If he will make a statement on the operation of the substantive liaison arrangements between the Government and the Scottish Executive. [91598]

Liaison arrangements will be set out in concordats which will guide working relations between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive on a range of matters.

I wonder whether, when the Secretary of State says that the arrangements "will be" set out in concordats, he means that the concordats do not exist. Is that why there is so much confusion between his powers and those of the First Minister? Is that why, in the past two weeks, there have been so many turf wars between him and the Scottish First Minister?

The concordats will be published once they have been agreed by the Scottish Executive and the Government. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the concordats do exist. They are there to promote concord between the two Parliaments in their working relationships.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if changes are to be made to the way in which Parliament operates they should be made on a considered basis, not on the basis of a narrow, populist appeal to English nationalism?

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, those of us who have promoted the devolution settlement have spent most of our political life arguing for the unity of the United Kingdom and against the separatists and their narrow brand of nationalism. Unfortunately, the mirror image of that narrow brand of Scottish nationalism seems to be creeping into the leadership of the Conservative party, which is fanning the flames of English nationalism.

In the annual report published by the Government yesterday there is a reference to unease at devolution. Does the Secretary of State accept that some of that unease is occurring because of an apparent turf war between his new Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive? Does he maintain, as he did at last week's Scottish Affairs Committee, that this is an entirely media-inspired turf war, or does he think that it is about time that politicians at all levels reversed the tanks off one other's lawns?

The unease that was referred to in the report—I take it that the hon. Gentleman has read the report, not just the media reports of it—was the potential unease among those people who might see the most radical constitutional steps for three centuries taking place and wonder whether Scotland might fall under the hands of the incompetent narrow nationalists who sit on the Benches behind him. I can assure him that he can be well at ease on that basis. We have no intention—nor have the Scottish people—of allowing Scotland to be divorced from the United Kingdom.

When my right hon. Friend next meets a member of the Scottish Executive, will he express his support for the stated intention of our right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) to go on fighting against all forms of small-minded nationalism for as long as it takes? When he meets the First Minister, will he pass on some advice—that there is nothing like the prospect of a reshuffle to concentrate the loyalty of all and sundry?

I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing is further from my mind than a reshuffle. As regards the recent speculation, I think that we would all be wise to remember exactly what is happening. For nearly two decades, there has been an alliance of forces against the devolution settlement. That settlement is the partnership of Parliaments. When we hear the names of Forsyth, Tebbit, Hague and the SNP, we recall that they have spent most of the last 20 years arguing against the establishment of one part of that settlement: the Scottish Parliament. They have utterly failed to stop that, and they are now directing their attack towards the other half of the settlement: Scottish partnership in the United Kingdom at the UK parliamentary level. We will not allow them to succeed in that attack, nor will the Scottish people. The partnership of Parliaments will succeed.

In his liaison role with the Scottish Executive, will the Secretary of State discuss the remarks made yesterday by the First Minister's official spokesman to the effect that the other Ministers in the Scottish Executive are unproven and unqualified? Does he agree that Scotland would be better served by less spin of that kind and a little more action?

Matters concerning Scottish Ministers are for the Scottish Parliament. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how the Scottish people would be better served. Instead of the leader and parliamentary leader of his party putting in no appearance in this House, voting on nothing in this House, and asking no questions in this House, even during the period when the Scottish Parliament has not been sitting, SNP Members should stop taking money from a Parliament in which they do not believe, for what they are not doing.

Although it is recognised that some issues relating to the economy and infrastructure are the legitimate business both of Members of this Parliament and of Members of the Scottish Parliament, what guidance has been given to my right hon. Friend's colleagues in government regarding representations that might be made by SMPs in relation to such matters as the Child Support Agency and immigration, which should be jealously guarded as the locus and jurisdiction of Members of the Parliament here at Westminster, and should not be the business of SMPs—[HON. MEMBERS: "SMPs?"]—Members of the Scottish Parliament? Can my right hon. Friend clarify the line of responsibility and tell us what advice has been given to his colleagues in government concerning their response to such representations?

As I said earlier, there is genuinely a partnership of Parliaments. It is the most radical constitutional settlement for 300 years. There is no route map for it, and no textbook that we can consult. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the First Minister and I are already involved in discussions to see that there is a symmetry of conventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means that both sides have equal rights and responsibilities. I am sorry that we have to explain such things in words of one syllable to those on the Opposition Front Bench. The rights and responsibilities of each Parliament will be respected. I am sure that we will work for the ultimate benefit of the Scottish people, because I believe that the partnership not only gives them more control over their own affairs in Scotland, but solidifies their partnership in the United Kingdom in a way that has never been done before.

May I assure the Secretary of State that when it comes to concord, we certainly desire it? Is it not the case, however, that the concord between him and the First Minister over the past few weeks has been somewhat subsonic? Has not the only means of communication between the Secretary of State and the First Minister been through the parliamentary Labour party—not a source of brotherly love and affection? Why are no concordats in place now, when the relationship should be up and running? Is the Secretary of State privy, for instance, to the internal paper round of the Scottish Executive? If not, is he not effectively cut out of all contact with decision making, save that which the First Minister wishes to give him? Is it not time to get away from the turf wars and lay some proper and open foundations for the relationship?

Last week, apparently, Mr. McLetchie—who purports to lead the rump of the Conservative party in Scotland and is doing his best to disrupt the link between Scotland and the Union, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—claimed that I was too powerful. The claim from the Opposition today is that I am not powerful enough. Once they have sorted out their line on my status, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.

If he will publish a guide for the public on the reserved powers relevant to Scottish matters and how they are dealt with in the House. [91599]

A range of important issues are reserved to the UK Government. Many of those are of crucial importance to ordinary people's day-to-day lives in Scotland—for instance, employment and taxation policies, social security benefits, occupational and personal pensions and the new deal. That is why, before the devolution referendum, each household in Scotland received a leaflet summarising the reserved and devolved matters. Further information was issued ahead of the 6 May 1999 elections.

Despite the confusion that the chattering classes have sown in the Scottish media, I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about issues such as taxation, social security and other matters which remain the clear responsibility of this House. Given that Government policy and the reserved powers that we have retained and their impact on the daily lives of all the Scottish people are of supreme importance, will he continue to reassure the Scottish people that this Parliament will protect their interests, working in partnership, but very much a part of the United Kingdom?

Yes, I can assure my right hon. Friend of that, and I can also assure the Scottish people that Labour Members of Parliament from Scotland will be here to involve themselves in ensuring that their interests are protected. When the people of Scotland listen to the criticisms that have been levelled by the leader of the Scottish National party and its parliamentary leader—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I see that the leader of the SNP is not here today again. As that hon. Gentleman is so interested in my role, I checked how many times since 2 July he had asked a question in the House—remember, this is when the Scottish Parliament is not sitting—and the answer was none at all. I checked how many times he had taken part in a debate, and the answer was none at all. And I checked how many times he had voted, and up until yesterday morning the answer was none at all—and I suspect that after the past 24 hours, it is none at all again. As I have said, people will want to ask what, exactly, moneys, allowances and Short money from this Parliament are being paid to the SNP for, since SNP Members are taking money from a Parliament in which they do not believe for something that they are not doing.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has reserved for himself 200 civil servants and a new official residence in Edinburgh, and that he has creamed £5 million off the Scottish block to be spent at his personal discretion? Why should the English taxpayer have to featherbed all that empire building in Edinburgh and overlapping extravagance between two of the Queen's rival Ministers?

The hon. Gentleman lives up to the Tory slogan, "Never get one thing wrong when you can get three wrong." First, I have not reserved to myself 200 civil servants. At the moment I have 50 and I may have more than 100 at the end of the day, compared with 4,200 for the Scottish Parliament. I have heard that called empire building, but it will surely be the first empire where the leader will know each member by his or her first name. Secondly, I have rejected the idea of a separate residence, and that is precisely why I have authorised negotiations on offices in Edinburgh where 20 of the 26 rooms will be allocated to civil servants. I did not want a separate residence. Ill-tutored though the hon. Gentleman may be from his reading of the English papers, he does not improve himself by reading some of the Scottish papers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) raises an important issue concerning the education of the public not only in relation to our powers and his powers but in relation to the powers of other elected representatives and the matters best dealt with by them. Are not constituents occasionally a little confused about the respective responsibilities of elected representatives? Do we not therefore owe it to them to provide them with information about who is the best representative to approach with a problem concerning the CSA, the social security system or whatever?

My hon. Friend is right. I have never said that there is a simple solution to all those problems. We have to consider the fact that more guidance might be necessary, but, if we are in the world of grown-up politics, we should realise that we cannot carry out constitutional change of such magnitude without having to work through problems. The First Minister and I are attempting to do that—in a businesslike fashion and in partnership. I believe that that partnership is immensely beneficial to the Scottish people and it is certainly their preference. The one thing they want is people working together in partnership; the one thing they oppose is divorcing Scotland from the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State's Department has fewer responsibilities than at any time in its history, so why is he amassing an army of up to 130 civil servants with an annual budget of £5 million taken from the Scottish Parliament, which could be better spent by it in providing services for the Scottish people? Why is he undermining his own Government's devolution settlement while Scottish Executive Ministers are openly and publicly squabbling among themselves?

With great respect, may I list the military hierarchy for the hon. Gentleman? An army consists of several thousand people, which is what the Scottish Parliament has. Beneath that is the brigade, which I do not have. Beneath that is the battalion, which I do not have. Beneath that is the regiment, which I do not have. Beneath that is the company, which is what I have. My company consists of about 100 people. The hon. Gentleman seems to be concerned about expense and the £5 million, but he obviously did not notice that all the details were issued by the Treasury on 31 March. They were available to him but, like his colleagues, he was probably not here. If the SNP spent a little bit of time working for its money, it would have been able to find out about these matters. The £5 million to which he refers is 0.03 per cent. of the Scottish Office budget.

The right hon. Gentleman, who was such a marvellous Minister for the Armed Forces, should not allow himself to become so tetchy merely because he is now a member of a partnership more improbable than any since Fox and North. For the benefit of everyone concerned, will he devote a little time during the forthcoming recess to compiling a list of those matters for which he is responsible as Secretary of State? He read out a great litany from the Dispatch Box during the last Scottish Question Time, but he was responsible for not one of those matters. We want to know what he is doing for his money.

The reference to North and Fox reminds me that we should keep off the subject of foxes in the present context because other people will get tetchy. I was not at all tetchy. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go through the whole list again I shall do so, but I suspect that he does not. My main role in the House is to represent the interests of the Scottish people in all the reserved matters, which he well knows. My other role is to promote the devolution settlement. I have to play a part in negotiations on payment of the block grant and I also have some residual functions. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the nature of collective government means that it is important for Scotland to have its interests represented in Cabinet discussions on such matters, and for the position of the Scottish people to be made clear. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that, logically, no one who does not have to make the ultimate departmental decision for anything can play an important role, I would remind him that the total departmental role of the Prime Minister is national security and honours. I hope that he would not suggest that the Prime Minister has no authority or power.

What discussions he has had on the role of regional air services between Scotland and London in encouraging economic development. [91600]

I have had no such discussions recently, but I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, and my right hon. Friend keeps closely in touch with developments in this area.

The Minister will be aware that, today, the Government announced that British Airways can acquire the City Flyer Aviation Company, with the proviso that it gives up slots at Gatwick. He will also be aware of the great problem, at both Gatwick and Heathrow, in providing slots for vital regional services, which are essential for business and tourism. Will he agree to make representations to the Minister for Transport to fight for those slots at Gatwick and Heathrow for vital regional services, such as the Inverness-London route?

My hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulty surrounding this issue, which is that we have to work within the context of European regulations. We fully recognise the need for the good links that he describes, which is why the Government have commissioned a special study on Scottish airports and aviation, and another study specifically on the links between Inverness and London. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.

Does the Minister share my concern that the chairman of Highlands and Islands airport has said that services can be secured from Scottish airports only for people living in Glasgow and Edinburgh? If so, what does he intend to do about it?

The hon. Lady might be quoting that gentleman slightly out of context. The key point that Mr. Grant was trying to make was that there is concern that the good service between Inverness and Gatwick will be upgraded so that it goes directly to Heathrow, but that that should not be seen as a reflection on the good service that already exists between Inverness and London.

The air links between Aberdeen and Heathrow are vital to the oil industry. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is no diminution in the frequency of flights from Aberdeen into Heathrow, or in the volume of the service?

These are commercial matters for the airlines involved. However, we fully recognise the importance of the links between Aberdeen and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not just for industry and business connections but for ordinary passengers and tourism to that part of Scotland.

Does the Minister recognise that the growth of regional services of that kind depends on economic confidence but also on the confidence of operators and passengers in air safety? In any discussions that he has, will he do his best to resist the Government's half-baked proposals on National Air Traffic Services?

The Government's proposals are designed to attract new investment to the air traffic control system and, therefore, to improve services and air safety. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome the fact that, as a result of the Government's approach in tackling these issues on a United Kingdom basis, we shall have two centres, one of which will be in Scotland. Were we in the situation that the nationalists would want, with separate states in the UK, we would not have the benefit of a centre in Scotland providing jobs in Scotland.

What discussions he had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact of the Budget on the Scottish economy. [91601]

I shall discuss that matter with the Chancellor as necessary to ensure that his outstanding management of the United Kingdom economy continues to benefit Scotland, as it has done over the past two years.

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will be fully aware that the working families tax credit will be introduced in October. How many Scottish families will benefit from that measure? Will he make representations to the Chancellor to ensure that families in Scotland are aware of this valuable means of tackling poverty?

I commend to the House and to people in Scotland the working families tax credit which the Chancellor intends to introduce. This is another major step forward in ensuring that our economic competence is matched by social justice. More than 140,000 families in Scotland will benefit, with a minimum wage of £200 per week for families with one worker. That is part of our fight for social justice in Scotland, and is in addition to the 200,000 people who benefit from the minimum wage, the £1.8 billion extra on the health service, the £1.3 billion extra going into education, the lowest rate of inflation, mortgages and interest rates that we have had for a long time, and the lowest rate of unemployment in Scotland for 20 years. That is testimony to the competence of the Chancellor and the Government, and is the necessary platform to ensure that the lives of people in Scotland will improve year by year under the Labour Government in partnership with the Labour-led Administration in Edinburgh.

If the economy in Scotland is being managed so successfully, why are class sizes and waiting lists increasing?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to surpass his hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in getting facts wrong. He may have misread yesterday's press. The Labour Government's first target for Scotland was to deliver the Parliament, which we have done; the second was economic stability, and he will be aware that we have achieved that; and the third was to reduce waiting lists to below 75,000 by 2002. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to tell the House that we met that target two and a half years ahead of schedule when, one month ago, we reduced waiting lists in Scotland to below 75,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling low pay and family poverty has been a priority for the Government, unlike the previous Government, who believed that no income level was too low for a family to live on as long as it did not affect them or their supporters? Does he also agree that the minimum wage and the working families tax credit—both introduced this year—will lift thousands of Scottish families out of poverty? Those measures will start to end the national disgrace that we inherited from the previous Government which is that, at the end of the 20th century, one in four children are still living in poverty.

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no greater blight on a civilised society than poverty in families and among children and our senior citizens. That is why I am proud that the Chancellor's custodianship of our economy has allowed people in Scotland the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. I am also proud that we were able to increase the Christmas bonus for pensioners to £100, and that, in addition to the minimum wage, which has lifted hundreds of thousands in Scotland above their previous position, the working families tax credit will benefit 140,000 more families in Scotland, including a considerable number of children. For old folks, families and young people in Scotland, the Labour Government are beginning to make life better than it ever was before.

When he expects to announce the areas in Scotland to be included in the next programme of (a) regional development area aid and (b) European structural funds; and if he will make a statement. [91602]

The proposals for a new assisted areas map, including parts of the borders, were announced on 15 July. The safety net for the United Kingdom's coverage secured by the Prime Minister at the Berlin summit enabled the UK Government to propose that 49 per cent. of Scotland's population should be covered by the new map.

The reintroduction of regional selective assistance in parts of the Scottish borders region on 15 July was warmly welcomed. However, as I am sure the Secretary of State will acknowledge, not every community in the region can be included in the eligible area map. That puts extra pressure on communities such as Jedburgh in my constituency which have been left out. The local people are perplexed about that, and feel that no one is responding to their needs.

I will try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's last request is met to the benefit of hon. Members.

I welcome the world-based approach to regional selective assistance, but would the Secretary of State be willing to meet me to discuss the impact of the new approach on my constituency?

My hon. Friend has already raised the matter with me informally, and had the courtesy to tell me that he would ask me about it today. I know how keen he is to ensure that the interests of the people of Paisley are protected. I will certainly meet him but, as I think he will accept, the settlement regarding the assisted areas map was very fair from our point of view. We worked it out in partnership with our colleagues in the United Kingdom Parliament.

If he will set up new websites for Government information on constitutional changes affecting Scotland. [91603]

We are in the process of establishing a new website designed to illustrate the work of the Department. In addition, information on devolved matters is available on the Scottish Executive website.

I am delighted that my question resulted in such swift action.

I should be delighted to receive further information about Hairnet, or Airnet. The website that we are developing was intended to come into operation during the next couple of weeks, but we want to have another look at it with the aim of making it a wee bit more "jazzy"—more interactive, and more useful to those who we hope will use it. It will be particularly useful to the groups mentioned by my hon. Friend, but it will also be useful to those—not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—who are interested in both the operation of the constitutional settlement and the specific work of the Scotland Office.

I am delighted to hear that the Scotland Office website will come back into operation after the disappearance of the Scottish Office one. Can the Minister help the House a little?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making great play of the fact that we do not see every paper that passes round the Scottish Executive. He knows that that is the convention even within Whitehall: we do not have access to all the different papers that float around different Departments, either. Departments share papers with each other for specific purposes. The Scotland Executive shares information with us for a specific purpose as well—so that we can represent effectively the interests of the Scottish people within the United Kingdom Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.

If he will list the matters in respect of which he has a shared role with the First Minister and the Scottish Executive. [91604]

My role is quite distinct from that of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive. My main responsibilities are to represent Scottish interests in reserved areas within the Government and to promote the devolution settlement to Scotland. In doing so, I am responsible to this Parliament. What I share with the First Minister is a common interest in promoting the well-being of Scotland within the UK.

In respect of the fire service—a part of the shared role—what response is there to the concerns of the Edinburgh fire master, Colin Cranston, about the future of progression core training at the fire service college at Moreton-in-Marsh?

As my hon. Friend will know, the future of the fire service college is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. However, he will take full account of the views expressed in the context of the prior options review of the college at Moreton-in-Marsh. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's views and those of the fire master are passed on to the Home Secretary. I would not want the West Moreton-in-Marsh question to become a running sore in this Parliament; I will therefore act on my hon. Friend's representations.

Given that responsibility for elements of transport are shared between here and the Scottish Parliament, when will the Government report on air links be published? When it is published, who will take the decision about regional air links: the Scottish Executive, the Scotland Office, as it is now known, the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?

I think that it will be the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but, of course, there will be input from me and the Department of Trade and Industry. As the hon. Lady will know, a full study of regional airports throughout the United Kingdom has been somewhat impeded by difficulties connected with the legal procedures at one particular event in one particular airport. Everyone has been very careful not to transgress in any way the situation as regards terminal 5, lest others could reopen the whole inquiry and stop the terminal, but progress has been made on the regional airport studies. I am sure that the my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be as keen as anyone to get a final paper on the matter as soon as he possibly can.

On the issue of shared responsibility between the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, may I commend the Secretary of State on the way in which he has very firmly laid down a marker in asserting that Scottish constituencies will be vigorously represented—at least by Labour Members—in the United Kingdom Parliament? Will he also confirm that he will work with the First Minister in making it clear to all hon. Members that Scottish Members will continue to play a vital and vibrant part in the United Kingdom Parliament?

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend on both points. First, I have no doubt at all about the vigour and energy that Members of this Parliament—particularly Labour Members from Scotland—will continue to bring to their task. Secondly, I assure him that, as I have been doing, I shall continue working closely and in a businesslike fashion with the First Minister for the benefit of the Scottish people. It goes without saying—but bears repeating—that the Scottish people are extremely well served in their First Minister. He is a man of outstanding integrity and commitment, and ranks with those who have done most to deliver the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people.

I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State will be working closely with the First Minister. Will the Secretary of State explain whether it is he who will have the unhappy responsibility of putting a veto on inward investment into Scotland, were the Government to decide that such investment was undesirable, or will that responsibility fall to some other Minister at Westminster?

The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be dealt with in the concordats that will be agreed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland want no great advantages over any other part of the United Kingdom, but fairness in the distribution of resources. I share that aim not only with the First Minister, but, I hope, with the hon. Gentleman himself.

If he will introduce measures to regulate the use and costs of leading counsel by litigants. [91628]

The Government believe that litigants should be free to choose their advocate—whether barrister, solicitor or other authorised advocate. However, the new civil procedure rules specifically require the court awarding costs to have regard to what is proportionate to the issues at stake and the complexity of the particular case.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the public disquiet over the high fees and restrictive practices endemic in the Queen's counsel system? Does he agree that the time has finally come to get rid of unnecessary double-manning; to pay QCs the rate for the job and not for their title; and to apply the new civil justice principle of equality of arms to advocacy, so that rich companies cannot buy themselves justice by hiring fat-cat QCs, whose services are out of reach of the pockets of their legally aided or conditional-fee funded opponents?

I am aware of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and assure him that the new rules, which we know will be followed, are clear. I also assure him that the rank of QC is not only established but is a recognition of distinction that is conferred on senior barristers. If he believes that there is any scope for improvement in the system, the Government will, as always, be happy to listen to him. However, I am satisfied, and the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, that our procedures are proper and appropriate.

What was the cost to public funds of the use of leading counsel in financial year 1998–99? How does that figure compare with that of the immediately preceding year? What is the hon. Gentleman's best guesstimate of the likely outturn at the end of this financial year?

I am afraid that I do not know the answer to those questions—if I am allowed to say that—but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him all those figures in the detail that he requires.

What steps his Department has taken to monitor the quality of court interpreters. [91629]

With effect from 1 April 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department, with the magistrates courts, agreed to use interpreters from the national register of public service interpreters whenever possible. The register is administered by the Institute of Linguists, which is responsible for monitoring the quality of the interpreters on the register. In Crown and magistrates courts, the aim is to use only interpreters from the register by the end of 2001.

I am grateful for that answer. I am sure that the Minister is aware of correspondence that I have had recently with the Birmingham legal interpreters' steering committee, which expressed its concerns about unqualified court interpreters being used in Crown court cases. That particular situation has been remedied. However, I am concerned that we should address the matter with some seriousness as the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is making its way through the House, provides for the use of interpreters for witnesses and defendants who have hearing difficulties or a speech impairment. I should be grateful for some reassurance that the measures that apply to court interpreters will be extended to that group of people.

Perhaps my hon. Friend, who speaks at least three other languages, should herself be on the national register. I am aware of the case that she has raised, as was the Department. We do not accept that it is right for interpreters to subcontract their work, which is what happened in that case. Of course it is important that we keep all these services under review, and the feedback from the judiciary and others in the court system will help us to maintain a proper register with all the relevant information. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the other points that she raised concerning the youth justice courts will be taken on board.

If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's visit to Edinburgh for the opening of the Scottish Parliament. [91630]

The Lord Chancellor attended the opening of the Scottish Parliament in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Lords.

How does the Lord Chancellor define the phrase elegantly used by Madam Speaker, who referred to a "shared role" between Holyrood and Westminster?

The Lord Chancellor and the Government welcome Madam Speaker's statement as providing helpful clarification for the House.

I wish that I could be so eloquent.

Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor was extremely busy. He was unable to inspect the hon. Lady's estate and had to come straight back to London to deal with other business. The hon. Lady referred to commonhold, which of course is a manifesto commitment on which she will be hearing from the Government shortly.

If he will make a statement on the role of the Lord Chancellor in maintaining communication between the Government and the judiciary. [91631]

It has long been recognised that the office of the Lord Chancellor is both a link between the Government and the judges, and a bulwark of judicial independence. The Lord Chancellor, as the responsible Minister, is accountable to Parliament, as the judges could not be, for the overall efficiency of the administration of justice. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recently restated this in a speech to the third worldwide common law judiciary conference at Edinburgh on 5 July. I have put a copy of his speech in the Library.

In the first Session of this Parliament, the Lord Chancellor described himself as the Prime Minister's Cardinal Wolsey. He now says that he is the buffer between the Executive and the judiciary. Evidently he cannot perform both roles. If he cannot decide which role he is supposed to be performing, perhaps he should abolish his own position along with that of the other buffers in another place whose role he is abolishing on the grounds that they have no suitable function in the modern democratic age.

I think that the phrase ascribed to the Lord Chancellor came not from him but from Miss Frances Gibb, a journalist with The Times. The office of Lord Chancellor carries great authority within the Government. It upholds judicial independence and can mediate between the Executive and the judiciary when necessary. The Lord Chancellor can perform that function because of his seniority in the Cabinet, because he is head of the judiciary and because he is so widely respected in the profession.

Will the Minister say whether, in the Lord Chancellor's communications with the judiciary, the subject of a judicial appointments commission has been raised? What was the reaction of the judiciary to such a commission and how did it feel it should be constituted?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot disclose the conversations or correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary, as these are matters of confidence. The Lord Chancellor, as he told the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year, has not ruled out a judicial appointments commission. It is not a priority at present, and he will make his mind up in due course.

The Minister, in referring in his initial answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) to the Lord Chancellor's role as that of a bulwark, showed some sensitivity about the phrase which he ascribed to the distinguished legal correspondent of The Times. Whether bulwark or buffer, does not the Lord Chancellor recognise that perhaps his description of himself in his speech to that conference might be greeted by hollow laughter by many members of the legal profession who remember that the Lord Chancellor is perhaps the Prime Minister's oldest crony? Perhaps many members of the legal profession who traditionally have supported the Government party might nevertheless be concerned that this Lord Chancellor does not regard himself as the defender of the legal profession, but is very much in the Prime Minister's pocket.

That is utter nonsense. The Lord Chancellor conducts the various duties of his high office with enormous dignity and integrity. The hon. Gentleman ought to know better.

What steps the Lord Chancellor takes to ensure the political independence of the judiciary. [91632]

The Lord Chancellor takes every measure to protect the independence of the judiciary, including by ensuring that our judicial appointments system is based solely on merit. For example, as I shall be announcing later to the House, he has asked Sir Leonard Peach, until recently the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to provide a report to him on the operation of the appointments procedures in relation to Queen's counsel and judicial appointments.

I am grateful for that assurance. As planning inspectors are involved in a judicial capacity—albeit on matters relating to town and country planning—does the Minister share my outrage that a recent advertisement asking people to apply to become planning inspectors included the phrase, "Freemasons need not apply"? The Minister may say that this is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister. However, as it is such an outrageous unfairness, may I ask him to ask the Lord Chancellor to consult the Deputy Prime Minister on the incident?

I have not seen the advertisement so it is extremely difficult to comment on it. As the hon. Gentleman correctly realises, this is a matter for the planning inspectorate and for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, if the hon. Gentleman sends me the advertisement, I will have a look at it.

Is not the independence of the judiciary from political sniping particularly important when a judge is conducting an independent tribunal? My question is prompted by the sniping by some at Lord Saville, who is conducting the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the judiciary is above party politics. As I have said on numerous occasions in this House, our judiciary is the best in the world. We have people of the highest quality who are full of integrity. It is quite wrong for people to attack judges in that way, knowing that they do not have the means to reply.

Is not it right that independence is best guaranteed by the appointments procedure? Would not it be better if in the appointment of judges there were more transparency; if in the appointment of magistrates we adhered to the system of equity that is in place; and if appointments to the shrievalty were not done at all, as they are a waste of time?

Our system is a good one, and I can see no flaws in it. It produces people of merit on the High Court Bench and in the magistracies. I am happy, as is the Lord Chancellor, for the procedures to continue in this way.

If he will make a statement on the use of the Welsh language in the courts of England and Wales. [91633]

We are making every effort to ensure that a bilingual service is available in Wales, including providing for court hearings to be conducted in Welsh.

I am grateful for that answer. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is concern in Wales that his Department has been slow in producing Welsh language schemes as required under the Welsh Language Act 1993? Will the Department recognise the equal validity of the Welsh and English languages in the courts of Wales and, for that matter, England, through practice directions by the courts themselves and in face-to-face contact with the public through the court service?

I hope that my Department is not slow. I have no evidence to suggest that it is not working swiftly on the matter. A draft copy of the scheme is with the Welsh Language Board. We intend to consult on it widely. We are pleased to note that there are several bilingual judges and that there is a practice direction about the use of the Welsh language. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to suggest that we are not acting as swiftly as we should, will he please let me know? We regard the matter as serious and believe that the practice direction has rightly highlighted the concerns. We want to ensure that the Welsh language is used in court proceedings when people want it to be used.