When is the forecast completion of the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse and the M73 serving Gartcosh. [87514]

The proposal to upgrade the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse is one of the schemes being considered in the strategic review of trunk roads. Responsibility for completing the review transfers, along with other trunk road matters, to the Scottish Parliament on 1 July. The scheme at Gartcosh on the M73 will be completed in September.

My constituents and I are extremely pleased at my right hon. Friend's confirmation of those necessary roadworks. Those of us who have seen the horrors of congestion and the burdens of bottlenecks and who recognise the need for sustainable infrastructure to encourage industrial investment welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. May I take this opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that no decision has been taken about charges and that that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which will no doubt take on board in its consultations the views of road users, local authorities and those who want decongestion on roads within the excellence of a new environment?

On the upgrade between Baillieston and Newhouse, my right hon. Friend will know that two alternatives are under review. One is an on-line upgrade and one an off-line alternative. Both would involve the upgrading of that section of the A8 to motorway status. On the road charging proposals, I can confirm what my right hon. Friend said. No decision has been reached by the Scottish Parliament on that matter. Of course, there will be widespread consultation before it decides on the way forward.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about road tolling, does he agree that it would have been far better, if he was seeking to make friends and influence people, if the question of road tolling charges had been left until after the transfer of powers? The consequence of the announcement of the policy has been to cause great resentment in Scotland and to give the impression that the Scottish Executive is acting as a little Sir Echo of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. In the spirit of generosity that normally marks these occasions, I also welcome his boss, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who, if my memory serves me correctly, was the father and mother of road charging—the man who invented road charging and introduced it in a Green Paper. I am sorry that he happens to be sitting on the Front Bench to be embarrassed by his colleague's attack on such charging.

What plans there are to introduce measures to improve the competitive position of the Glasgow metropolitan area; and if he will make a statement. [87515]

We have introduced a number of measures to improve the competitiveness of Glasgow. We are supporting the Glasgow Alliance by providing running costs of £700,000 per annum and have drawn up a wide-ranging strategy for the city. From I July, these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

Is the Minister aware that there are more than 1,000 acres of derelict land in the city of Glasgow, a great deal of which is in the east and south-east of the city, in particular in my constituency? Does he agree that that land could hold the key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of that great city and that the best way to develop it would be to complete the last six miles of the M74 motorway from Tollcross to the Kingston bridge? Will he therefore agree to recommend that as an urgent priority to the appropriate people in the new Scottish Parliament, who will make decisions on such issues after 1 July?

As my hon. Friend knows, the M74 is being considered as part of the roads review. An important criterion for assessing roads within that review is, of course, economic impact. That is being looked at hard, not merely by officials but by Ministers in the new Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to use derelict land to maximise economic development; and that is an important task for the Glasgow Alliance, of which my hon. Friend is a notable member.

What plans he has to encourage the increased carriage of freight by rail in Scotland. [87516]

The Government have committed £18.3 million for the freight facilities grant scheme in Scotland over the next three years. That scheme provides capital grants to assist companies to take freight off the roads and on to rail.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Conservative Government failed miserably to develop rail freight, despite its clear advantages for the environment, for employment and for industry? Will he tell us a little more about the progress that has been made on the freight facilities grant? Will he consider the future use of that grant to develop combined rail and sea freight facilities on short sea routes from an area such as Rosyth?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the previous Government's record on freight was shameful. We saw 40 years of decline in the rail freight industry. The House will welcome the news that not only have we reversed that decline with a 12 per cent. increase in rail freight last year, but that this year we are heading for a 16 per cent. increase. That is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for the reduction of congestion and good for transport in general.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are now reviewing their integrated policies—all of them, including the dreadful bus lanes that are respected by every motorist in the country apart from the Prime Minister? On freight, will he confirm that the Government will not be using the stick to clobber freight carriers, who have already been heavily penalised by the Government with the most expensive diesel almost anywhere in the world, or certainly in Europe? Will the Government encourage people to use the railways, but not by using the stick? Does the Secretary of State realise that a higher diesel price does not necessarily mean that people will transfer from road to rail? It will simply put British freight operators out of business in this country.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. If 85 per cent. of the current cost of diesel is taxation, 79 per cent. of that amount was inherited from the Conservative Government, whom he supported year after year. The Conservatives introduced the fuel duty escalator on diesel, and maintained and increased it. The Conservative party's green manifesto, published just before the last election, stated that the escalator should be increased and extended even further than the Labour Government want to do. To try to make cheap, populist points by reversing everything introduced by the Conservatives during the past 10 years does no credit to the hon. Gentleman or his party.

The Secretary of State lives in Scotland and, unlike Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, knows what goes on there. He will be aware that there is a major rail freight terminal at Grangemouth. Does he share the dismay of the rest of Scotland that companies such as Shell, BP and others have stopped using the Bishopriggs terminal and the Fort William transport depot for rail transport for oil? They are now unnecessarily running lorries throughout Scotland.

Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I will work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament in the devolution settlement. I believe that that will be good for Scotland and for the Scottish people. Equally important, it will be good for England; it will strengthen our unity through the recognition of the diversity of this United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish Office working party report on the future of the borders economy, especially the strong recommendations regarding the reopening of the Waverley line and the issue of rail freight raised therein. Will he confirm that he is, in principle, in favour of reopening that line through the Scottish borders and into England? Will he also confirm his commitment to work with United Kingdom Ministers to ensure that the reopening of the line is a priority for the whole Government?

As the hon. Gentleman might know, not only have we given support to an alternative study of that case but we have actually financed it. That we have given such financial support shows that we have an open mind on that question. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of the study that we are financing, but the fact that we support it demonstrates that our mind is not closed on the subject.

If Scotland's railways are to expand and thrive, they will require investment and effective regulation. Will my right hon. Friend assure the people of Scotland that he, in his capacity as Secretary of State, will put pressure on the United Kingdom Government and the railway regulators to ensure that we do all in our power from this place to put our transport system on the right track?

There is common agreement across the country that we need to concentrate minds, especially that of Railtrack, on ensuring that there is adequate and commensurate investment in rail infrastructure, not only in the Scottish rail system but throughout the United Kingdom rail system. However, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we in Scotland are comparatively well served in terms of our railway system. In addition, ScotRail consistently comes at the head of the league in terms of performance and other criteria by which we judge the railways, and it is right to put that on the record.

What recent representations he has received about health in Scotland. [87517]

There are frequent representations about a wide range of matters relating to health in Scotland, including the Government's achievement in abolishing the internal market in the national health service, creating the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, and cutting waiting lists to well below the level that we inherited in 1997.

In the light of that surprising reply, is the Minister not aware that many people in England are desperately worried that their relatives in Scotland are not able to receive medical treatment? Why can people not even get on to a waiting list? Why is there now a waiting list to get on to a waiting list to get on to a waiting list? Why have the Government thrown so much money at the waiting list initiative, when the real problem is waiting times for treatment?

We are investing money in cutting waiting lists because that is what we promised to do at the last election. We have spent £44.5 million on reducing waiting lists: hospital waiting lists have now fallen for the last four quarters in a row and now stand at about 70,000, compared with 84,000 at the time of the last election.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in contrast to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), waiting lists in Aberdeen have fallen by a record number? I believe that, according to the most recent figures, the fall is the largest in Scotland. Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Government and the new Scottish Executive will continue to strive to make waiting lists as short as possible?

I can confirm that absolutely. The waiting list is now down to the target that we had set ourselves to meet three years hence—we have hit the target three years early. There are a number of long-term projects still in place that are designed to ensure that that reduction in waiting lists, once achieved, is sustained into the longer term.

Why does the Minister not swallow his pride and apologise unreservedly to the House for the fact that there are now 164 fewer nurses in Scotland than there were three years ago?

We are spending more money on the NHS in Scotland. We have reduced bureaucracy and red tape and we have reduced the number of NHS trusts in Scotland. The money that we have saved has been recycled back into front-line NHS services in Scotland, which is why we have achieved our target of reducing waiting lists as well.

Does my hon. Friend agree that poverty is a major cause of ill health and that it is therefore wrong that, for many years, Glasgow's business rates were spent outside the city in areas that needed them less? Does my hon. Friend join me in hoping that the Scottish Parliament will stop that unfair redistribution of wealth?

An important target for the Scottish Executive—as it has been for the Scottish Office for the past two years—is to reduce inequalities in health throughout Scotland. That is why we have launched the social inclusion programme across Scotland and why we are co-ordinating programmes to tackle social exclusion not just across Scotland generally but in several specific communities where that problem is most serious.

When he last met representatives of the NUS in Scotland. [87518]

I have not met representatives of the National Union of Students in Scotland recently. In view of the transfer of powers on 1 July, it might be more appropriate if representatives of the Scottish Executive meet them in future.

Given that the number of school leavers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland applying to Scottish universities has clearly decreased, and given that the majority of Scottish people voted in the recent election for parties that are clearly committed to changing the rules on tuition fees, will the Minister's party support a free vote in the Scottish Parliament on the tuition fees issue following the independent inquiry? Will the Government in London respect the results of that free vote?

The voting procedures of any party in the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that party. That gives a laxity and a freedom to individuals in those parties, which is precisely why the hon. Gentleman's Tory colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are supporting proportional representation to the hilt. I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports the right of his Tory colleagues to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if parties in the Scottish Parliament decide to abolish tuition fees, it is highly likely that the money will have to come from other areas of education, much to the detriment of the children of Scotland?

The Scottish Parliament, like this Parliament, works within financial guidelines. If the Parliament in Scotland decides—as it is entitled to do—that it has greater priorities or different priorities from those of this Parliament and allocates money in that direction, it must obtain that funding from elsewhere. That is the nature of devolution and the right of the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament also has the responsibility to explain those decisions to the people of Scotland who elect its Members. That is what Scottish Members of Parliament do here for our reserved matters, and Members of the Scottish Parliament will explain decisions on matters that have been devolved to that Parliament.

First, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind greeting to me. To return to tuition fees and the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), what provision has the right hon. Gentleman made, or might he consider making, for the possibility that the commission of inquiry will decide that tuition fees in Scotland should be abolished, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. Lady clearly considers that Scotland has been financially hamstrung by the Government's decision to abolish those tuition fees before devolution took place?

The provision that is made for the Scottish Parliament's expenditure priorities is in the block grant. If the Scottish Parliament decides—this is the essence of devolution—that it wants to spend more money on a certain area, in contradistinction to what we are doing here, it must explain that it is taking that money from another area. That is a simple concept and I should have thought that, even in the early days of his tenure in office, the hon. Gentleman would be able to grasp it—it is called devolution.

What plans he has for the participation by Scottish Office Ministers in the Highlands and Islands convention. [87519]

From 1 July, decisions on the future of the convention, its membership and structure will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Administration.

That is a very interesting reply. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Executive will be able to lead on the recommendations and possible legislation emerging from the Highlands and Islands convention in spheres such as fishing, agriculture, tourism and the environment, which all affect employment in the highlands and islands? Does that mean that there will be no interference whatsoever from the Scottish Office?

What I mean is that it is up to the Scottish Parliament and the Executive to organise the convention in whatever format it sees fit. Obviously, there will need to be changes to the existing format because of the existence of Members of the Scottish Parliament and a different arrangement for the participation of MEPs. All those matters will have to be considered. Many reserved matters impact on the highlands and islands, and the convention will no doubt want to discuss them. I greatly enjoyed my time with the convention, and if it wants to issue an invitation to me I will be happy to accept it.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the UK Government will continue to take a great interest in matters relating to the highlands and islands, because many aspects of the reserved powers—in fact, all the areas covered by the convention—will be absolutely crucial to the people of the highlands and islands?

I can confirm that many issues that were discussed at previous meetings of the convention are now reserved powers: for example, general issues of trade and industry. Their impact on the highlands and islands will be an important subject of discussion for the convention participants. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who is responsible for business and industry, attended previous meetings of the convention. I hope that Ministers from the UK Government will continue to have such a role, but it is entirely for the convention to decide that and to issue invitations for people to join.

What plans he has to review the methods for electing Members of the Scottish Parliament. [87520]

I have no plans to review the methods for electing Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Well, I am surprised by the Secretary of State's response. The Conservatives are honest enough and principled enough—[Interruption.]—to say that we are opposed to proportional representation even though it gives us seats in Scotland that we would not otherwise have. Would the Secretary of State have liked an outcome whereby his party could have had a decisive win in the Scottish elections, or does he honestly prefer the outcome that he got—a hung Parliament, in which the Liberal Democrats, who came fourth in terms of votes, have a permanent place on the Executive?

I am not sure whether I heard all the hon. Gentleman's question due to the furore and ribaldry that followed the use of the words "Conservative" and "principled" consecutively. I think that the thrust of his question was how I would judge the merits of a system. I would do so by considering whether it best served the interests not of my or any other political party, but of the people of Scotland. I take the same view in the United Kingdom. I have made my view known before. No electoral system, as an absolute, is intrinsically better or worse than any other.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The electoral system chosen for Scotland has been a negation of democracy. Any system that can bring the Tories back from oblivion and give them 18 seats must be examined. The system that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Labour votes in a second vote going nowhere, and the allocation of seats through the back door to a list of people who stood under first past the post has created a cancer in every constituency in Scotland. I hope that we change it at the next election.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's considered approach to this matter will have been noted by a range of observers. We have made it absolutely plain that, after consideration, any decision to change the system in this House would be a decision of the electorate of this country through a referendum. That is the ultimate litmus test of a satisfactory system.

Having achieved a fairer electoral system in Scotland that is based on proportionality, will the Secretary of State today undertake vigorously to oppose any reduction in the number of MSPs when or if the boundary commission recommends fewer Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster?

I cannot give the hon. Lady such an undertaking for two reasons. First, to issue the boundary commission with instructions before it has studied the matter would be to oppose it before it reached a decision and would thus be entirely unsatisfactory. Secondly, if I gave such an undertaking, it would be a complete breach of legislation that has already gone through this House.

As a supporter of proportional representation—such a voice should be heard on the Government Benches—[Interruption.] I hope that the next part of my question receives a more enthusiastic response. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the worst effect of coalition government is that parties must work harder to explain their policies not only to each other but to the outside world? In the Scottish Parliament, does he think that a much more important coalition than that between the Labour and Liberal parties is the principled one between the Scottish National party and the Conservatives in opposition?

I am not sure whether that coalition was a mariage de convenance or a shotgun marriage, although I have noticed the increasing coincidence in Tory and SNP voting in Scotland. That should not surprise us because, after all, they both end up where they started: opposing devolution. For some years, they have attempted a pincer movement by which they would defy the will of the Scottish people who wanted a devolved Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend—I am sure that I speak for all Scottish Members of Parliament—that we will work as hard as we can here to fulfil the wish of the Scottish people, which is not only to have a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for distinctly Scottish affairs but to play a full part in the United Kingdom Parliament, along with our partners from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

If he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of Ministers in the Scottish Office after 1 July. [87521]

Ministers 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 assisting in relationships between the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and between the two Parliaments.

Given that the answer to virtually every question on the Order Paper this afternoon so far has been, "Not me, guv—it's a matter for the Scottish Parliament", and given also that the Parliament already seems to have a propensity to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money on buildings, salaries, assistants and expenses, why does not the Secretary of State give the taxpayer a break? Why does he not give a pledge now to reduce significantly the size of his Department and the number of Ministers and officials in it, in order at least to get his bureaucracy off the taxpayer's back, even while the Scottish Parliament is increasing its bureaucracy?

I could have given the right hon. Gentleman a list of matters on which we have an important role in representing the Scottish people, but I am sure that it would have bored him.

It would not.

In which case, I shall start. Please stop me, Madam Speaker, when you feel that I have gone on too long. We will have the function of representing the Scottish people within the UK on fiscal matters, economic and monetary policy, taxation, social security benefits, occupational pensions, personal pensions, exchange rates, financial services, banking and insurance—shall I continue? The list also includes the designation of assisted areas and industrial assistance throughout the United Kingdom, international relations including the European Union, broadcasting, the Post Office, and electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply. Is that enough, Madam Speaker? I shall continue the next time the right hon. Gentleman has a question.

May I ask my right hon. Friend about one of the matters for which he has responsibility—the allocation of structural funds within Scotland as part of the UK settlement that was so successful for the highlands as a consequence of the Prime Minister's intervention? Can my right hon. Friend tell us his thinking about the safety net arrangements, particularly for areas such as that of Clackmannanshire council in my constituency? The council is concerned about the fact that it is not eligible for the first level of award under objective 2, although it would be eligible under the safety net. Would that be part of a UK settlement, or will there be a specific Scottish settlement, or has the matter not yet been resolved?

Discussions are continuing as regards the assisted areas map and objective 2 status. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Prime Minister was extremely successful in winning a safety net at the United Kingdom level—the member state level—at the Berlin summit. We start from more difficult circumstances in making a case for assisted areas and objective 2 status, because the last time the assessment was made, under a Tory Government, we were in the middle of the most serious recession for a long, long time, with extremely high levels of unemployment. We have been much more successful under the Labour Government. Nevertheless, I shall pay close attention to the points that my hon. Friend raised about his area.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that after 1 July he will continue to have jurisdiction over the setting of boundaries between Scotland and England in terms of territorial waters off the coast of the United Kingdom? Is the Secretary of State aware of the anger and consternation among the fishing communities around Berwickshire about the changes that were brought in by the recent Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999? Would he support legislative proposals in the House in the near future to reconsider the parts of that order that transferred the Berwickshire bank from Scottish jurisdiction to English jurisdiction?

Everyone would agree that when two Parliaments instead of one sovereign Parliament have jurisdiction—we also have a devolved Parliament now—we have to find the fairest way of settling the distribution of areas of jurisdiction between them. The way that was chosen in this case was the method most commonly accepted by international standards for fixing a line over the jurisdiction of territorial waters.

I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to give us a long list of responsibilities that remain with the House of Commons—my constituents speak of little else—but he unfortunately failed to reach social inclusion on his list. Can I have an assurance that Scottish Office Ministers will retain an interest in the matter, make sure that agencies relevant to social inclusion on a United Kingdom basis take an interest and follow through the steps that are necessary to improve the situation in Scotland? Will he also do what he can to make sure that Members of the House have places on social inclusion partnership boards, in particular in localities where they want to be so involved?

I shall try to do both those things and I am glad that the good people of Pollok are as interested as they no doubt are in social inclusion and other issues such as consumer protection, telecommunications, excise duties, betting, gaming and lotteries, regulation of anti-competitive practices, monopolies and mergers, intellectual property, regulation of drivers' hours, internet services, transport of radioactive material, war pensions, employment rights, health and safety at work and a whole list of others. I shall not turn the page.

The Secretary of State has reeled off a long list of reserved matters, but does he agree that all those reserved matters fall within the remit of United Kingdom Departments as well? It would therefore be interesting to know what Scottish Office junior Ministers will be doing. Will they be answering specific queries relating to those matters or is their role that of marriage guidance therapists for the relationship between him and the First Minister?

The Ministers and the Secretary of State, along with Scottish Members of Parliament, will be representing the interests of the Scottish people in the reserved matters, as the White Paper said. The hon. Gentleman may not have read it, although it was debated in the House. I shall refrain from reading to him another page of the list of the responsibilities that we have, but I understand his difficulty in appreciating what any Member of Parliament can do. He is the Member of Parliament who said:

"The Conservative party may not have any Scots Members of Parliament, but that is the electorate's fault."—[0fficial Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 229.]

What decisions his Department has taken regarding the Agenda 2000 agreement as it affects the method of payment to farmers of the beef and dairy national envelopes and the successor scheme to hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement. [87523]

No decisions have yet been taken pending the assessment of responses to earlier consultations and the adoption of the necessary European Union implementing regulations. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament

Does the Minister recognise that the failure to take a decision means that farmers will face uncertainty? They have enough problems without lacking certainty, which enables them to plan for the future. Will he at least make a commitment that, if there is any delay in the introduction of the new scheme and because of that uncertainty, a transitional scheme for HLCA payments will keep the cash flow going so that farmers at least do not face the penalty of late payments?

I can give a commitment that we shall try to provide a transitional scheme. The delay has been caused by the fact that the final detailed set of European Commission regulations is not yet ready; but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when they are available, we shall consult widely on them with the farming community. The matters that we discuss will include the change from headage to area-based payments of HLCAs, and we shall take the results of the consultation very much into account.

What representations he has received on the conduct of professional examinations by (a) the Law Society and (b) the Bar Council. [87544]

In the last year, the Department has received one letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on behalf of his constituent, complaining of an individual instance of inadequate administration of the Bar vocational course. The legal practice course and the Bar vocational course are conducted by approved providers, rather than directly by the professional bodies.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but is he aware that the case that I raised with his Department concerned someone who had failed an examination marginally because she had been sent an erroneous examination paper? When she appealed against the decision, she was asked on what ground she was appealing. As failure to administer the examination properly was not deemed to be a possible ground for appeal, she had to find some other ground, which made the case for the appeal somewhat convoluted.

I know of the case that my hon. Friend has described. His constituent must be very frustrated and distressed, because she failed to get on to the course in question by only one mark. I know what it is to lose by only one, having lost a European selection by just one vote. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was also contesting the seat.

We was both robbed!

I am trying to find the person concerned to thank them for not voting for me.

If he will make a statement on the application by Chorley citizens advice bureau to obtain a contract for the provision of services under legal aid. [87545]

Chorley citizens advice bureau was not invited to bid for a contract because its application related to categories of law specified as low-priority by the north-western regional legal services committee's draft strategy.

What assurance can be given to the people of Chorley? Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that there will be provision through welfare rights, or does it mean that we shall have to travel somewhere else within central Lancashire?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the work of Chorley CAB, which does an excellent job. As he knows, the north-western regional committee launched a strategy, and engaged in consultation. A representative of Chorley attended the meeting on 25 November last year, and did not object to what was being proposed.

rose—

I call Mr. Burnett, who should make particular reference to Chorley, of course.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members must take these matters seriously. It is a specific question. It relates simply to one citizens advice bureau, and that is Chorley.

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. As a precursor to my question, I should remind the Minister that, last week, he stressed the importance of abolishing legal aid for personal injury matters. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What about Chorley?"] I am getting to Chorley. That was despite objections throughout the House. What are the savings likely to be as a result of that closure and will he apply the savings to help the not-for-profit sector—for example, the citizens advice bureau in Chorley?

Order. That was a very good try, but Members should watch the questions to which they wish to put supplementary questions.

I have no specific figures on Chorley concerning the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and the impact of withdrawal of legal aid from personal injury cases, but, overall, the freeing-up of £70 million at its peak will enable the Government to use those resources to prioritise areas of need. It will be £70 million at its peak. It will fall in later years to £30 million.

Did the contract application from Chorley contain a reference to legal aid being granted only in cases where solicitors themselves undertake the legal aid work? In view of the hon. Gentleman's astonishingly complacent reply to my query about the issue in respect of my constituency, will he assure the House that, when Chorley again makes what I am sure will be a successful bid, such a clause will be present in that agreement?

Chorley was not invited to bid because the areas on which it wished to make its bids were regarded as low priorities.

If he will make a statement about the continuing review and scrutiny of training for judges. [87547]

The Judicial Studies Board is an independent body, controlled by a board whose members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller, a Lord Justice of Appeal. For accounting purposes, it is treated as an advisory non-departmental public body. Its powers and obligations are set out in a memorandum of understanding with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The board produces and publishes a report to the Lord Chancellor each year.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative reply. I take this, my first, opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment.

Their lordships have already ruled on that case. Obviously, the issue of declarations of interest is important and is dealt with in an important way by whoever sits on the Bench. I am certain that the training that the Judicial Studies Board initiates, both at the induction stages when new judges are appointed and in the three-year cycle, will include the whole issue of conflicts of interest, and any other potentially embarrassing and difficult points that may be raised.

Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the measure of success his Department is having in moving towards judges being appointed from a much wider cross-section of society?

It is always the Lord Chancellor's wish to ensure that judges are appointed from a wide section of society and it is right that, in the past year, 24 per cent. of the appointments made by my noble and learned Friend have been women. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first woman president of the family division. It is important that the appointments should reflect society, but it is equally important that those appointed to the Bench should be appointed on merit. That is how my noble and learned Friend appoints people—they have to be of the highest quality. I believe that we have the best judiciary in the world and it is important that the merits tests are met.

I join the Minister in his congratulations to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first lady president of the family division. As the Minister said, the British judiciary is the finest in the world, but I am sure that he agrees that there would be grave concern throughout the legal profession and the country if there were to be any sign of the politicisation of the judiciary in the future. Will he confirm, for himself and his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, that the Government have no intention of politicising the judiciary? Will he further confirm that he recognises the sanctity of the separation of powers doctrine so that we will not see any interference by Parliament under this Government in the freedom of the judiciary?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his new role at the Dispatch Box during Question Time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, the judiciary must be apolitical. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to ensure the integrity and impartiality of those appointed to the judiciary and he has made sure that that has been the case.

Is the Minister satisfied that the training and instruction of judges provides them with sufficient sensitivity to arrange their private passions and interests to coincide with the natural holiday time of the courts? Given that many jurors find that they lose pay, their businesses suffer or they miss out on tickets to Wimbledon, does he share my dismay that one of the learned judges has put his passion for Wimbledon above his obligations to the court? If Madam Speaker were to be invited to Wimbledon, I know that she would fulfil her obligation to be here. Can we have a rap on the knuckles for judges who put other things before their duties?

My hon. Friend—he is a good friend—was present at the European selection meeting when I lost by a single vote, but I have no spare tickets for him. Judge Hooton, the judge to whom my hon. Friend has referred, had booked his annual leave some time ago. It had been estimated by the lawyers that the case, which he was due to have started on Monday, would last for three to four days. At the outset of the trial, the lawyers informed the judge, without providing the court with any prior notice, that they anticipated that the case would last five or six days. On that basis, the judge was forced to adjourn the case. In my view, it is disappointing that the judge should have been placed in that position.

What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Home Department about the need for ensuring that cases involving juvenile witnesses are dealt with speedily; and if he will make a statement. [87548]

It is important that cases involving children as victims or witnesses are dealt with as speedily as is commensurate with the interests of justice. There are a number of initiatives in place to ensure that this objective is met. My officials are in regular and close contact with those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to identify where improvements might be made.

I thank the Minister for his reply. It is routine for cases involving child or juvenile complainants to be fast-tracked but it is not routine for child or juvenile witnesses to be fast-tracked. May I respectfully suggest that that should be looked into because it is vital and, in both sets of circumstances, the pressures and problems are alike?

I know that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the national council of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, has a particular interest in these matters. As from 1 April this year, a national monitoring scheme for cases involving child witnesses has been put in place. Its purpose is to ensure that such cases are dealt with as speedily as possible, and to identify how we might make improvements in the way in which they are handled, including the possibility of fast- tracking, although we must see how the monitoring proceeds. Plans are also under way to introduce a pre-trial check list focusing on children's issues as a means of supplementing the plea and directions hearing form.