If he will make a statement about the technical measures to allow tax-varying powers to be introduced in Scotland. [61263]

The Government are working to ensure that the tax-varying power will be fully in place and available for use by the Scottish Parliament from April 2000. The Inland Revenue has consulted widely and is continuing to work with a group of industry representatives on the measures required for implementation of the Scottish variable rate.

I thank the Minister for that reply. It will obviously be an expensive and inefficient process to administer a Scottish tax. The Government claim to be opposing vigorously proposals in Europe to harmonise taxes with the United Kingdom, on the grounds that such harmonisation would be bad for the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that it would also be bad for Scotland if its tax levels were higher than England's?

The Scotland Act 1998 has been premised on the basis that we want to provide a level playing field across the United Kingdom in the regulatory powers affecting industry. Moreover, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, on 11 September 1997, the Scottish people decided that they would like the Scottish Parliament to have power to vary the basic income tax rate. That power was endorsed by the Scottish people, and we are in the process of implementing our commitment on it. We believe that it is right for the Parliament to have such a power, and it will be up to the Parliament and the parties in it to decide whether to use it.

I do not think that my hon. Friend needs to take any lectures on expensive and ineffective taxation from those who gave the poll tax to Scotland. May I try asking my hon. Friend a hypothetical question? If he were minded to set up a Scottish army, Scottish navy and Scottish air force, and to establish Scottish embassies around the world, does he think that he would be able to do so from revenue of threepence on income tax?

I shall resist the temptation to go down that particular road. However, I think that the House might be interested to know that the Labour party has ruled out use of the tax when we are elected to Holyrood, whereas the Scottish National party is still dithering and confused about whether it might use it. Suffice it to say that, in a recent weekly publication, the SNP suggested that if it did not use the Scottish variable rate, it might want to consider

"purging quangos and taking a closer look at … Scotland's enterprise network to find extra resources."

Will the Minister of State confirm that the tax-varying powers, if used in full, amount to £450 million? Will he confirm also that further sums should be within the Scottish Parliament's direction, but that, according to media reports today, United Kingdom Departments are trying to find ways of not informing the Scottish Parliament about those funds? Will he say what action the Scottish Department has taken to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not be short-changed, and that the concordats will be honoured in both spirit and letter?

It has always been the case, and always will be the case, that we will get what we are entitled to. There is no plot to snatch back funds from the Scottish Administration.

Is not a vote in favour of a tax increase by the Members of the Scottish Parliament currently the most important technical provision allowing a tax increase in Scotland? Does my hon. Friend agree that, although such a vote would grab headlines in Scotland, it might not do the same elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Does not that fact make the case for a separate Scottish "Six O'Clock News" programme broadcast and controlled from Scotland, and underline the boneheadedness of those in the BBC who are trying to prevent such a separate Scottish broadcast?

I am, yet again, being tempted down another road, which I shall again resist. On the important issue of taxation, suffice it to say that the Scottish people endorsed the measure on 11 September, and that we have been working very hard with the Inland Revenue and the business community to ensure that it is a success. Regulations will in the near future be laid before the House, putting the flesh on the bones of the measure.

The Minister of State will undoubtedly be aware of Scottish Life's estimates of the compliance costs—£170 million—of the tartan tax, regardless of whether it is used. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he and other Ministers have had with the Inland Revenue on compliance costs, and on who will pay the required sum? Will it be paid out of the Scottish block or by United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole?

Throughout the process of discussing the Scottish variable rate and other matters in the Scotland Act 1998, we have been in close consultation with the Inland Revenue and with the business community. Of course we have also dealt at length with the assurance industry. We are working with a consultative group of industry representatives on formal compliance cost assessments for future publication, and we are fully aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the life assurance industry. It is one area in which dialogue has met with success.

That was an answer that we can chew over in Hansard to see whether we are any the wiser. Does the Minister agree that the real danger is that of backdoor taxes, with different groups competing to spend Scottish taxpayers' money? Keith Geddes, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, suggested a bed tax on tourists, Lord Steel suggested a caravan tax for visitors and Scottish Natural Heritage has suggested a sightseeing tax around Loch Lomond. Will the Minister give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party to rule out not only the use of the tartan tax, but an increase in the overall burden of tax on the Scottish people via the Scottish Parliament?

Those concerns were brought to the House early in the debate on the Scotland Bill. It is now an Act, published on 19 November, but the Conservatives appear to have learnt little. The power exists to vary the Scottish basic rate of income tax. We think that that coincides with the wishes of the Scottish people and with the wish of the business community not to be inundated with new taxes. That will be the settlement for the Scottish Parliament. We shall have it in place by April 2000.

Will my hon. Friend remind the Tory party that the people of Scotland voted in the referendum just last year for a Scottish Parliament with the power to vary tax? Does he agree that there is a strong case for the future development of fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament, to give its Members the responsibility for raising the money that they want to spend on important services such as the national health service and education, instead of being dependent on decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government or votes in this House?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Scottish people have endorsed the Scottish variable rate—it is important to underline that. It is also important to stress that the use of the variable rate is a power available to the Parliament. Any party can stand on a manifesto to raise that money and spend it. The Labour party has decided not to stand on such a policy. I challenge the nationalists to come clean and say whether they would use the Scottish variable rate. If not, what other sources of funding would they have?

When he next intends to meet representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss economic development. [61264]

My colleagues and I regularly meet Scottish Enterprise, which plays an important part in the Government's proposals to modernise the Scottish economy. The most recent meeting was between my noble Friend the Minister for business and industry and the chairman and executives of Scottish Enterprise on 4 December.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. When he next meets Scottish Enterprise, will he acknowledge that, with unemployment rising in Scotland, 12,000 job losses announced this year and business surveys increasingly showing falling order books in Scotland, he and his colleagues, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have left Scottish Enterprise ill equipped to respond to the impact of the Government's macro-economic policies?

I shall start at the bottom—that is probably appropriate when dealing with the hon. Gentleman's questions. The budget for Scottish Enterprise is more than £440 million this year. It is adjusted, but remains substantially above £400 million. The reasons are that Hyundai did not come on stream, we are spending £70 million through the new deal on training and we decided, with the agreement of Scottish Enterprise, that it should spend less on property and more on its mainstream activities.

May I take this opportunity to express the gratitude of the people of Ayrshire to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for their response to the ending of Jetstream 41 production at Prestwick, which was to set up the Prestwick task force? As a member of that task force, I am aware that the report to be published shortly will show that substantially more jobs have been created than were originally lost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such partnership working sets a good example for elsewhere?

Yes. I thank everybody, including my hon. Friend, who served on the Prestwick task force. It has been a success. I am also grateful to the firms that took the opportunity presented by the site at Prestwick. It is now a hub of activity and I am sure that it will grow and prosper in future. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had a similar experience with the closure of Mitsubishi at Haddington, where energetic local action, using local talent, skills and advantages, did much to redress the balance.

When the Secretary of State next meets Scottish Enterprise, will he continue to discuss the particular difficulties being faced in south-east Scotland owing to the recent spate of redundancies? Is he aware that there is high expectation in the borders that when the Scottish Office working party reports in the next few days it will provide adequate additional resources to make a significant difference to those difficulties? In particular, will he make sure that any projects to expand employment in existing local businesses arising through the Scottish Enterprise network will not be knocked back by central Government because of a lack of funds?

We have made it very clear that good, viable projects will be encouraged in every way. That applies across Scotland, but we are particularly aware of the difficulties in the south of Scotland and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We cannot offer the prospect of immediate success in solving all the problems, but there are a number of encouraging factors.

My right hon. Friend will forgive me for being parochial, but when he next meets representatives of Scottish Enterprise will he urge upon them the need to assist the further development of the waterfront at Port Glasgow—not in my patch—Greenock and Gourock? The Government also need to assist with the proposal by Clyde ports for the development of a passenger ferry terminal at Port Glasgow. It makes excellent sense and would provide lots of jobs on the lower Clyde.

I of course appreciate the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. There has been a great deal of work and a great deal of success has been achieved. There have also been disappointments, such as the unfortunate closure of National Semiconductors, but new jobs have also been created, for example at IBM, on a very extensive scale. Again there is a balance to be struck. I am aware of the particular project to which my hon. Friend referred at the end of his question; it is something that we will watch very carefully.

Is not the truth of the matter that job losses are on the increase in too many parts of Scotland? While the Secretary of State concentrates on trying to get another job for himself—a prospect that is fading faster after the north-east Euro by-election—others are losing their jobs. With high interest rates compared with the rest of Europe, too strong a pound hitting exports, and high on-costs on wages even before the minimum wage starts pushing unemployment even higher, is the only hope for those losing their jobs due to Government policy to follow the lead of the Paymaster General and advertise their availability for hire in the "Yellow Pages"?

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is trying to add to his reputation as a statesman. Obviously he was not listening or decided to ignore what I said earlier. If we compare the job losses that have been announced since the beginning of the year and the job promises that have been made—I recognise that promises do not always turn into reality—and even if the promises are only two thirds fulfilled, it is clear that we are in balance.

What plans he has to review the organisation and management of further education, with particular reference to industrial relations issues. [61265]

The Government have asked the further education sector to play a leading role in the delivery of our key programmes for education, social inclusion and competitiveness and we are increasing expenditure in the sector by £214 million over the next three years. To ensure that that money meets the challenges that the Government have set the sector, I intend to ask the new Scottish Further Education Funding Council to review the management of further education colleges. I will announce a detailed remit for the review shortly.

That is excellent news which will be widely welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, as part of the review, the restoration of the national negotiating machinery will be considered? That machinery was taken apart by the previous Government, despite the fact that they were warned about the likely consequences in places such as Motherwell college. Responsible and experienced trade unionists, who knew what they were talking about, told the then Government what the results would be, but their views were ignored.

I take my hon. Friend's point about bargaining in further education colleges. There is a mixed message across Scotland about the impact of localised bargaining, but I have no doubt that the review board will consider the matter and come to conclusions on it. As she knows, I have no specific locus in industrial relations matters, but I recently visited Motherwell college, where I asked both management and the trade unions to resolve their difficulties as quickly as possible. The only people who suffer in such situations are the students, who are all working extremely hard.

Does the right hon. Lady see any problems with the difference between the supposed increases in expenditure on school teachers and the salaries available to people in further education? The Government have clearly tried to accelerate the amount of funding per pupil in schools, but the same is not true of further education.

I really wish the Opposition Whips would brief Conservative Members better. If the hon. Gentleman had listened more closely, he would have heard me say that £214 million extra was going into further education over the next three years. Further education is at the heart of the Government's plans for lifelong learning, and we are greatly encouraged by the breadth of experience of lecturers in further education colleges and the role that they are playing in meeting the Government's challenges.

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the review of further education colleges, especially because of the difficulties that we have had in Renfrewshire with Reid Kerr college in my constituency. Will she ask the review board to consider how the new deal is working in further education colleges? I have heard complaints that new dealers have been turned away in favour of more lucrative students.

That is an interesting question—I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter. We have invited consultants to look at the operation of Reid Kerr college. We have made it plain to the further education sector that it has a responsibility to its conventional students as well as to those students who have come in under the new deal. I hope shortly to publish the strategic framework for further education, which will take into account some of the structural issues that are causing colleges to compete perhaps needlessly.

In view of the dissatisfaction with local pay bargaining in further education to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred, will the right hon. Lady undertake not to introduce similar arrangements in secondary education?

The millennium review completed its discussions on salary levels in our schools a short time ago. The review is currently negotiating the role of local authorities as employers with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am hopeful that, at the end of that process, there will be a settlement for Scotland's teachers that rewards all teachers in a way that recognises their talents. At the moment, there are no proposals on the table for the introduction of localised bargaining.

Will the Minister accept that the £2 million real-terms cut in funding for the three north-east colleges of further education has placed a real question mark over the Government's commitment to "education, education, education"? Does she acknowledge that the cut has led to sudden, abrupt changes in timetables, which are deeply damaging to the students and cause great unhappiness to the lecturers, who are not even consulted in advance?

As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, we inherited a £5 million public expenditure cut in further education colleges. This year alone, we have increased expenditure by £12.4 million. Early in the new year, I will announce the settlements for colleges, including those in the north. The Government have shown our commitment to further education by giving it the place in the education system that it deserves, and by increasing expenditure on further education across Scotland.

If he will make a statement regarding the reform of local government. [61266]

The Government are working to ensure that we create modernised local government, delivering the services people need. We appointed the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament under the chairmanship of Neil McIntosh; it will report to the First Minister in due course.

Does the Minister think that the McIntosh commission on local authorities has missed an opportunity by not recommending an anti-corruption commission to look into allegations of wrongdoing in the central belt?

The reason why we did not ask the McIntosh commission to look at that matter is that we are looking at it ourselves. Next week, we will issue a new code of conduct for councillors, which will be part of the question of ethical standards in local government. There will be standards committees for councils, and a standards commission for Scotland, to provide a means of dealing with allegations of misconduct external to the council involved. We have acknowledged that there is a difficulty and we have taken steps to remedy it. We will publish our findings next week, and the Scottish Parliament will legislate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problems in Scottish local government lies directly with the Conservative party and its botched and expensive reorganisation, which removed from local government a vast number of experienced officers? Is not the bottom line the fact that the Scottish Parliament will work with local authorities to provide the high-quality, modernised services that the people of Scotland desperately need?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. For 18 years, local government was neglected and abused. In the past 18 months, we have had an opportunity to tackle problems where they have arisen, but we must go ahead in partnership. I have no doubt that the new Parliament will ensure that local authorities retain their autonomy. We will make sure that standards are improved and that services are modernised. Where it is required, we will rebuild public trust and confidence. That is an important agenda for the new century—an agenda that it would be impossible to achieve under the Conservative party.

Self-regulation by the Labour party in Scotland scarcely fills us with confidence. The Labour party cannot be the solution, because it is the problem. Perhaps the Minister can refresh our memories. How many investigations are currently taking place into misdemeanours in Labour-run councils? Strathclyde regional council last week found that it was leaving a deficit of £78 million for its successor councils to pay up. Was that old Labour, new sleaze or new Labour, old sleaze? How would the Minister describe his party's financial incompetence?

It is clear again that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Opposition's principal spokesman, has completely missed the point. No one is talking about self-regulation by the Labour party. We are talking about a new ethical framework which, I repeat, will comprise a code of conduct for councillors, standards committees for councils and an independent standards commission for Scotland to provide the means of dealing with allegations of misconduct. That will be the basis of an announcement, and the basis for parliamentary legislation in Holyrood. Dealing with the House of Lords may be a trifle easy, but dealing with Scottish local government requires the Opposition to be serious—which they have not been in the past 18 months.

Does my hon. Friend realise how much the extra £860 million for local government will improve services, and how welcome it is in the schools in my constituency and elsewhere that an extra £1.3 billion is being spent on our education services over the next three years? That is 15 per cent. above inflation, and far more than was ever given by the Conservative Government.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, because that is the reality of Scottish local government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is investing heavily in the future of education. That is important to Labour Members, even if it is not important to Conservatives. We want to invest and modernise, and that requires partnership, which is what the new Parliament at Holyrood will provide.

When he last met representatives of health trusts in Scotland to discuss delivery of mental health care in Scotland. [61267]

I meet representatives of health boards and NHS trusts regularly to discuss matters of current interest. Mental health is a top priority for the Government and we have already introduced a range of measures designed to improve services for the mentally ill. It is vital also that the legislative framework be adequate to meet developments in treatment and care, while having due regard to public safety, so we are setting up a committee to carry out a major review of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which the right hon. Bruce Millan, I am pleased to announce, has agreed to lead.

I welcome the Minister's comments, but does he appreciate the fact that many of us will want time to study the recommendations that may be made in the review of that Act? This important issue affects many people in Scotland. Will there be nurse-led initiatives in both acute and primary care services, which are very important for everyone; and will the review exclude compulsory treatment, which is a matter on which the Scottish Association for Mental Health, for example, has expressed concern about civil liberties? How will the review be undertaken and when will the recommendations be implemented?

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the review, but she must appreciate the fact that there are two separate issues involved: the legislation under which care is carried out, and the care itself. What I have announced today is a review of the legislation. It will be carried out under the chairmanship of the right hon. Bruce Millan, and we will make further announcements about the membership and remit of the review committee. We hope that it will report in 18 months' time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are almost exactly the same number of people with learning disabilities in hospitals in Scotland as there are in the whole of England and Wales? Does he further agree that, before such patients are discharged, there should be proper assessments and advocacy, in line with the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, so that we know what will happen to them? Does he, finally, agree that he has inherited a situation in which there are again more mentally ill people in Scottish prisons this Christmas, simply because the courts do not know where else to send them; and that that is incompatible with the caring attitude of the Scottish people?

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments on a subject on which he is an expert. He is correct about the figures. There is always a balance to be struck between those in the community and those who are looked after in hospitals. We have not got it right yet, but we are moving in the right direction. I can give an absolute assurance that no person with learning difficulties will leave hospital unless going into care of a very high standard that will offer decency and dignity and the opportunity to live as normal a life as possible.

How many mental health hospitals in Scotland still have mixed-sex wards?

I cannot give the exact figure. The difference between Scotland's mental health services and those in the rest of the country is that we did not rush into closing all our mental health hospitals and forcing all the patients into the community. We have retained a certain number in hospitals because we think that it is right and proper to provide places of refuge and asylum. We will continue to do that. It is a question of getting the balance right, and we think that we are near to achieving that in Scotland.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of Higher Still. [61268]

Work is proceeding to ensure that Higher Still will be introduced from August 1999. The liaison group which I announced at Scottish questions in November has now met twice to consider issues relating to the implementation of Higher Still. I hope that the contribution of and positive approach taken by all members of the group will ensure that there is no need for any further delays with Higher Still.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm commendations that accompanied the applause after her recent speech to the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland? For her handling of the Higher Still debate, she is becoming known as Scottish education's "flexible friend," although I have suggested that her approach is more firm and flexible than just flexible. Does she accept that the Educational Institute of Scotland's survey of readiness reveals that, because of the cascade training method, many classroom teachers still feel unprepared to deal with Higher Still in the classroom? Will she make it plain to local authorities in Scotland that they should use some of the vast resources that she has made available to them to train teachers directly in the classroom in preparation for Higher Still?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that he does so with some knowledge of the topic. With reference to the cascade methods used to disseminate training, it is difficult to see how cascading could be avoided entirely, given that tens of thousands of teachers and lecturers are involved in the process, but there should be only one cascade from the principal teacher to the classroom teacher.

Why will the Minister not listen to professional teachers who are trying to tell her that the element of internal assessment in the Higher Still system will inevitably mean that employers and higher education institutions will have doubts about the validity of exam results achieved by children under the Higher Still system?

The hon. Lady is misinformed. The structure of assessment that will operate in Higher Still is based on existing structures of assessment. She says that the Government have not listened. When English teachers felt that the level of assessment was one level too far, the Government undertook to amend the system of assessment available for the teaching of English, and we are now issuing new guidelines.

As flexibility seems to be the key to getting agreement between the Scottish Office and the teachers, will the Minister elaborate on the reply that she gave a moment ago about the extent to which individual schools and departments will be able to go ahead or not, depending on how well prepared for Higher Still the teachers feel?

The liaison group was established to take that matter into account. There have been two meetings of the liaison group so far, and I am grateful for the hard work that has been done by the group. A third meeting of the liaison group is to take place next week, and it will examine the guidelines to local authorities and the parameters within which decisions are to be taken.

What is his current estimate of the number of applications to Scottish universities from English-domiciled students for the years 1999–2000; and what was the number of applications in November 1997 for the academic year 1998–99. [61269]

Seven per cent. more English students have accepted places at Scottish universities this year than did last year, which gives the lie to the scaremongering that we heard some months ago. I expect the number of English applications to Scottish higher education institutions for next year to be maintained. We want to offer as many students as possible the opportunity to qualify for higher education in Scotland.

Will 9 per cent. of the population continue to gain 13 per cent. of the university places? Do not universities such as Heriot-Watt, Stirling and Aberdeen depend financially on the continuation of that position?

My hon. Friend is concerned following his discussions with representatives of those universities about the level of applications this year. However, we shall not have a detailed analysis of those applications until 15 December, when the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service cut-off date applies. I shall try to find out what impact there has been on specific disciplines, and the Government are committed to monitoring the introduction of new student support arrangements, which is why the Quigley committee has been established.

What is the social profile of the students to whom the Minister referred? Will she publish the figures on 15 December so that we can determine whether the new students have rather well-off parents?

I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is searching for gloom where none exists. Analysis by UCAS of the social classes of United Kingdom applicants suggests that the proportion from poorer backgrounds this year is similar to that last year. The scaremongering was all for nothing.

Can the Minister say how many English students have applied to the university of the highlands and islands, and, in particular, to Argyll college? She will be aware that, although the college's prospectus is out, there is no funding with which to run the college, and that has put it in jeopardy in an area that has no further education facilities. Will she and her Department do something about that immediately?

I am slightly ahead of the hon. Lady, because I met representatives of Argyll college last week. I recognise the difficulties in Argyll, an area with no ready access to further education. I am anxious that Argyll should benefit from the university of the highlands and islands. I cannot give the hon. Lady statistics disaggregated for applications for higher education in Argyll, but I know of the strong academic record of Argyll—particularly at Dunoon grammar school, which has sent a high proportion of hon. Members to the House—and I look forward to a solid future for Argyll. My officials are giving what assistance they can to Argyll college, because it is important to put together a sustainable business case for the college's proposals on marine education. I am anxious to give the maximum support to ensure that Dunstaffnage puts together a viable case that will provide future stability.

If he will make a statement on developments in the Scottish manufacturing sector. [61272]

In the year to the second quarter of 1998, manufacturing output increased by 4.6 per cent., compared with the previous four quarters, and growth was evident in seven of the 11 manufacturing sectors.

Are the Minister and the Labour Government concerned by the Office for National Statistics index of production, which showed manufacturing output in the three months to October falling by 0.7 per cent. and business failures in September rising by nearly 18 per cent? Do those figures result from the tax on savings, the increases in taxation and the increase in business costs that the Government have brought into effect.

As I would have predicted, the hon. Gentleman is being selective. As I have said, in the year to the second quarter of 1998, manufacturing output increased by 4.6 per cent. In the past month, there have been excellent announcements by various companies: Fullarton Computer Industries will create 500 new jobs in Prestwick; Universal Scientific Industries is creating 700 jobs at a new plant in Irvine; and Walter Alexander, the Falkirk coach builder, has won a £15 million contract from Hong Kong for 122 buses, which is commendable in a difficult export climate.

Will the Minister advise the House whether he thinks that the Scottish manufacturing sector will be adversely affected by an emergent Whitehall culture, which is demonstrated in a recent leaked memo stating that as little information as possible is to be given to the Scottish Parliament even in areas of devolved powers? Does he think that that grudging attitude is appropriate?

Manufacturing would, of course, be wrecked by the uncertainties caused by any move towards separation and independence. I must emphasise that there is no plot to snatch back funds from the Scottish Administration. Funds that are already with the Scottish Office will automatically transfer to the Scottish Parliament and the White Paper stated that Scotland would continue to benefit from its appropriate share of United Kingdom public expenditure.

When he expects to publish his proposals on commonhold property tenure. [61248]

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is consulting on proposals for leasehold reform. That consultation deals with issues similar to those that would have to be covered in consultation on a commonhold scheme. Therefore, it would be sensible to consider the results of the DETR exercise before embarking on our own consultation. Meanwhile, work on developing proposals is continuing.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it would help those of us who are interested in leasehold reform if we could consider commonhold in parallel. In the past, he told us that some difficulties have emerged since the 1996 Bill was drafted in the Department. Can he tell us what problems remain on commonhold and whether he would accede to the suggestion that we consider commonhold along with leasehold reform, rather than afterwards?

The reason it was decided not to proceed in parallel was that any proposal for a commonhold scheme would inevitably have to cover many areas on which the DETR is consulting on leasehold. For example, relations between individuals and their landlord—whether he or she is a freeholder or a commonhold association—relations between individuals, managers and agents, valuation and dispute resolution processes and a number of other areas are common to both matters. It seems to us to make good sense to keep the systems in step in so far as we can to ensure that any benefits that result from leasehold reform are also available to commonholders. However, we are continuing with the preparatory work so that as soon as the consultation period on leasehold reform is completed we will be in a position to proceed with any further proposals on commonhold that may be necessary.

What steps he is taking to improve the local delivery and administration of justice. [61252]

On the criminal side, our plans for developing the local delivery and administration of the magistrates courts service were announced in statements to both Houses on 29 October 1997. As a result, smaller magistrates courts committees are amalgamating, leading to an increase in administrative efficiency for the areas involved. On the civil side, the Court Service is responsible for ensuring an appropriate balance between the delivery of local justice and obtaining value for taxpayers' money. The Access to Justice Bill, which was introduced on 2 December, will continue our programme of reform.

My hon. Friend will know that I approve of, and congratulate him on, many of the things that the Department is doing. However, on local justice locally delivered, many of my constituents and many magistrates are concerned that the rationalisation that is still continuing apace in magistrates courts is very similar to that carried out under a previous Administration. The proximity of courts to everyday life and work is important, especially for people from impoverished backgrounds—those people who suffer from social exclusion—so that they can be in their community and get to court easily. Therefore, will my hon. Friend have a word with some of his civil servants? The proposal may look good on the map and may be good for rationalisation and efficiency as regards the taxpayer, but surely local justice should still be locally delivered.

I do not disagree with the principles that my hon. Friend has set out. However, responsibility for local magistrates courts is in the hands of local magistrates courts committees. They decide whether courts should remain open or closed in the first place and it is only when there is an appeal against a decision that the Department becomes involved. Hon. Members who are concerned about the local delivery of justice should use their influence, as I hope that my hon. Friend will, on local magistrates courts committees to ensure that, where appropriate, courts remain open.

May I ask the Minister to consider the importance of the county courts as part of the local community as well as part of the delivery of local justice? In particular, will he examine the proposals, which I understand are at an early stage, to close Altrincham, Tameside and Leigh county courts? That would be a retrograde step in the local delivery of justice and I hope that he will take a close look at it.

I have visited Altrincham county court—in a wholly representative capacity, might I say. I was impressed by the service that it provided to the local community. It is crucial that the local court service can balance the interests of the taxpayer and the cost of county courts against the importance of the local delivery of justice. Most people who visit county courts go there for information; they do not necessarily go there to attend court. There are many ways in which information can be delivered using the benefits of modern technology other than through making available a courthouse facility. I hope that information technology will improve access to information, rather than leaving us dependent on expensive court buildings to deliver the service.

The Minister knows that I have been concerned for some time about the closure of magistrates courts in my constituency. I have seen him at least once on the subject, but he did not assist me much in terms of access to local justice then. It is not only the public—front-line access to justice—who are suffering; justices of the peace in north Wales have told me, fatalistically, that before long their lives will be so miserable that stipendiaries will come in and the whole system of local justice will go.

I simply do not accept that. As I said, the administration of local justice and the magistrates courts is in the hands of local magistrates courts committees. That is the same in north Wales as in other parts of England and Wales. It will remain in their hands because that is the best way to guarantee the local delivery of justice.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that, for local people to have confidence in their justice system, it is crucial that magistrates benches be properly representative of the communities that they serve. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Salford. Take three inner-city areas: in Ordsall we have no magistrates; in Langworthy and Seedley we have but one; and in Kersal we have a grand total of five. Such areas suffer the bulk of crime and disorder in our city. Will the Minister reassure me that steps are being taken to increase the number of inner-city representatives on our magistrates benches so that the communities that suffer crime are represented at the heart of the justice system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, although she will know that appointments in the Duchy of Lancaster are the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor has asked the Central Office of Information to devise a national press campaign to help identify ways of attracting groups who are under-represented on the bench. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Magistrates Association have worked together to produce a guide for employers explaining the benefits to their companies of having magistrates in the work force. I sincerely hope that the appointments system will benefit from that approach.

If he intends to publish a White Paper in advance of the Access to Justice Bill. [61254]

The Government published their White Paper "Modernising Justice" on 2 December 1998.

I am obliged to the Minister for pointing out that which had already been brought to my attention. May I take him to the reference in paragraph 6.18 of the White Paper on whether salaried defenders will be sanctioned by the Government? He knows that that issue has caused much disquiet in the legal profession and that the White Paper suggests that it will be kept under consideration. Will he explain why clause 13 of the Access to Justice Bill, which was published simultaneously, provides that Parliament will be asked to sanction exactly such a step and will be deprived of the opportunity of legislative scrutiny thereafter?

The explanation is that it is clearly necessary for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, to have powers to employ salaried lawyers who may one day, if appropriate, constitute a public defender service. The Government have no plans to take forward any comprehensive scheme, but it is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate in principle whether that may one day become a feature of our criminal defence service.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the bewilderment that members of the public who have recourse to the law feel when they have dealt with a lawyer whom they trust and believe is competent to carry out their business and that lawyer is suddenly replaced in court by someone whom they have barely met and do not know? Will he emphasise to me the Government's commitment to ensuring that access to audience is seriously pursued?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. He will know that the Bill and the White Paper set out proposals to eliminate the remaining restrictive practices between solicitors and barristers to allow all those who have qualified as either a solicitor or a barrister to appear in all the higher courts. That is a welcome improvement in the rights of ordinary people to secure legal representation and will eliminate the problems that my hon. Friend so well describes.

The Minister will recognise that the Access to Justice Bill will deny citizens the right to select a defence lawyer of their choice. How does that comply with the Human Rights Act 1998?

Difficult, Geoffrey.

Not at all.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the leader of the Bar may say, the majority of those of progressive opinion within the legal profession accept the need to modernise the profession, eliminate unnecessary restrictive practices and improve access to justice?

I was slightly surprised to discover that members of the Bar welcomed our proposals. Although they had one or two "predictable moans", according to a leader in The Times, on balance they felt that our proposals would improve access to justice and would be to the benefit of all those citizens who have to use legal services.

What representations he has received concerning the closure of magistrates courts in East Anglia. [61255]

I have recently received 12 representations from hon. Members, justices of the peace and other local interested parties, following the Cambridgeshire magistrates courts committee's determination to close the March magistrates courts with effect from 31 December 1998. I have previously received representations in relation to the Suffolk magistrates courts committee's decision to close magistrates courts in Suffolk.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister agree that Haverhill in Suffolk is a good instance of a market town—it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—that is forecast to grow and should have local infrastructure, but that will see access to justice denied and the abandonment of an important part of the local infrastructure?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Haverhill and other courthouses in Suffolk, but those decisions were taken by the Suffolk magistrates courts committee. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman should come here and make representations to a London-based Minister that that Minister should override a local decision which surely was informed by all the factors that he advances on behalf of the case for Haverhill and other such towns.

Does the Minister agree that every magistrates courts committee is a quango? Does he accept that those quangos are taking the decisions that they have taken, not at the behest of local people, but because the Government have starved the service of sufficient resources?

I do not accept for one moment either that magistrates courts committees are quangos or that they are starved of financial resources.