If he will make a statement on tuition fees for tertiary education in Scotland. [84126]

The policy on tuition fees, announced in July 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, remains throughout the United Kingdom. From 1 July, education—and so the conduct and outcome of the review being conducted at the Scottish parliamentary level—will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Scottish Office. I hope that it will not be too long before he is promoted to the position of Secretary of State for Defence—which is where, I suspect, his true interests lie. However, before he gloats too much at the victory of his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) over the fawning Liberal Democrats in Scotland, does he think that, while the United Kingdom is still the United Kingdom, it is fair that some students studying at United Kingdom universities should be disadvantaged in comparison with other students studying at United Kingdom universities?

I think that we strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom by recognising our diversity, which is precisely one of the reasons why we have devolved decision making to Scotland and to Wales, and why we are on the verge of doing so to Northern Ireland and to London. Perhaps, in future, we shall do so also to other areas. I think that the vast majority of people across the United Kingdom will be gratified that the Government are ensuring that local decisions affecting local people are being taken at a more local level.

I join in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his first Question Time in his new role as Secretary of State. Will he confirm that it is estimated that as many as 40 per cent. of students will pay no tuition fees at all?

I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations. I can also tell her that although it was estimated that about 40 per cent. of those entering Scottish higher education would not pay any tuition fees at all, according to the latest figures that we have, more than 50 per cent. will pay no tuition fees at all. She will know that the entire purpose of our policy is to extend higher education in Scotland to a far greater number of people than has hitherto been the case. Moreover, the fact that more than 50 per cent. will pay no tuition fees demonstrates that a greater number of people from low-income groups will now have access to education, which surely must be one of the priorities of any decent, civilised Government.

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to Secretary of State. He will be aware that there is a partnership document involving the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament. Is it his understanding that, when the inquiry on tuition fees reaches its conclusions, the Liberal Democrats will have a free vote on the matter—or will they just take the Labour Whip?

You will know, Madam Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman will know that matters of procedure within the Scottish Parliament, and within the parties in the Scottish Parliament, are entirely for that Parliament and those parties. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I also urge him to consider whether the main aim of any civilised party in modern Scotland should not be to ensure that educational opportunities are extended to the maximum number of people so that young people are able to liberate their talents and achieve their full capabilities—especially those on lower incomes, who will benefit from the arrangements introduced by the Government.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Scotland. Traditionally, the debate has focused on the ancient universities in Scotland and on those attending them. Is my right hon. Friend today able to provide specific figures on the participation in higher education of those who are from low-income backgrounds, and on the participation of those attending further education colleges in Scotland, where the majority of Scotland's students study? Our policy will succeed or fail on that type of measurement.

My hon. Friend is quite right. I have already mentioned that, this year, more than 50 per cent. of entrants to Scottish higher education will pay no tuition fees. As he will know, because of the arrangements that we have made, anyone whose parental income is less than the average will pay nothing at all in tuition fees. The figure of more than 50 per cent. is not only much higher than estimated, but indicates that, for the first time, we are increasingly providing people from low-income backgrounds with the opportunity of higher education. Moreover, the figure in Scottish further education colleges will be 70 per cent.

The Secretary of State is in fact older than I thought he was before he gave that reply.

I think that people who vote in different ways in two different areas will have to resolve that problem themselves, irrespective of their parties. The purpose of devolution is to give the power of decision making to another tier of government within the sovereignty of this Parliament and the unity of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we have to countenance the possibility that, on occasions, the Scottish Parliament will give certain issues different priorities. There are two ground rules to enabling that partnership to develop.

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for the first reasonably thought-out response to the implications of devolution that we have heard in the House for some time. Does he agree that the fiasco over the Liberal Democrats' position on tuition fees in Scotland exposes what an absolute sham the whole concept of proportional representation is? Is there not a lesson in that for the House to bear in mind when we are engaged in discussing issues with those who are in the bargain basement of principles and who will give up any promise whatsoever for the mere sniff of the inside of a ministerial Mondeo? Does he further agree that when politicians decide policies after an election, rather than people being able to vote on them, it is unhealthy for a democratic system? Perhaps the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to tell his colleagues on the Back Benches what effect what happens in Scotland will have on policies here at Westminster.

Proportional representation was deemed to be suitable in Scotland because it was the form of electoral system that was judged best to meet the consensual discussions that were taking place in Scotland. It is no more complicated than that. The hon. Gentleman is a bit churlish about the constructive way in which the parties in the Scottish Parliament have dealt with issues, given the arithmetic that was thrown up by proportional representation. When the arithmetic suggested an overall majority, two parties—the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party—faced up to that problem, discussed it, engaged in dialogue, reached a compromise and came up with a solution. When the problem of tuition fees came up, they discussed it, engaged in dialogue, reached a compromise and came up with a solution.

What plans he has to distribute and control funds for scientific research within Scotland. [84127]

The Scottish Office controls a block of research-related spending of around £250 million in total. This underpins the science base in Scotland and covers the full range of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office. The Scottish Parliament will assume devolved responsibility for all these matters on 1 July.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating medical scientists at the university of Dundee, who are developing radical cancer therapies and have launched a £4 million appeal? Does he agree that with talent like that, they can well compete for research grants on the international scene as well as for those from UK research councils and their charities? There is no need for breakaway funding councils; they can compete across the world.

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. Some Scottish Office research funding for the health service in Scotland, for example, goes to successful bidders throughout the United Kingdom. It is important to maintain those connections.

Will the Minister assure us that funding will continue for the research centre in Edinburgh that was responsible for much of the research that linked bovine spongiform encephalopathy to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Who will be responsible for funding that centre? Will it be funded nationally or from Scotland?

I am not sure whether that research institute is funded through the Scottish Office or through UK funding. If the funding comes from the Scottish Office, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. If it is UK research council funding, it will continue as at present.

Will my hon. Friend outline the steps that the Government are taking to allay public concerns about genetically modified crops?

Some £2 million of Scottish Office research funding goes into GM-related research. That research is important to gain the necessary knowledge to assess the future of GM crops and foods.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the whole of the renewed Scottish Office team to the Front Bench. I appreciate the constructive way in which they seem to be engaging in the new politics. [Interruption.] That constructive spirit is being well supported on the ground by people who understand the need for stability and continuity.

First, I have always been a UK Minister, because the Scottish Office has always been part of the UK Government. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Scottish research institutes should be able to continue to bid for funding from around the United Kingdom.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on CCTV as a method of crime prevention. [84128]

The Government are firmly committed to strong policies on law and order. That is why we support CCTV as a method of crime prevention, as is demonstrated by our commitment to the Scottish Office CCTV challenge competition, which has awarded £6.8 million to more than 100 projects in Scotland since 1996. From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know of my interest in the subject, because Irvine and Kilwinning in my constituency are without CCTV. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who was then the relevant Minister, and received a reply at the end of last month suggesting that there would be a new competition for an additional £13 million. When will that begin?

I know that my hon. Friend has been lobbying on the issue for some time. He lobbied successfully for funding for Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenson. The next round of funding will be in July or August, and will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Do the Government think that there is a connection between the reduction in the number of police officers in Scotland in the past year and the 13 per cent. growth in crime?

I know that CCTV has resulted in a 20 per cent. reduction in crime figures in some areas. It is not a substitute for good, modern policing, but the two must go hand in hand.

If he will publish a document listing his responsibilities following the establishment of the Scottish Executive. [84129]

If he will make a statement on the future role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. [84138]

As Secretary of State, I will continue to have the role of representing Scottish interests across the range of matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, as well as easing and assisting in relationships between the British Government and the Scottish Executive and between the two Parliaments.

While I wish the Secretary of State well, are we not in danger of creating a costly constitutional nonsense by retaining a group of Scottish Ministers who will be little more than Muppets sitting on the Front Bench, with no power to influence decision making in Scotland? If he doubts that, as he will no doubt tell me he does, would he care to consider Question Time today—before 1 July—when he will be asked what visits he plans and what his opinions are on social inclusion and biotechnology? Will the change not make a nonsense of the House of Commons? Why should we spend all the money on keeping a Scottish Office when its powers have gone?

I do not whom the hon. Gentleman meant by his reference to Muppets—we are not a bad team, with three PhDs and a millionaire. People in Scotland are capable of deciding who is and is not a Muppet, as they did in Cathcart in 1979. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Scotland wish to be Scottish and British, they wish to take more of their own decisions in the Scottish Parliament, and they wish to play a full part in a partnership with English, Welsh and Northern Ireland representatives in the United Kingdom. In so doing, they send Members of Parliament here who have been and will be active in defending and representing the interests of the people of Scotland at every level and across the range of important issues—which he deems unimportant to them—such as pensions, benefits and welfare, economic and industrial policy, and foreign affairs and defence. I should have thought that that was a full-time job.

Now that we have devolution, will the Secretary of State give a proper answer to the so-called West Lothian question which is greatly exercising my constituents in Bromsgrove and those in many other English seats? In particular, will he explain why it is right or fair that the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) should be the Minister for Transport, with responsibility for roads in my constituency, but this House has no responsibility for roads in Scotland? Why is it right or fair that his hon. Friends who sit for Scottish seats can vote on health and education issues that affect my constituency, while English Members cannot vote on those issues in Scotland?

I am sure that they speak of little else but the West Lothian question in the pubs of Bromsgrove. I must remember not to go for a good night out in a Bromsgrove pub.

I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend. What authority has he over matters relating to the management of traditional Scottish inshore fishing grounds? The recent transfer of jurisdictional control over several thousand square miles of traditional Scottish fishing grounds to English courts has caused deep concern among fishermen. Should not the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have been consulted on that matter?

I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments. First, as he will understand, there was previously no legal boundary line but an administrative one. Secondly, the line that has been set allows something like—I speak from memory—140,000 square miles of sea for Scottish fishing. That line has been set according to the internationally agreed legal standards and determined by the two adjacent land points. Fishermen on the western side of Scotland seem prepared to accept that international standard, although those on the eastern side do not.

It will be within your recollection, Madam Speaker, that you had some strong words to say on the matter of the sub judice rules in connection with Lockerbie. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the person with the relevant responsibility—either the Advocate-General or the Lord Advocate—is addressing the question of how The Sunday Times came to run a coach and horses through the sub judice rules on its front page last Sunday? Is any action being taken?

I thank my hon. Friend for the notice that he gave me about that question, which he did as I walked through the door into the Chamber this afternoon. I can tell him that my understanding of the matter, which is much fuller than it was before I entered the Chamber, is that it has been the subject of discussions between the Attorney-General and other parties, but that so far it has not involved Scottish Law Officers. However, in the near future I shall discuss the matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark), who is Advocate-General for Scotland and on the Bench beside me today. I shall then write to my hon. Friend with further details.

The Secretary of State should be aware that his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) about the breaking-up of England and the imposition of its balkanisation on an unwelcoming English public is likely only to make the West Lothian question talked about in Bromsgrove. However, will the Secretary of State say whether there are any reserved powers affecting Scotland that are not covered by the responsibilities of another Secretary of State in the Cabinet? The right hon. Gentleman gave a description of his role earlier, but is his primary role to be the Scottish representative in the Cabinet, or is it to be the Cabinet's representative in Scotland? In other words, will he be the messenger boy taking messages from the Prime Minister to the First Minister, or vice versa?

On the first question, there are a number of residual powers that are not under the control of other Departments. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with a list, which he can read in due course. On the second question, I know that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty holding two ideas in his head at the same time, but it is possible to be both Scottish and British. Indeed, the Scottish people have lived with those two ideas for some 300 years, as even a cursory glance at Scottish history would reveal.

If he will make a statement on the arrangements for joint scrutiny with the Scottish Executive of European legislation. [84130]

On this occasion I shall refer to my book. Detailed arrangements for the scrutiny of European legislation in the Scottish Parliament will be a matter for members of its European Committee. Liaison between that Committee and the European scrutiny Committees will be a matter for members of those Committees. Scottish Ministers will play their part in fully developing the agreed UK line.

I, too, begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming Secretary of State for Scotland. Does he agree that, although the European Union has brought considerable financial and other benefits to Scotland, both to remote rural areas and to areas that have experienced heavy job losses in traditional manufacturing and other industries, it is still seen as unaccountable and distant from people's everyday lives? Does he therefore agree that the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament can take the lead in bringing Europe closer to the people by working together, developing effective joint scrutiny of European legislation and, through such a partnership, delivering the best possible deal for the people whom we jointly represent?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. We need a strong voice in Europe, and that is provided by the Labour Government. We aim to see Scotland leading in Britain and Europe, not leaving Britain or Europe. Our voice should certainly be directed partly towards making the EU, its instruments and the vehicles of its policy more directly relevant to ordinary families in rural and other areas throughout Scotland. The achievement of a strong voice in Europe, to make the EU more relevant, to reform it and to bring it more directly to people's interests, is the reason that every vote in the European election should be cast for the Scottish Labour party.

When considering implementation of European legislation, will the Secretary of State consider the concerns of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss its concerns that past implementation has set precedents of which the Committees that agreed the orders were not aware and which could influence decisions on future implementation?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I shall carefully consider any representation that I receive from Mr. Morrison and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I have explained the basis on which the decision was taken, but, if any representation is made, I shall consider it.

I welcome all the new members of the Front-Bench team to their posts. On a European note, may I suggest that Scots are good Scots, good Britons and good Europeans? Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending our best wishes to our fellow Scot Alex Ferguson and his Manchester United squad who will attempt to bring the European champions cup to Britain tomorrow?

I have no hesitation in agreeing with every word that my hon. Friend said. Alex Ferguson is an example to us all of how to lead in Britain and in Europe. That is precisely what the Labour Government aim to do, and that is another reason for voting Labour in the European elections. We send heartfelt support to Manchester United, and I hope to see the European cup come back to Britain.

May I add to the congratulations that many hon. Members have offered to the Secretary of State, not least because of the quite admirable way in which he has dealt with his first, positively surreal Scottish Question Time? In the light of his remarkable and self-proclaimed ability to do two things at once, whose part would the Secretary of State take if a piece of European legislation meant that the interests of Scotland conflicted with those of the whole United Kingdom?

It is clear that United Kingdom Ministers will lead on issues in Europe. It is equally clear, however, that the Scottish Parliament and its representatives will be fully involved in formulating the UK policy on any representation to Europe. It may be some time since the hon. Gentleman was in Government; I cannot recall whether he ever was.

indicated dissent.

He modestly indicates that he was not. When, at some distant stage in the future, the hon. Gentleman does enter Government, he will find that the reconciliation of differences such as the one that he has raised are an everyday occurrence.

How many modern apprenticeships places will be made available in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the timetable and cost of the initiative. [84132]

A well-trained work force are the foundation of a modern economy and that is why the Government set a target of 15,000 modern apprenticeships by 2002. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party campaigned in the recent Scottish election on a commitment to increase that figure to 20,000—a doubling of the present figure. The budget for this financial year is £17 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As I represent an area with a heavy petrochemical industry, I have already come across young people in Grangemouth and the surrounding towns who have taken up modern apprenticeships in the chemical industry. May I reassure my hon. Friend that they are pleased that they have a Government team at Scottish and at United Kingdom level who are willing to invest in their future? Will he reassure those young people that this Government, and Scottish Ministers working in co-operation with UK Ministers, will maintain a steady course and a stable and strong economy so that they can be sure that they will have jobs for which to compete in a growing economy in Scotland?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He is right to say that the wider UK context of a strong economy is essential to deliver the goal of more apprenticeships which the new Scottish Parliament will try to achieve. There are around 1,500 modern apprenticeships in engineering, which I am sure will be welcome news to my hon. Friend given his constituency interests.

Will the Minister assure the House that the south-east Scotland and Scottish borders area will have its fair share of access to those new modern apprenticeships? Will he acknowledge the importance, in particular in such industries as textiles, of training, so that the industry can be promoted in the best possible way? Will he also acknowledge the importance of European Union structural funds to training, in addition to modern apprenticeships? When will he be in a position to announce the results as regards eligibility for European structural funds and the new regional selective assistance maps for areas such as south-east Scotland? In making those decisions, will he take into account the economic difficulties that that region is facing?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a consultation period as regards the map. We will wait until the end of that period to find out what feedback we get before any final decisions are taken. On modem apprenticeships and the textile industry, a number of industries are not as well-represented as they should be in the scheme. In the coming months, we will try to improve their profile, including that of the textile industry.

May I add my congratulations to the new Front-Bench team and ask my hon. Friend whether every effort will be made to ensure that as many of the apprenticeships as possible come to Glasgow? He will be well aware that the loss of jobs in Glasgow is not a recent event—it has been occurring for decades, and during the period in office of the previous Government many large businesses became small businesses or went out of business altogether. If we can create opportunities, I hope that something can be done for the young people of Glasgow.

My hon. Friend is right. I cannot give her the figures for the number of apprenticeships in Glasgow, but if we are to get young people back into employment, we need good skills and training, which is what the modem apprenticeships scheme is designed to achieve.

If he will make a statement about his plans for university tuition fees in Scotland. [84133]

I refer the hon Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) a few moments ago.

No, I asked the Secretary of State about his plan—his own plan—for tertiary education. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) the plan for the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State still has more than a month in which to implement any plans that he may have. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, this academic year, students in Scotland will pay about £19 million in fees, but only £4 million will go to the institutions as additional funding. What did the Prime Minister mean when he said before the election that he had no intention of introducing such fees? Was it merely rhetoric—much like the rhetoric of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)?

In the first place, I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's question by saying that our plans had been outlined in July 1997. If he checks Hansard he will see that that was my answer before I referred to the Scottish Parliament's decision. I think that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Are our plans good plans?" I think that they are not only good but fair. Most people would accept that, if we are trying to fund a fairly massive extension of entry to higher education, it is fair and reasonable to say that those on the average income or below will make no contribution towards fees—more than 50 per cent. of the recent intake were in that position. Those who are on slightly above average income should make some contribution and those who are on an income of £28,000 a year should pay the full amount, which is a maximum total of £1,000.

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his new position and wish him every success. He is clearly enjoying it so far. Does he agree that the essence of devolution is that political problems and issues can have different solutions in different parts of the United Kingdom? Are not tuition fees a particularly good example of an instance where Scotland can have a different policy from the rest of the United Kingdom?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. On the question of enjoying it, it has been all right so far, but we have not gone a long way yet. His general proposition, that the essence of devolution is that we have to countenance the fact that people will make their own decisions within the areas prescribed to them, is correct. That is why I said in my first answer that I genuinely believe that the unity of the United Kingdom will be strengthened by a recognition of our diversity within these islands.

What responsibilities in respect of genetically modified crops will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. [84134]

Genetically modified crops are a devolved matter, so the Scottish Parliament will have competence to legislate in that area, within the parameters laid down in European Union legislation.

I am grateful for that answer. Will the Scottish Parliament be able to invoke article 16 of the 1990 EU directive 90/220 and ban the growing of Novartis maize, which the Minister will know has been banned in Austria and Luxembourg? If he cannot answer now, will he write to me? Will the Scottish Parliament be able to stand up for the consumer, the farmer and the environmentalist in a way that the Minister for the Cabinet Office conspicuously failed to do last week?

I do not know about the specific crop that the hon. Gentleman mentioned or the situation in Austria or Luxembourg but a general moratorium on genetically modified crops is not legal under EU law, as I am sure that he realises. The important thing is to conduct trials responsibly. That is why the Government have a number of agencies at our disposal to provide advice, including the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. Last Friday, two new commissions were set up: the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. The important thing is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can get advice from those commissions operating on a UK-wide basis. That is what we intend.

Apart from genetically modified crops, which issues likely to excite political interest are to be left to the Scottish Office and not covered by another United Kingdom Minister?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is repeating earlier questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the answer to all those questions; he operates—indeed the Scottish Office operates—both as a representative of the Scottish people within the British Cabinet and as a representative of the British Cabinet in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.

Pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999, Official Report, column 133, on immigration adjudicators, by what percentage the number of outstanding immigration appeals has been reduced; and what training has been undertaken by immigration adjudicators. [84157]

Between the end of December and the end of April 1999, the total number of outstanding appeals to adjudicators fell by 54 per cent. Any case can now be heard within four weeks of receipt. There is an on-going training programme for new adjudicators and three dedicated training days have been held this year on recent developments in immigration law.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply—and may I be the first to congratulate him on his new responsibilities? As his answer reveals, there is some spare capacity caused by relatively slow processing of domestic immigration cases and statements by the Home Office. As he has shown in the past—for example, in the Adjournment debate that he secured in January this year—there is concern about the operation of entry clearance overseas. Would it be possible for him to take steps to ensure that a larger proportion than the current 17 per cent. of work done by adjudicators relates to people appealing against the decisions of entry clearance officers overseas? In my constituency, there are people who have waited for more than six months merely to have an interview. To have to wait longer thereafter for an appeal is unfair. My hon. Friend is faced with a great opportunity to speed up the process radically. Will he take it?

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments. May I take the opportunity to acknowledge the dedicated and distinguished way in which my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, held this post? I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in his new career.

I join the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in congratulating my constituency neighbour on his promotion to the Lord Chancellor's Department as its Parliamentary Secretary. I trust that he will enjoy working with the Lord Chancellor as much as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) so clearly did.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind comments. Clearly, Market Harborough and Leicester, East will often be together in the Chamber during the months to come.

What plans he has to review the retirement age for magistrates. [84158]

The Lord Chancellor has no plans to review the retirement age for magistrates, which is 70 years of age, and broadly the same as for all holders of judicial office. The Lord Chancellor recognises the important contribution that older people can make and, for that reason, increased the upper age limit for appointment to 65 in 1997.

I add my voice to the general congratulations offered to my hon. Friend.

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Lord Chancellor's decision. As he knows, the retirement age of 70 for lay magistrates was approved by Parliament in 1968. The Lord Chancellor values the contribution that older people have made to the bench, but it is right that the bench should be as representative as possible of society as a whole. That is why the Lord Chancellor feels that the retirement age of 70 is appropriate, and it means that many people serve beyond the normal retirement age. A recent campaign to recruit more magistrates resulted in 14,000 inquiries. I think the whole House wants to see a bench that is truly representative of society. That is why we believe it is appropriate to keep the retirement age at 70.

Does the Minister acknowledge that 30 years is a long time in politics and that it is not too soon to review the retirement age as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) suggests? Many people over the age of 70 can continue to give good judicial service. They should leave the bench not because of their age but because they wish to do so or because of their evident unsuitability.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is important to have an age limit, otherwise there is a risk that people will go on for ever—and that would not be appropriate. It is important to attract more young people into the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor normally appoints people aged over 27 and the age, ethnic and gender profiles have changed enormously in the past two years. I take the right hon. Gentlemen's point—it is a serious one—but I am sure he will agree that it is important that the bench should represent and reflect society.

If he will take steps to make the Judges Council publicly accountable. [84160]

The Judges Council is wholly independent of Government. It is an informal judicial body that represents and supports the senior judiciary in the exercise of their constitutional functions. The independence of the judiciary must be respected.

I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on his promotion.

"The Council has no formal constitution, and as a collegiate body of judges who are themselves individually answerable to nobody, is formally answerable to no-one apart from those it represents. It meets six times a year, but its minutes are not published."

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I congratulate him on the fact that his remarks about judges in the Committee stage of the Access to Justice Bill have been selected as the quote of the week in the latest edition of The Lawyer magazine. The Judges Council is an independent body. It is quite right that the senior judiciary should feel that they can meet to discuss issues of concern, and it is also right that they should pass that advice to junior members of the judiciary. The Judges Council has not issued any instructions to anybody: it has merely given guidance. It is right that a body of this kind comprising senior judges should be able to do so.

What role magistrates will play in the local partnerships established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [84161]

The magistrates courts committees will be consulted on issues that affect the work of the courts and invited to participate in partnerships established under the Crime and Disorder Act. Magistrates have a good understanding of local crime and disorder problems and will be able to provide valuable insights into those issues. It is important to keep open channels of communication if local partnerships are to be effective.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position, and I hope to explore with him his views about locally administered justice. Magistrates are clearly crucial to crime and disorder partnerships, particularly in implementing anti-social behaviour orders and administering new community-based punishments. It is important that local magistrates benches should administer justice locally from the magistrates courts. In Salford, the bench is very involved in the partnership and administers justice locally. Does my hon. Friend agree that justice is best administered locally, within the community that the magistrates represent?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know of her interest in this matter and that, last year, she met the chairman of the Salford advisory committee to discuss how to increase the number of local magistrates and to broaden the nature of the bench. Those issues concern magistrates and magistrates courts committees. Although magistrates ought to be involved in those aspects of policy, it is important also that they are independent; they should not be involved in managing local strategies and they should never discuss individual cases. As long as those parameters are clear, we should support their role in ensuring that partnerships are successful.

Further to the hon. Lady's question, is the Minister aware of the serious concern expressed by magistrates in Shropshire about the prospect of the closure of custody units at police stations in market towns in the county? Will he take this opportunity to tell my constituents that he believes that it is important to retain the full range of services at police stations that serve local magistrates courts in market towns throughout Shropshire?

Of course it is important that the full range of services is available, but clearly, in this case, local circumstances must be taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter?this is the first time that he has brought it to my attention—and would like to discuss it with me, I will be happy to meet him and discuss it further.

What plans he has for the provision of legal aid for representation at coroners courts. [84163]

The Government do not intend to extend the scope of legal aid to provide representation at coroners courts in most cases. Unlike most court proceedings, coroners inquests are inquisitorial. Providing publicly funded representation at inquests and inquiries should not be a priority for taxpayers' money. However, the Access to Justice Bill contains a provision to enable the Legal Services Commission to fund representation when exceptional circumstances warrant it.

I thank the Minister for his response—and Liberal Democrat Members, too, congratulate him on his new appointment. He will be aware of the tragic circumstances of one of my constituents, an 18-year-old girl who died last year in unexplained circumstances. Her mother would have found it extremely helpful to get professional advice and support to represent her views and those of others at the coroners court. The lack of such representation has led to further complications and disputes.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. The whole House feels for the family of Miss Andrews. I hope that he will pass on to her family my sympathy, as a parent, about the tragic circumstances of her case.

If he will make a statement regarding the location of county courts in Staffordshire. [84164]

There are five county courts in Staffordshire: Burton-upon-Trent, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Tamworth and Lichfield.

May I say how pleased I am to see the hon. Gentleman in his position—in my view, it is two years overdue? He knows from our correspondence over the past few days that the future of the Lichfield county court is at risk. Does he agree that there is a role for a partnership between magistrates courts and county courts, if they can save costs by sharing the same buildings?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I shall miss him in the lifts at Norman Shaw North. One of the first letters that I received, inherited from my predecessor, was his letter. With his silver tongue, as he demonstrated today, he obviously persuaded my predecessor of the need to defer the closure of the court. He has an absolute assurance from me that nothing will happen until the three-month period is over. I know that he has ensured that there will be a meeting on 28 May, and I congratulate him on convening it. I await with great interest the outcome of that meeting, which will keep me informed. I shall then let the hon. Gentleman know my final decision.