modernising Government, however, have shown that they are determined to sweep away restrictive practices wherever they occur and whenever they cannot be substantiated in the public interest.

I do not want to anticipate anything, but perhaps one day I shall be able to welcome the Minister to the front bench of the Bar.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is quite proper for there to be a public debate about the amount of public money that goes into the hands of private sector lawyers. There is a proper public debate about the sum spent on behalf of taxpayers on those employed by the state in the national health service, and I see no reason whatever why the same principles should not apply to those who receive taxpayers' money to fund what are, in essence, private practices.