Pursuant to his answer of 6 July—Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 6 July 1998; c. 6—what assessment he made of the implications of his description of the Libyan suspects in respect of the Lockerbie bombing as the perpetrators of that bombing for the conduct of any court proceedings in Scotland. [49914]

On 10 July, I wrote to my hon. Friend explaining that that was merely a slip of the tongue on my part in failing to refer to the two Libyan accused as the "alleged perpetrators". The Government are committed to a fair trial for the two Libyan suspects.

I have no supplementary question as I have an Adjournment debate on the subject tonight.

Can the Minister comment on today's reports that the Government are about to change their policy on the locus of any trial? As a lawyer, I have reservations about such a precedent, but does he agree that it is in the interests of the victims' families that the accused should be brought to trial and that that may overcome concern about where that trial should be held?

We are dealing with an act of mass murder. The Government are determined to bring those responsible to justice, and that has always been our objective. It remains our view that a Scottish or a United States court is the place for the trial. We do not accept criticism of the Scottish judicial system and its procedures, in which we have every confidence. However, we are willing to explore any option that will bring justice for the families, and discussions on such options have taken place from time to time.

May I ask for clarification of that answer? Is today's story in The Guardian true? Have the Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State discussed the matter, and is a statement forthcoming shortly? If so, when will the Lord Advocate—the independent prosecutor—make a statement in the House of Lords, to which he is responsible, as he promised to do on 25 June?

It is no secret that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in close contact with his American counterpart on issues of mutual interest, of which Lockerbie is a major one. Options are always being explored, and nothing has ever been ruled out. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to speculate on this morning's press comment.

Given the Government's record of leaking and speculating to the press before coming to the House, we have an absolute right to know that the Government are not considering a change of policy. I asked the Minister a simple question. Is the essence of the story in The Guardian this morning true, or is it not true?

The House will accept that this is a serious issue. Let me repeat that discussions have taken place—and are taking place—about important subjects, of which this is one. No prudent Government would wish to rule out any option. We are dealing with an act of mass murder, and we owe it to the families to bring those responsible to justice. That is our key objective, and I hope that the House can unite around it. It would be foolish to speculate on press comment. All options are being considered, and the House should have confidence in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will do his best for the families and for justice.

As we approach the summer recess, is it reasonable to assume that there will be no change in policy while hon. Members will be unable to ask appropriate questions of Ministers? Will the Minister continue to defend the principle—defended by the Government and their predecessors—that there will be no caving in to political expediency? We must not open up the possibility of years of litigation in a foreign court rather than the achievement of the swift resolution of the Lockerbie case that the relatives, Members of the House and the people of Scotland all want.

The hon. Gentleman is simply not listening. I said in my opening comments that our view remains that a Scottish or United States court is the place for this trial. We do not accept criticisms of the system, and we continue to have every confidence in the Scottish judicial system and procedures.

What action he is taking to reduce the number of prison suicides. [49915]

A revised suicide management strategy was introduced in all Scottish prisons last month and is being underpinned by an injection of some £1 million to improve the supervision of at-risk prisoners. A special task force will look in detail at the deaths that have occurred this year to consider what factors were involved and whether lessons may be learned.

I thank the Minister for that answer. He answered much of my question 12 days ago, after it was tabled but before he could reply in the House. Does he recognise that, in the long term, we must tackle prison overcrowding and the pressures and problems that it creates? In the spirit of what the Secretary of State said in the Scottish Grand Committee about setting targets by which the Government feel they should be judged, does the Minister have any targets by which the House can judge the Government's performance on delivering prison reform?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in home affairs. We have a suicide prevention strategy in place in Scotland, but we are keen to underpin it with improvements in staffing and medical facilities. We are creating a further residential care unit in Barlinnie prison. Overcrowding is a problem and means that we cannot spend enough time with individual prisoners. That is why there will be further reforms in the Prison Service to overcome the problem. We are also pursuing a radical programme of alternatives to custody to provide appropriate alternatives for sheriffs in every court in the country. Properly used, they will provide more appropriate care, treatment and punishment while easing the burden of overcrowding in prisons which is having a detrimental effect on our ability to tackle suicide and drugs.

I welcome this initiative. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend that several suicides have taken place at Greenock prison. May I impress on him the need for careful assessment during the admission phase, particularly for remand prisoners? In Greenock, most of those who committed suicide were remand prisoners. Assessment of new prisoners should be carried out carefully and in a controlled way.

There is a problem with risk assessment when prisoners enter prison. For example, Barlinnie turns around 200 prisoners on a Monday. That is an enormous problem. Investment is being put into prisons to ensure modern medical assessment of the risks. I am concerned that, over the past few months, there have been a tremendous number of suicides at Corton Vale, Barlinnie, Greenock and Longriggend. The Government are taking decisive action to try to tackle that problem. There can never be a guarantee that we can exclude suicide or people harming themselves in prisons, but we have an ambitious programme. I sincerely hope that what we are doing will work.

What is the number of suicides per head of the prison population in Scottish prisons compared with that in England and Wales? Is it higher or lower? Can the Minister explain the reasons for the difference?

The figure is much higher. It is one of the problems and it has reinforced our resolve to tackle this issue with determination. Suicide is a complex issue which causes despair to staff and families. We are keen to try to analyse what is happening, but there is a higher incidence of suicide in prisons in Scotland than in England. That is not in itself a reason for being interested in doing something about it, but it shows that we have much to do in Scotland. We are putting in place the proper procedures. They need time to work. I assure the hon. Lady that we are doing everything possible to make it possible to reduce the number of suicides and to give prisons the confidence to start dealing with prisoners as they should.

What progress has been made in the provision of nursery and pre-school places under the child care strategy. [49916]

We have already achieved a major expansion in pre-school education places and are on target to achieve universal provision by this winter. Following the comprehensive spending review, we will invest an extra £229 million over the period 1999–2002 in pre-school education and child care, leading to further substantial growth in places.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the announcement of such generous extra provision for pre-school care. My question may seem superfluous in the light of this morning's useful debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, but will he add to his reply by saying what help will be given to voluntary bodies that have had their pre-school provision stopped, or are about to have it stopped, because of the end of urban aid or other funding?

I recognise the considerable amount of work that my hon. Friend has put in and the effort that she has expended in propagating this policy. I am very pleased that we have been able to deliver for her.

What representations he has received regarding the proposed decommissioning of the Dounreay reprocessing plant. [49917]

Operational matters, including the decommissioning of facilities at Dounreay, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. None the less, I receive a wide range of correspondence relating to Dounreay. This has included suggestions that there should be a moratorium on new reprocessing contracts.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made with the President of the Board of Trade of the possibility of reducing or halting operations at Sellafield? What radioactive material might be transferred to Dounreay and what measures would the Secretary of State put in place to deal with it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for extending my remit and area of responsibility—it begins to sound almost like an empire. I am not responsible for Sellafield and I would not want to trespass on my right hon. Friend's responsibilities. Dounreay is interesting enough in itself.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work putting the Walker report on health and safety at Dounreay into the public domain so that much of the scaremongering and nonsense being spoken about the place could be put into proper context? My colleagues on the Trade and Industry Committee visited Dounreay last month. I thank the Secretary of State on their behalf, but remind him that a great deal of work remains to be done at Dounreay. That work is necessary for Britain's nuclear safety, and I hope that he will continue to give it every encouragement.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I congratulate him and his Committee on the tenacious way in which they have investigated the difficulties that have occurred at Dounreay. As he said, the Health and Safety Executive-nuclear installations inspectorate report is a document of some importance and the focus of considerable speculation. I first became aware of it on 11 June and it was published on 15 June. Even when talking about the past and things that happened many years ago, it is important that the Government are open about such matters and put all available information in the public domain.

Can the Secretary of State explain why he became aware of that report so late in the day? Why was it not made known to Ministers before the debate, as considerable controversy surrounded the issue? If the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as reported in the press, wishes to apply for a so-called super pit at Dounreay for low-level nuclear waste, will that proposal have to go to a full planning inquiry, given that the present planning permission was based on a pit that is subject to erosion? In view of concerns about waste disposal at Dounreay—which has involved explosions and contamination—does the Secretary of State agree that a full-scale planning inquiry is needed for such an application?

These are important and sensitive matters. I understand that the NII report went straight to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and I regret that it was not available earlier. The Department of Trade and Industry is very much involved in the process and is taking up the matter with the UKAEA.

In common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am a long-term admirer of the Secretary of State's ethereal wit, but will he descend for a moment to the mundane and answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? If, by the action of the President of the Board of Trade, Sellafield's operations are curtailed or cease altogether, will he guarantee that material from Sellafield will not be classed as non-commercial and transferred to Dounreay?

I genuinely welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Scottish family; we talk about a multicultural society in Scotland so, although this is really straining tolerance, I am prepared to do it. The foundation on which he bases his question is too hypothetical for me to attempt to answer it. I am not aware of any plans to close Sellafield: that would indeed be a major undertaking and significant in terms of strategic approach, so, self-evidently, the knock-on effects would have to be carefully considered. The hon. Gentleman is building on insubstantial grounds when he makes such suggestions.

If he will make a statement on the percentage of students currently attending Scottish universities from (a) Scotland, (b) England, Wales and Northern Ireland and (c) parts of the EU outside the United Kingdom. [49918]

From the latest data available, approximately 71 per cent. of students attending Scottish higher education institutions are from Scotland; approximately 16 per cent. are from England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and approximately 4 per cent. are from other parts of the European Union.

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. I am sure that he is aware that the Government's climbdown on the matter of charging different fees to students from different parts of the United Kingdom attending Scottish universities has been widely welcomed, and not only by the Opposition. What advice has he received about whether the Scottish Parliament will have the power to make it illegal to charge students from England, who attend Scottish universities, and students from Scotland, who attend Scottish universities, different fees?

Given the Opposition's rather desperate plight, I understand that they have to claim triumphs where none exist, but I assure the hon. Lady that we welcome the fact that the Lords eventually agreed with us. The offer to monitor the operation of all the changes was on the table from the outset and I have absolutely no problem with formalising it. Incidentally, I am delighted to learn that applications from England to St. Andrews university, which had some lobbying influence in these matters, are up, not down, on last year. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might wonder whether the time of the House was not wasted just a little bit on that. The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that all these matters will become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision on tuition fees gives all universities in Scotland the task of trying to increase the number of young people from Scotland who attend them and to extend the range of opportunity available to people whom the universities might not, in the past, have tried to attract into university education?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we were wasting time on the diversion of whether applications from England to St. Andrews would go up or down by a couple of dozen, the reality of what the Government were doing elsewhere was far more important. We have been encouraging and putting real resources into encouraging wider access to Scottish universities and we have been very successful in that. I might add that I am particularly proud of the fact that in Scotland, and in Scotland alone, we have now abolished tuition fees for part-time students with low incomes. I understand that that is of absolutely no interest to the Opposition or to the House of Lords, but it is a very substantial achievement by the Government.

May I offer my condolences to the Minister on having taken flak over a blatantly unfair policy and express the hope that that does not lead to his leaving the Scottish Office in too much of a hurry? Will he join me in condemning his ministerial colleagues who have failed to provide funds for fourth-year tuition fees for students in Scotland and have left him in an untenable position by accepting the need for a review?

I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman's wit is as razor sharp as ever.

May I take up the question of the social origins of students at higher and further education establishments? Do the Government intend to set targets for such institutions and direct them towards increasing the number of students they recruit from sections of society that are currently grossly under-represented?

The reality—about which I am deeply concerned—is that only 11 per cent. of school leavers from the lower-income social groups go into higher education compared with more than 80 per cent. from the higher-income groups. The Government are not prepared to tolerate such an inequality of opportunity and fulfilments of aspirations, which has lasted far too long.

If he will make a statement on the level of capital consent for school development which he plans to approve for rural north-east Scotland in the years 1999 to 2002. [49919]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced, in the comprehensive spending review, additional capital expenditure plans of £185 million for schools over the period 1999 to 2002. The distribution to individual authorities will be considered over the coming months.

May I take it from that that the Government will be able to give a positive response to applications from Aberdeenshire council for approval for private finance initiative projects and new capital projects for schools in the area—for example, the PFI project involving Garioch academy, linked to Banff primary school, and the new primary school for Kintore? When nearly every secondary school in Aberdeenshire has temporary classrooms, a positive response is required. Will the Minister be able to give such a response in the near future?

What the Minister, and the Government, can do is give a substantial additional amount of cash to Aberdeenshire council and every other local authority over the next few years so that they can make their own decisions within the relevant parameters.

The Minister will know from correspondence that we have exchanged of my concern about the condition of one of the secondary schools in my constituency. I am especially concerned about the condition of Breadalbane academy in Aberfeldy, which could just about be described as the north-east of Scotland. The report carried out on the school's fabric by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools defined the fabric as good, but, having visited the school, I can assure the Minister that it is far from adequate for the needs of the growing population in the area. What consideration will he be able to give to the specific need to improve the quality of that and other schools in Perth and Kinross, where there is a rapidly expanding school population?

The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to learn that Breadalbane academy is situated in middle Scotland rather than north-east Scotland. The problems of the academy have been brought to my attention by the hon. Gentleman, and I can only give him the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). However, the sums of money available to education authorities over the next three years, not only through the most recent allocation but through windfall tax money announced last year, are beyond the dreams of what seemed possible a little more than a year ago. Every education authority will now be able to make funding decisions based on the allocations that will be issued shortly. I should think it very likely that the hon. Gentleman's local authority will give high priority to the undoubted needs of Breadalbane academy.

If he will make a statement on the number of petrol stations serving rural communities of 3,000 or fewer which have closed in the last 12 months. [49920]

We do not have precise figures, but the report "Petrol Stations in Rural Scotland" estimates a closure rate of petrol stations in rural Scotland of 3 per cent. a year over the past eight years.

Is the Minister aware that the road fuel tax regime put in place by the Government in the Budget will increase petrol and diesel prices next year by a staggering 25p a gallon? Will this not lead to further closures of petrol stations in the remote rural areas, to the loss of vitally needed jobs in the rural areas, to misery for those dependent on their car in rural areas and to an increase in freight costs in rural areas? In short, is it not only the Conservatives who can represent those in rural areas in Scotland or in the Cotswolds?

That may represent a picture of rural England, but it does not reflect life in rural Scotland. Of course the Government are concerned about the sustainability of rural life. It is all right for the nationalists to make noises from a sedentary position, but the important issue is that car dependency is very high in rural communities. It is not the Government's desire to undermine that in any particular way. There must be a network of rural petrol filling stations to serve local needs. Instead of the ideological position that has been proposed, we are trying to help in hard, practical terms.

Is the Minister aware that the grave disadvantage that is faced by petrol stations in rural areas, notwithstanding the sensible, practical measures to which he referred, is the price of petrol that they are forced to charge, which is uncompetitive and is leading to people having to travel further and further afield? Will the hon. Gentleman seek to persuade his Treasury colleagues that variation in petrol duty and value added tax, which is within the rules of the European Union, is a course which should be considered seriously?

We rightly have consistent petrol duties being applied throughout the United Kingdom. The Government are determined to take at face value the problems that we see in rural areas and try to apply practical measures. It may be easy to offer solutions that relate to petrol duty, but, in practice, they would be very difficult to administer and would prove extraordinarily difficult throughout the country. That is why we are concentrating on practical measures. I think that that is the way forward. Our approach is to identify issues that we can influence and, as a Government, to be serious with people in rural areas and not pretend that we can do things that we cannot.

If he will make an official visit to the borders to discuss economic development in the region. [49921]

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the borders, but has kept in close touch with recent developments. Those recent developments include my visit to the borders on 2 and 3 July to discuss economic development issues with, among others, the hon. Gentleman. During that visit, I announced a wide package of new measures, including an additional £1 million for Scottish Borders Enterprise.

I acknowledge the importance of the initiatives announced by the Minister on his recent visit to the borders. They are the beginning of an answer to the area's difficulties. Does he acknowledge the infrastructure problems about which he heard, and the need to help local businesses to diversify, about which the Scottish Affairs Select Committee heard yesterday when it visited the borders? When will the south of Scotland convention meet? That was one of the initiatives that he announced on his visit.

I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for the arrangements that they helped to put in place for that visit. Everyone agreed that it was a positive response and the beginning of efforts to address the problems of the borders.

I am glad that the Minister enjoyed his visit to Scotland. May I suggest that he should make as many visits north of the border as he can, because, thanks to the craven approach of his Government to appeasing Scottish nationalist ambitions, it will not be long before he needs a passport to travel there?

I am inclined to suggest that, if white coats are manufactured in the borders, the hon. Gentleman's remarks might assist the textile industry there.

We are all aware of the serious situation in the borders, but the Minister will also be aware that unemployment in Dumfries and Galloway is double that in the borders. Therefore, will he consider visiting Dumfries and Galloway? As he has given an extra £1 million to Scottish Borders Enterprise, will he consider making a similar allocation to Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise, which would put that money to good use?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to be divisive, and that he would agree that there was a specific problem in the borders. Unemployment statistics do not tell us everything. We are witnessing in the borders the rapid deterioration of a key industry, and it was right for us to take the step that we took. Almost every one of my hon. Friends could make the same argument about some of the older industrial areas of Scotland having higher unemployment figures. What has been done in the borders is not at any other region's expense.

What plans he has for further local government reform in Scotland. [49922]

The Government have a far-reaching agenda for reform and modernisation in local government, including the policy of best value to deliver better council services, the new ethical framework to regulate standards, and the independent commission under Neil MacIntosh, which is undertaking a fundamental review of the management and structure of local government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his many innovative ideas for local government reform in Scotland, and suggest another: as a way of improving the democratic process in local government, will he consider setting up select committees of back-bench councillors to scrutinise the work of local government and to make it more transparent and more accountable, both in the political process and in the administrative role of local government?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and positive suggestion, which is squarely within the remit of the MacIntosh commission. One idea at which the commission is looking is whether Scottish local government should move to a more formal, Cabinet-style system rather than the committee system that is prevalent now. That would require a division between councillors' executive and representative functions along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests. I shall draw the commission's attention to this exchange and to his suggestion.

As he seeks to reform local government, will the Minister also put in place proper measures to resolve something that has happened in my constituency? Last weekend, there was a massive landslide, which has closed the road from Kintyre, meaning that business and tourism cannot survive and people cannot get through. I hope that local government, in conjunction with the Scottish Office, can realign that road away from the rock-fall area.

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I appreciate the concern that the hon. Lady voices. My right hon. Friend has asked for a report on that incident and will look at it closely.

I know that my hon. Friend is carrying out some excellent work on the future reform of Scottish local government, but I should like to ask two specific questions. First, in that process of change, what consultation is taking place with local citizens? Secondly, in any future consideration about a new form of local government elections, will he undertake to ensure that a link is maintained between constituent and elected member within the local authority boundary?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the electoral system. That is one of the matters that will be borne in mind by those who reflect on that.

When he last met representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss defence-related jobs in Scotland. [49923]

I have regular meetings with representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of issues, which has included their approach to defence-related industries. My most recent meeting was on 2 June.

What assessment has Scottish Enterprise made of the impact of the strategic defence review, which was announced recently, on the Scottish economy? Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the country as a whole, a third of Ministry of Defence jobs are in the civilian sector and that some 400,000 people work in our defence-related industries? As the Government have decided to slash the defence budget by nearly £1 billion and the Secretary of State for Defence is now looking for more than £500 million of savings through greater efficiency and a similar amount through smarter procurement, what is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the number of jobs that that will cost Scotland?

I recognise that it is in the hon. Gentleman's best interests to be a little gloomy about events—for a number of reasons, probably—but the strategic defence review was widely welcomed. It was certainly widely welcomed by the armed forces because it is centrally based on a strategic assessment of our defence needs.

Is it not good for Scotland to participate in armed forces that are big hitters in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and have the capacity to play an important part in United Nations international operations? My right hon. Friend may be aware that another party represented in the House wants to take Scottish troops out of the British armed forces and leave us with an army of tartan conscripts. Will he confirm that the Government have much higher ambitions for Scottish service men and the Scottish defence industry?

I will resist the temptation to say that the general could perhaps wear a tartan lum-hat as he led his troops.

Following on from the strategic defence review, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the considerable sense of relief in the south-west highlands about the longer-term securing of the British underwater test and evaluation centre range at Kyle of Lochalsh for torpedo testing? It is the most significant employer in the area in terms of skilled employment and the prospects for keeping young people there, but yesterday's written answer to me, which was made after the SDR outcome, suggests that is difficult for the Ministry of Defence to make predictions for the longer term—beyond the next five years or so. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that the Scottish Office liaises closely with the MOD about the future of the facility, given that it provides such an underpinning of the local economy?

Of course I will look at that and bear it in mind. The important issue is that any SDR has to be conditioned by our defence requirements and the strategy that we want to follow in those terms, but we are all conscious of the dangers to jobs that can result. On the whole, I regard the solution as balanced and sensible, and one that we welcome strongly in Scotland.

What recent representations he has received on the impact of proposed changes in the legal aid system on Merseyside. [49902]

My hon. Friend will understand that our proposals have generated a great deal of interest. Unfortunately, letters and responses were not recorded by the geographical location of the sender and that information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I was grateful to him, however, for his letter, to which I replied in April this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will appreciate that a number of my constituents on Merseyside who have been involved in medical accidents are particularly concerned about medical negligence, and he will be aware that that is an area of specialist expertise in the legal profession. Can he assure me that, when my constituents need advice in this area, they will be able to obtain it from specialist lawyers who may not necessarily be the family law firm or the solicitors who did their conveyancing?

My hon. Friend is right to say that medical negligence is a specialist area of law that requires specialist lawyers. It is profoundly disturbing that, in 1996–97, the client received damages of more than £50 in only 17 per cent. of all completed legally aided medical negligence cases; that means that 83 per cent. of clients got nothing or next to nothing after what was, inevitably, a long period of worry and considerable difficulty. We cannot allow that to continue. Therefore, we have announced that, by January 1999, the Legal Aid Board will contract only with specialist medical negligence lawyers. The issues in these claims are simply too important to my hon. Friend's constituents, and to our society as a whole, to be entrusted to those who merely dabble in this kind of work.

The people of Merseyside would have been interested in the Minister's reply to the written question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) on 16 July. The Minister rightly placed great emphasis on the advantages of franchising and contracting. To what extent will the general public or potential clients have available to them such information as the successful outcomes to cases by contracting or franchising firms?

Certainly that is something which we shall be considering as we develop the franchising scheme and as we introduce legislation to allow us to contract with specialist lawyers, as I hope we will be able to do in due course, but it will be important for the public to know the qualifications and expertise of lawyers who do legally aided work.

The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—[Interruption.] I am almost transparent—referred to the written answer that the Minister gave last week at columns 278–79. Is not one of the problems with that written answer that a representative of a client in Merseyside would not be able to work out with any certainty the timetable for the future development of conditional fee agreements and the other legal aid reforms? Will the Minister tell us with greater precision the exact timetable for the introduction of extended conditional fee agreements and the other changes that he and his boss in the Lord Chancellor's Department have proposed for the legal aid system?

Like the good lawyer he is, the hon. and learned Gentleman can argue any case that is put in front of him, especially when he has a brief. In the past, he has criticised us for failing to consult, and now, as we respond to the various representatives that we have received following consultation, he is criticising us yet again. I assure him that the Government will make a statement in the autumn setting out the precise timetable and the proposals on which we intend to legislate if that is necessary.

When he next intends to visit Lutterworth magistrates court to discuss the work of magistrates courts. [49903]

I have no immediate plans to visit Lutterworth magistrates court, not least because it will close at the end of next week. The decision to close the court was taken by Leicestershire magistrates courts committee following extensive local consultation, particularly with Leicestershire county council. It is perhaps significant that, as a result of that consultation, Leicestershire county council decided not to exercise its right of appeal against the closure. In the absence of an appeal, I have no opportunity to intervene.

As the Minister so rightly said, Lutterworth magistrates court is closing at the end of next week. We have corresponded on this matter. Is he aware that local justice has been administered in Lutterworth for more than 500 years? Is he further aware that there is no reliable public transport between Lutterworth and Harborough or between Lutterworth and Leicester, which are the alternatives for court cases? Lutterworth is a bigger town than it has ever been, and it is still growing. Does the Minister believe in local justice being administered locally? Will he intervene at the eleventh hour—indeed, at one minute to midnight? He says that he has no powers, but he is the Minister, so who else can intervene if he cannot? The soon to be ennobled William Bach, who is a local resident in the Lutterworth area, has also made representations as a district councillor.

I have made it clear that I have no power to intervene under the legislation that governs the way in which magistrates courts and magistrates courts committees operate, which was introduced by the previous Administration and for which the hon. Gentleman voted. I am sorry to tell him that, even at the eleventh hour, I am not in a position to intervene in this matter.

How many officials of his Department are involved in legal matters relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103. [49904]

None.

There will be an Adjournment debate on this matter tonight, so I have no further questions.

Notwithstanding the Minister's reply, have there been any discussions between the Lord Chancellor's Department and Foreign Office officials about a trial in a third country? I ask that question particularly in the light of the report on the front page of The Guardian today.

None that I am aware of.

What steps the Land Registry is taking to provide on-line access for the results of searches for domestic and commercial conveyancing. [49905]

The Land Registry, in liaison with other central and local government bodies and private sector organisations, is developing a national land information service which will enable solicitors and licensed conveyancers to access on-line the results of searches required in the conveyancing process. I was delighted to have had the opportunity to launch a pilot conveyancing system on 1 July in Bristol, using this technology, and enabling solicitors to access data from 12 public and private sector organisations. The Land Registry also provides a direct access service which allows practitioners to view computerised registers on their own office personal computers and carry out a range of related services.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. What further action can he and the Government take to speed up the process? Does he believe that new technology can help to speed it up? At the end of the process, does he believe that there will be an end to gazumping in the sale of houses and businesses?

I entirely agree that providing information electronically will speed up conveyancing and reduce the opportunities for gazumping. A consultation document entitled "Land Registration for the 21st Century" was recently published by a joint working group consisting of representatives of the Law Commission and the Land Registry. Views are invited on a wide range of proposals which will make dealings in land much simpler, quicker and cheaper. Underlying the proposals is the likely move to electronic conveyancing over the coming decade.

What plans he has to ensure that those who would expect to use Lewes Crown court are not redirected elsewhere. [49907]

Normally, all cases committed to Lewes Crown court are tried at that court. However, to reduce waiting times for hearings, cases can sometimes be transferred to other Crown court centres. Before any transfer, the interests of everyone involved in the case are taken into account and any objections considered.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in 1997, approximately 10 per cent. of cases that normally would have been expected to be tried at Lewes were transferred elsewhere—to Croydon, Chichester and further afield? That represents a considerable inconvenience for those involved in the cases, and long journeys—some by public transport, and some not, despite the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that a higher percentage of cases are dealt with at Lewes to minimise the inconvenience that people are suffering?

The hon. Gentleman is right. In 1997, 117 cases were transferred from Lewes, but, in each, benefits will have been provided to the many witnesses, victims and innocent defendants as a result of the cases being decided earlier than they would otherwise have been. All parties involved are consulted and the interests of victims and witnesses are taken into account before any such decision is made. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that there have been no transfers from Lewes since February this year.

What steps his Department is taking to consult on the costs rules to be operated in fast-track cases under the reforms of civil procedures set out in the Woolf report. [49908]

On 22 June, the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper on a costs regime for the fast track entitled "Justice at the Right Price". The consultation paper seeks comments by 17 August.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that solicitors instructed by trade unions have provided an efficient and good service for trade union members at a modest cost in personal injury actions? Will he assure me that, in devising a system of costs for fast-track cases, he will take into account any potential detrimental effect of a fixed-costs regime being imposed on defendants before they have had a chance to look at their methods of operating systems to ensure that they comply with the rigours of the fast track?

As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I believe that the legal advice schemes provided by trade unions to their members are extremely effective. I would not wish to implement any new system that affected their operation or effectiveness. At the same time, we cannot ignore the deep-seated problems of high cost acting as a barrier to access to our courts. I assure my hon. Friend that changes will be made only when we are entirely confident that they will operate in the interests of the litigants and of society as a whole.

When he proposes to put before the House the regulations extending conditional fee agreements. [49909]

A draft order was laid before the House on 16 July.

I thank the Minister for his reply. In principle, I am in favour of conditional fee agreements because they can provide increased access to justice in addition to that which is available today. Does he agree that, if conditional fee agreements are to be successful, there must be adequate insurance cover for that purpose? At the moment, it appears that there is little guidance available from the Government and the Lord Chancellor's Department. Will he provide guidance so that, when the conditional fee agreements come in—as I hope they will—there will be adequate insurance to ensure that they are successful?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is right to say that conditional fees depend on adequate and effective insurance cover. The Government have had a series of meetings with different insurance providers, and it is clear that a wide variety of products will be available to support conditional fee agreements. Inevitably, the industry is waiting to see the results of any change in the law that Parliament might approve. It is necessary that we go ahead, lay the order before Parliament and seek parliamentary approval. We are confident that insurance products will be available to support an extension of conditional fee agreements.

When he expects the White Paper on modernising legal aid and civil justice to be published. [49910]

The Government intend to publish in the autumn a comprehensive statement setting out their wide-ranging programme for reforming and modernising access to justice.

To what extent has that cost already been anticipated in last week's spending announcement by the Chancellor? Does the White Paper anticipate any difference in approach to legal aid between criminal and civil cases? Certainly in my experience, there is misuse of civil legal aid.

Clearly, in publishing our expenditure proposals for the next three years, the Government have taken fully into account the need to reform the system of legal aid, which has been failing everyone. The system is out of control. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that, in a continuing trend, in 1997–98 the Legal Aid Board paid some 30,000 fewer bills, but their cost was some £28 million greater. Once again, the taxpayer has been paying more but getting less.