What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission about the implementation of the 1992 European regulations on maritime transport (Council Regulation 3577/92); and if he will make a statement. [126336]

I recently met representatives of the European Commission to discuss a range of issues relating to transport, including ferry services.

Can the Minister throw any light on why the tendering of Caledonian MacBrayne ferry routes has come up under these regulations? Why is the Commission suddenly interested? Does the Minister know who alerted the Commission? The regulations have been in place since 1992 and it appears that, when exemptions and derogations were being negotiated by France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there was no mention of Scotland. That makes me assume that the previous Conservative Government did not send a Scottish Minister to the negotiations. I know that the Minister is concerned that we hold together the Caledonian MacBrayne services because they give a lifeline to our islands.

I am, indeed, very concerned, as the hon. Lady fairly points out. I am certainly of the view that the best interests of the taxpayer and of the public are served by an integrated ferry operation on the west coast of Scotland, with all the flexibility and economies of scale that offers—an operation that is committed to public service and has no other reason for existence.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government have doubled the operating subsidy to Caledonian MacBrayne? Does he agree that allowing CalMac to bid for the routes to the northern isles would give the strongest possible vote of confidence to CalMac staying in the public sector?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. He was, of course, a Transport Minister in the Scottish Office before devolution, when most of the increase occurred. We put a load of extra money into Caledonian MacBrayne. That is a vote of confidence. In Opposition, we long demanded for CalMac the right to bid for other routes; I am delighted that, in government, we have delivered it.

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the regulations on the volume of trade and on port state control in the European Union?

I have made no such calculations, but I shall be delighted to write to the hon. Gentleman.

If he will make a statement on the exclusion of Inverness, East, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey from the assisted areas map. [126337]

Following the publication of the proposed assisted areas map on 10 April, I received representations from my hon. Friend and others on the exclusion of the area. Revised proposals have now been submitted to the European Commission.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will be well aware of the rundown of the Barmac fabrication yards, with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs that are highly skilled and well valued in the highland economy. Does he share my view that that strengthens the case for my constituency remaining within the assisted areas map, as indeed it does under the highlands and islands special transitional programme? Will he undertake to visit my constituency to add his weight to the campaign?

I am, of course, aware of the effects of the developments at Barmac; we all take them very seriously. I recognise the general strength of the arguments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend about parts of his constituency. I assure him that, during the consultation process, we listened carefully to the views expressed on the matter. As he will be aware, the final decision is for the European Commission, but he will not be entirely disappointed with the outcome of our reception of his representations nor, hopefully, with the outcome of the review itself.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, by no criteria, are the interests and needs of Inverness to be compared with those of the fragile areas on the periphery of the highlands? Those areas are sparsely populated and have long lines of communication. Does he agree that, although a case can be made for Inverness, related to Barmac, it would be no triumph for highland development if moneys for assistance simply drained into the centre on the ground that what is good for Inverness is good for the highlands because it is of pan-highland benefit?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent and important point. The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) referred not only to Inverness, but to Badenoch and Strathspey. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals published on 10 April gave the highlands and islands more than 70 per cent. coverage. We also need to remember that they will still benefit from the special transitional programme, which is valued at 308 million ecu—that is £192.5 million for those Conservative Members who do not like to deal with anything in European terms—and which will run for the period from 2000 to 2006.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the job losses at Barmac has repercussions in many areas of the highlands and islands? Although we welcome, for example, the development of Cap Gemini at Forres, does he recognise that the enterprise areas of Inverness and Nairn and of Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey would welcome assisted area status? That would help them in their attempts to attract a variety of jobs into the area to ensure that we can absorb the redundancies that have taken place. Otherwise, we shall lose people from the area.

Yes. I have already said that I appreciate the effect of what has happened at Barmac. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is on the Scottish Executive, will meet Barmac in the very near future—tomorrow, I think. I have already referred to the highlands and I recognise the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, which applied to some extent to the area around Strathspey and Badenoch. I hope that that shows that we have listened to the representations that have been put forward.

How many special advisers he has appointed; and what their official duties are. [126338]

I have two special advisers and one unpaid special adviser. They advise on the development of Government policy and its effective presentation.

When it took the Secretary of State a little while to respond, I thought that that might have been because he was trying to think of something for his advisers to do so that he could answer my question. Given that his Department is no longer a policy-making Department, what possible purpose could there be to his having three special advisers to advise him on policy?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that my Department contributes towards the decision-making process in Cabinet Committees. We have the not unimportant job of helping to transform the governance of the United Kingdom by establishing a relationship between the two Parliaments. If we were to judge expenses and what is paid out only on the basis of what decisions are made, it would be astonishing to find out that the Short money that goes to the Conservative party has been tripled to more than £3 million to allow it to increase its policy and presentational staffs. The House may think that that money has not been well spent, and to spend that sort of money on a group of politicians who decide nothing, influence nothing and contribute nothing raises a far bigger question than the one about my special advisers.

The Secretary of State will be aware that his departmental budget has gone up by 7 per cent. more than inflation in the past year and that it now stands at about £14 million. He has mentioned his special advisers, but he has not specified whether they advise him or people who are unable to answer parliamentary questions. Is not the number of the Secretary of State's special advisers disproportionate to what his Department does, given the fact that all his Executive functions have been given away?

We have given the Conservative party an extra £3 million for researchers, and it cannot even add up. My Department's budget is nothing like £14 million. The budget, as the hon. Gentleman is probably being advised by his unpaid adviser, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), is about £5.8 million. That is to be compared with the budget which we are involved in negotiating with the Scottish Executive of between £16,000 million and £17,000 million.

The Secretary of State's reply is entirely unsatisfactory. He has still not explained what he uses his special advisers for. His comments about Short money are peculiarly specious. Is it not the reality that his Department has turned into the first propaganda ministry that the Government have yet put together? The only purpose of his Department is to put out knocking copy against its opponents and beef up Labour Back-Bench Members when their morale slumps.

This is all very churlish. First, my Department does not put out any party political propaganda, any more than any other civil servants under any Government put out such propaganda, as the hon. Gentleman will know.

We believe that special advisers have a valuable role to play, precisely because they are free to act and advise in a way that a politically impartial civil service cannot.

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Executive concerning the current economic environment for businesses in Scotland. [126339]

My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a wide range of matters.

Specifically in relation to the effect of the climate change levy on small businesses, the Government have set aside about £150 million to assist such firms. What specific steps has the Minister taken in Scotland to ensure that the take-up among small firms is a fair one and that such firms are aware of the existence of this money?

It is clear from the wide range of correspondence that the climate change levy has engendered that there is a high level of awareness of it within business. I would welcome any suggestions from the hon. Gentleman or from any other quarter of what we could do more specifically in Scotland to ensure that awareness is heightened.

I give a warm welcome to the Glasgow employment zone, which the Minister launched recently. How will the initiative benefit both business and employment in Glasgow?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Glasgow employment zone is important. It is one of a few zones that have been designated throughout the United Kingdom that contain an increased battery of measures, greater flexibility and additional resources. They are designed to try to crack the tough core of long-term employment. The scheme fully involves employers, who have backed it enthusiastically. It is much in the spirit of the new deal, where the maximum resources are provided and the maximum personal needs of the individual are met, to get them back into the labour market. The more that people know about what is available within the employment zone, the better. I pay tribute to the work that the Employment Service and others have done in putting it together.

In his discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the Secretary of State making sure that the concerns that I heard at the royal highland show from both farmers and those in the food processing industry about the delay in getting into the euro and preparing for it are being fully reflected, together with the Scottish economy's dependence on agriculture and on trade with Europe?

I am pleased to hear a Liberal Democrat acknowledge the dollar's importance—that is a major statement. The Government are committed to Britain entering the euro; we have set five tests and when they are met, we shall put the issue to the British people. That is the proper way in which to proceed. There is a world of difference between us and the Tories: we recognise the importance of the euro to Britain and vice versa. However, the timing and the conditions must be right—we shall not compromise on that.

When making representations to Brussels about adjustments to the assisted area map, will my hon. Friend take into account that the settlement previously offered for Clackmannanshire, which is part of my Ochil seat, contained an error tantamount to a slip of the pen, whereby the Sauchie-Carsebridge area was denied access to financial support, which could have serious implications for attracting new employment to the area? Will he ensure that that matter is drawn to the attention of Commission officials?

We have done everything possible to secure the most effective conceivable result for Scotland on the basis of the population allocation and the rules set by the European Union. It simply is not possible to go around Scotland, the UK or any other EU member state cherry-picking every area that has investment potential or unemployment black spots; there has to be contiguity between the selected areas and their populations. Because of that difficulty, our original map was not accepted by Brussels. We have done our best to get the optimum result for Clackmannanshire and every other part of Scotland. I am afraid that that is the only reassurance I can give my hon. Friend.

How many times in the past six months has the Secretary of State met the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When he goes to such meetings, does he take with him the First Minister—to whom we all send warm good wishes for a proper recovery—and, if so, who argues for what? What particular things does the Secretary of State argue for that the First Minister cannot argue for?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that meetings take place bilaterally, unilaterally, multilaterally, and every other way, so he can rest easy that there is a sufficiency of meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The purpose of our meetings with the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues is to ensure the best possible deal for Scotland—especially in those matters that account for 50 per cent. of all public expenditure in Scotland and are still funded from Whitehall Departments—and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament and Executive are properly funded for the other 50 per cent. of public expenditure in Scotland. In other words, our lives are committed to getting Scotland the best possible deal under a Labour Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent order for 22 Mega-3 rail freight wagons for Rosyth dockyard is an example of the Government's economic policies and defence diversification policies securing jobs in an area that was devastated by the previous Government? Does he also agree that the greatest risk to the economic regeneration of Rosyth and other parts of Scotland would be the return of a Tory Government and a Scottish National party-style divorce?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the assiduous interest she has taken in this matter, which has yielded excellent results for her constituents, and for her general work in making Rosyth's future look brighter than it did a few years ago under the previous Administration. I can assure her that every job in Scotland is fought for: we fight to defend jobs and to create them. That the unemployment rate is now less than 5 per cent. for the first time since the mid-1970s provides a pretty reasonable testimony to our efforts.

What role he is playing in co-ordinating NHS policies between the NHS in England and the NHS in Scotland. [126340]

I am a member of the joint ministerial committee on health, which enables best practice to be shared across the United Kingdom. I also ensure that there is effective liaison between UK Departments and the Scottish Executive.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. May I bring a particular case to his attention? I had discussions with the agency in the NHS in England that is trying to achieve consistency in information technology and standards across the board, so that patients' records can be transferred between general practitioners and hospitals. The problem is that the NHS in Scotland is doing its own thing. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that and into the auditing of doctors and nurses, to make sure that the medical services in England and Scotland have access to each other's records, and that we do not have three separate services in Wales, England and Scotland?

The whole purpose of devolution is to allow more sensitivity and more efficient government in local areas. There are common purposes and objectives before the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and it is important that we come together to co-ordinate areas in which we gain strength from unity of purpose and practice, through the joint ministerial committee chaired by the Prime Minister. I do not know about the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, which will be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but we have an extremely able and effective Scottish Health Minister in Susan Deacon. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me on the matter, I will raise it with the Scottish Health Minister, and I am sure that she will give it her attention.

If she has been consulted about the proposal to set up a commission for human rights in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [126361]

The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice announced on 7 June that the Scottish Executive would publish a consultation paper in the autumn and that, following the consultation, a decision would be reached in due course, possibly next year. I will consider in due course whether to make formal representations in the consultation process.

The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom may in the long term be the most significant and radical constitutional change that the Government have made. In the short term, however, the Scottish experience shows that although there have been a number of very important cases, a plethora of ill-founded and spurious cases has been taken before the courts on the basis of the convention. Does not that suggest that we should await the incorporation of the convention in October and let it settle down, before putting in place the institutions that we need to enforce it?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Decisions about such sensitive matters should not be taken in haste. The consultation that the Scottish Executive is carrying out will no doubt have time to consider alternative models for scrutiny and enforcement of convention rights, taking into account, for example, existing constitutional arrangements, statutory bodies and the best use of limited financial resources.

But may we take it that the Advocate-General will press hard for the establishment of a commission to deal with human rights matters in Scotland, and in particular to ensure that that commission extends to political parties? How else are we to ensure that the treasurer of the Scottish National party is not the subject of a motion of no confidence moved in his absence?

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will press on behalf of his party for whatever policy he considers most appropriate. For my part, I will wait until I see the consultation paper, then I will make representations, if appropriate, taking into account the United Kingdom position.

What recent advice she has given on the implications of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law on the number of cases brought before (a) the High Court and (b) the Court of Session; and if she will make a statement. [126362]

The incorporation of convention rights into Scots law following devolution has resulted so far in about 700 devolution issues being raised under the Scotland Act 1998. To date, the vast majority have arisen in the context of criminal trials.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that answer. Has she given advice concerning the number of cases and the extra number of sittings that will be required? In England, it is estimated that the number of judicial review applications alone will double to 2,800, and that the number of sitting days in the High Court and Court of Appeal will lead to an annual increase in costs of £60 million. Has the hon. and learned Lady made a similar assessment of the costs in Scotland? How will she find the money to cover the additional costs?

The hon. Lady will remember that my role is to advise the UK Government. Obviously, the Scottish Executive have their own officers to advise them about such matters. I have certainly kept UK Government Departments well informed about the types and numbers of cases and some of the implications of experience in Scotland.

What plans he has for further in-service training on sentencing for judges. [126365]

Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. All circuit judges and recorders receive in-service training from the board at three-yearly intervals and locally based training each year. All these seminars include sessions on sentencing. Specialist courses are also held for judges who try cases involving fraud or serious sexual offences.

Given the profound and far-reaching impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, what plans has my hon. Friend for training judges in the pending implementation of the Act in October?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is an important issue. The Judicial Studies Board has organised a programme of 54 one-day seminars on the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights for all full-time and part-time judges in England and Wales. The programme will have been completed by the end of July, well in time before incorporation takes effect in October. Thereafter, human rights issues will be incorporated into the board's core training for judges and form part of their core training from then on.

Will this in-service training incorporate the more senior members of the judiciary? Following the embarrassment of Lord Hoffmann over the collapse of the original Pinochet case because of his involvement with a charity, followed by the further embarrassment of the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend last week on another charitable matter, is it any wonder that many people are asking in relation to so many of the current Government's friends in another place "Who do these people think they are?"

It is disgraceful for hon. Members to impugn the independence of the judiciary and to cast aspersions on the very good work that its members do. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the rules on disclosure of interests have anything to do with the European convention on human rights. The hon. Gentleman's attempted link is entirely spurious.

What steps she is taking to encourage greater openness and transparency in the appointment of magistrates. [126366]

The process is open and transparent. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor revised the directions to which his local advisory committees work in 1998, in order to establish a national unified system for recruiting magistrates. A copy of the directions is in the Library. The local committees actively seek to encourage applications from all parts of the community by using a range of methods, including advertisements in local newspapers, leaflet drops and local radio and television programmes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome all the efforts that are being made to encourage greater openness and transparency, but I fear that in all too many cases there is still a shroud of secrecy over the appointment process through the advisory committees. Will my hon. Friend consider more steps to encourage greater openness, not only in that appointments process, but in the manner in which the advisory committees are appointed in the first place?

I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I repeat that we believe that the process is open and transparent. That is not to say that my noble Friend does not make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the communities from which they are drawn. It might be helpful to the House and to my hon. Friend to know that the Northamptonshire advisory committee, which covers the area of my hon. Friend's constituency, has recently undertaken a number of activities to encourage recruitment and raise the profile of the magistracy. While my hon. Friend raises fair concerns and makes legitimate comments, we make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the community.

We of course welcome as broad a variety of people as possible on the bench, but does the Minister agree that it is important for the best calibre of people to become magistrates, and that the sort of tokenism she described is wrong? We should not appoint people because they are women or because they are black. We must have the best calibre of people, irrespective of who they are.

I find some comments that are made from time to time about the lay magistracy disappointing. The Lord Chancellor defined the personal qualities that an individual must possess to be suitable for appointment as a magistrate as: good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgment, commitment and reliability. Candidates for the bench are drawn from people who have all those qualities. However, it is fair to say that every effort should continue to be made to find more candidates who are women, and more candidates from ethnic communities, to be sure that the benches reflect the communities that they are there to serve.

If he will make a statement on revisions proposed by the Lord Chancellor to the system for judicial appointments. [126368]

The Lord Chancellor keeps judicial appointments procedures continuously under review. Last year, he asked Sir Leonard Peach to conduct a scrutiny of the procedures, and he is now acting on Sir Leonard's recommendations.

How embarrassed is my hon. Friend by the report that was recently published? It was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and shows that most lawyers would like an independent appointments commission. We know that the Lord Chancellor likes appointing judges—that is reasonable; it is an agreeable occupation—but everybody else, probably including my hon. Friend, believes that an independent commission should do it. Instead of endlessly peachifying the system to preserve it, why do we not simply get on with the job of changing it?

I assure my hon. Friend, who remains my hon. Friend, that I am not embarrassed at all. He has misunderstood the point. Press reports were about research into the factors that affect decisions to apply for judicial appointments and silk. The reports were unbalanced because they revealed respondents' perceptions of the system, but did not analyse the extent to which the system worked, or the factors that worked within the system. There is a difference between how the system is perceived from outside—I accept that it is important for the Government to know that—and its perception inside, which is the subject of the detailed report by Sir Leonard Peach. That will lead to the appointment of a commissioner for judicial appointments for England and Wales later this year. The two perceptions are entirely separate.

Does the Minister accept that, now that judges must interpret the European convention on human rights, they increasingly have to make political decisions about political policies, which were previously made by elected politicians in this place, and to seek a political balance between different rights? In those circumstances, does the Minister acknowledge that the judiciary is in danger of being politicised, that the selection of judges will be considered from a political point of view, and that in most other countries, such as the United States, those appointments become political as the result of such deplorable moves?

I am very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman believes that giving rights to the British public is a deplorable move. Our judges' decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 when the European convention comes into force will be no more political than they were when there were judicial reviews of the previous Government's decisions, for example, in the Pergau dam case. It is important that judges judge according to the law and that their appointment and work be entirely impartial.

What recent evaluation she has made of the social class of magistrates. [126370]

Each local advisory committee tries to ensure that the bench reflects the political affiliation and occupational diversity of the local area. Those conditions are currently used as a proxy for social balance, although a viable alternative is being sought. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each bench.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and her recognition that we need people from all backgrounds to give the magistracy legitimacy. However, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important factors that deters people from applying is the inability to get time off work? Many people in professions or managerial positions can get time off work, but those in manual work or lower down in their place of work cannot easily get time off. That is a major hindrance to applying. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and meet some of the larger employers to discuss it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, as she regularly does, and for the opportunity to address it once more. We recognise the voluntary nature of magistrates' work and appreciate the commitment that they give to the service. We are committed to the concept of voluntary service but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, without the co-operation of employers, we cannot achieve the balance on the benches which, we all know, benefits everybody.

Will the hon. Lady confirm that quotas, targets and the pursuit of an antediluvian class war should have no role whatsoever to play in the appointment of magistrates, and that the only criterion for such appointments should be merit?

As I have already said, these days, the use of political balance to introduce proper social balance on benches is regarded as a stereotype that no longer holds true. If we look at the results of the 1997 election, we also have to look seriously at other criteria and we are seeking to do that. Unnecessarily dismissive comments about the need to ensure balance on the benches do not give credit to the work of magistrates, who deliver an excellent service throughout the country and deal with 97 per cent. of criminal cases in their courts.

Why not start writing the manifesto for the next election? Why not be ultra-modern and democratic and elect magistrates and judges?

My hon. Friend, as ever, comes up with a novel solution, which I shall consider carefully. However, we have procedures in place that will address some of the problems that he raises.

In the light of experience in Scotland following the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, are the Government satisfied that it is still appropriate for political appointments of judges to be made in England?

We are dealing with the appointments of magistrates, which are made after local advisory committees undertake an assessment of candidates and make recommendations to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

What progress the Government are making towards setting up a scheme for a salaried defence service. [126371]

The Government and the Legal Services Commission intend to establish the criminal defence service on 1 April 2001. On 13 June this year, we published consultation papers on establishing a salaried defence service within the criminal defence service and on its clients' choice of representative. Responses are due by 22 September this year.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the progress that has been made in instigating a salaried defence service. What plans does my hon. Friend have to monitor the operation of the defence service once it is up and running, thus ensuring that the good idea that lies behind it is carried out in practice?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are likely to be only six pilot salaried defence services out of a total of about 3,500 firms of solicitors in the criminal defence service, so we must keep the matter in context. The salaried defence service will be an independent stand-alone service within the Legal Services Commission, and there will be a research project following the establishment of the pilots to check that we can learn the lessons and ensure that we get the right quality and value for money from services provided by lawyers employed on salaries.

During the progress of the Access to Justice Act 1999, we opposed the introduction of state defenders. How do the Government propose to overcome the inherent conflicts of interest that occur when the state acts both as prosecutor and defender?

That conflict arises in every case in which state funds are used both to prosecute and defend. Whether the lawyer is a salaried lawyer or receives a fee for the case, the paymaster remains the same. Independence is a matter of professional standards, attitude of mind and an impartial approach to the job that the defender has to do. It is not a question of whether the lawyer receives a fee or a salary cheque.

We are still waiting for costing of the service: perhaps the Minister would share that information with us.

I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but poor quality defence services exist in many parts of the world and their quality is totally independent of whether they are salaried or paid by a fee per case. The issue is whether there is proper remuneration for lawyers and proper quality systems. We will monitor the quality of services under the pilots, but we will not accept any special pleading on behalf of existing private practice solicitors or barristers which would prevent us from finding out what benefits can be obtained from a mixed system.

What plans the Government have to present proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on making parliamentary adjournments coincide with school holidays. [126380]

The business managers already take school holidays into account when arranging adjournments. Unfortunately, there is at present no common and consistent pattern of school holidays.

Will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to bring forward the summer recess, which is very long, so that, in nearly every case, it would embrace the full school summer holiday? Furthermore, the October half-term holiday could then coincide with a recess. That would entail changing the timetable of party conferences, but I am sure that that could be easily accommodated.

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, as I am sure the whole House does. I have noticed, over the years, an increasing interest in having a different and more certain pattern for the parliamentary calendar, and I understand those pressures. I have to warn my hon. Friend that although he says that it would be comparatively easy to change the timetable of the party conferences, most are arranged a good number of years in advance, so I fear that it might not be as simple as he thinks.

Can the President of the Council confirm that the Modernisation Committee is seeking to obtain greater certainty for the parliamentary year, which would obviously help the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)? Will the right hon. Lady also comment on the spate of leaks over the past few days not only on this subject but on others before the Committee? Can she confirm that it is her intention, and that of the Committee, to publish a report before the summer recess?

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the sensitivity about matters being publicised which are under consideration by the Select Committee, although the Committee is in a slightly unusual position, in that its discussions affect the House as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that the Committee, as its earlier published reports show, is seeking and has consistently sought to obtain greater certainty. It is mindful of the fact that some Parliaments, albeit ones with traditions and responsibilities different from ours, have a fixed calendar. I hope that I will not be thought to be contravening the convention that governs the work of Select Committees if I say that it is certainly my strong hope that the Committee will publish a report, which I hope hon. Members will agree with, before the summer recess.

What would the Minister think of a school that published its intended terms and said, "But if we haven't finished the A-level syllabus by 29 July, we will go on to 3 August"? That is, to some degree, the way in which we operate in this place. Could the Minister and her Committee put a very high priority on future certainty? I am not arguing for particular times; I am arguing for knowing where I will be on what day next year.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend and I know that greater certainty would especially assist the staff of the House in planning their work. As to what I would think of a school that was unable to give greater certainty, I might wonder whether it was full of rather unruly pupils.

Has the right hon. Lady received any request from the hon. Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) or for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), or from any other hon. Member who believes that parliamentary adjournments should coincide with school holidays, that the House should sit for as many weeks a year as schools work?

Indeed I have received such representations, and I am grateful to learn that the hon. Gentleman would be in favour of that suggestion.

Would my right hon. Friend like to tell me exactly which half of her legislative programme she is thinking of abandoning to make it easier for us to have longer holidays?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not propose to abandon any of the legislative programme.

What proposals she has for changes to the times when the House sits. [126381]

The Modernisation Committee is to review the experiment with Thursday sittings later this Session and other parts of its work may have some impact on sitting hours, but I have no other proposals for change at present.

Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that, with the current pace of European integration and our giving away so many of our powers to other European institutions, we might avoid the inconvenience of having to sit at all?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will note that there are lengthy debates whenever European matters are discussed, such are the divisions in his own party.

Does my hon. Friend think that a considerable change in the hours of the House could be made if, instead of having Divisions after half-past 10 at night, we were to roll them over to the following day? Would not those Opposition Members who make us sit ridiculous hours then soon lose their interest in democracy and debate?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I simply say that there was a Division last Wednesday at 1.12 in the morning. My hon. Friend was there, together with 177 other Labour Members of Parliament, but only 18 Conservatives.

Following the helpful question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), can the Minister give an assurance that he will not support any proposal to reduce the sittings of the House that would compromise its duty to scrutinise Government legislation?

That is a strong point, and part of the responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Some Opposition Members believe that scrutiny should occur in the other place; the real and effective place for scrutiny is in this House.

If the Commission will make additional facilities available to visitors to the House for the current year. [126382]

Additional attractions and facilities for visitors this year include the reopening of the Line of Route, on a trial basis, for pre-booked guided tours on Mondays to Saturdays from 7 August to 16 September, as well as free admission to the "Voters of the Future" exhibition in Westminster Hall during the same period. A souvenir shop offering merchandise from both Houses and temporary lavatories are also being provided. In 2001, work should begin on establishing the new Westminster Hall visitors centre.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he not aware that it is difficult for visitors to the House of Commons to go to the toilet or even get a cup of tea? I welcome the fact that the tours were advertised in the national press this weekend and this week, but will not visitors be disappointed with the facilities that we provide for them? Cannot we do better than temporary toilets?

The point is well made. The Commission is well aware of the inadequacy of the current facilities, and they will change next year when the Westminster Hall cafeteria and visitors centre are properly developed. There may be difficulties, but the House took the view that the new trial basis of taking tours on the Line of Route and into Westminster Hall, giving people access to the "Voters of the Future" exhibition, which is part of the "String of Pearls" millennium festival across London, was the sensible thing to do. Later in the year, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will use Westminster Hall, immediately after the exhibition ends.

May I suggest that one of the aspects that is a disgrace in the House is that the only place we can meet our constituents is either in a corridor or at a table outside a Committee Room? There should be proper facilities in this place where one can have a confidential meeting with one's constituents. I hope that the House of Commons Commission will be able to consider that.

Strictly speaking, any new facilities with a catering or refreshment aspect are technically the responsibility of the Catering Committee, so I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). However, when Portcullis house comes on stream, Members will see a noticeable difference. They will be able to take people into some parts of Portcullis house. When the new Westminster Hall visitors centre opens—I hope as soon as possible after the work starts in 2001—I think that Members and visitors will be better provided for.

What recent representations she has received on the first report from the Liaison Committee, "Shifting the Balance" (HC300); and if she will make a statement. [126383]

A number of Members have made informal representations to me, or raised the issue at Question Time. The Government response to the report was published on 18 May.

Will the President of the Council and Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the issues raised in the report, which concern many of us who are members of important Select Committees such as that led by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody): the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs? Will it be possible to have such a debate before the end of term, so that we can consider a structure alternative to the present one and give the Select Committees the real teeth that many of us believe they should have?

Of course that is a matter that should be discussed by the House. The hon. Lady may know that the Liaison Committee has invited me to give evidence to it, which I am very prepared to do. I had assumed that the Committee would prefer its debate to take place after that date. I cannot undertake to be confident of finding time before the summer recess—if that is what she means—but I anticipate and hope that the matter will be discussed before the current Session ends.

rose—

s: Hear, hear!

As if I do not have enough trouble.

I share my hon. Friend's view that the report is weighty and has considerable implications for every Member. I also share her view that it should therefore be taken seriously by the House. I hope that that will happen in and before the debate to which she refers.

If she will make a statement on her future proposals for the modernisation of the House. [126384]

The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is examining some further proposals whose consideration flows directly from recommendations and experiments resulting from our earlier reports.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that two important questions to ask about the modernising programme are: has it strengthened Parliament in relation to the Executive; and has it done something to sort out the ludicrous hours when the House is expected to transact business? Has not progress on both those issues been disappointingly meagre so far; and will not the extent to which the current Parliament comes to be seen as a modernising Parliament be decided by the actions that the Government and the House take over the period ahead?

I know that, sadly, my hon. Friend was not able to be with us when we discussed the two principal experiments that have flowed from earlier reports of the Select Committee—the experiments with regard to hours and, to some extent, with regard to greater scrutiny. I am referring to the changed sitting hours with which we are experimenting on Thursdays and to the setting up of the parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall, which has provided 200 extra opportunities to scrutinise the Executive, including examination of Select Committee reports. I am sorry to hear him say that he thinks that that is meagre. It is, after all, more than most Governments have ever done.

In answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), the right hon. Lady said that she had received a number of representations from her hon. Friends that we should adopt holidays similar to those of schools. I wonder whether any of those representations also concerned hours and suggested that perhaps we should only sit from 9 am till 3.30 pm.

I have received no representations suggesting those hours. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the notion that all representations about the pattern of holidays and whether they should reflect school holidays come from this side of the House. They come from Opposition Members too.

With permission Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on benefits payable under the vaccine damage payment scheme.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House do, indeed, welcome the changes, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) who has led the all-party campaign on the issue. I also pay tribute to Olivia Price, the chairman of the Vaccine Victims Support Group, who is coming tomorrow to lobby Parliament on the issue, for the fourth time since 1997. The Opposition welcome the statement and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has already made clear, we recognise the need for a generous and sensible settlement for the grievance.

good policy is not made on the hoof, but this one has been around the paddock far too many times.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1 WH.]

to conclude our review early in the new year.—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 817.]

When we consider the children with whom we are dealing, I do not think that the issue should be the stuff of knockabout politics.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today. He has a record of being able to take hard decisions, but when we spoke to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently, I pointed out to them that the hardest decision in the whole matter was the decision that the parents had to take when they chose to have a child born without impairment vaccinated. The first thing that we must say is that the vaccine programme has been a great success. It has reduced the number of cases from several thousand in 1979 to a handful a year now. We must say loudly and clearly to the public that the vaccine programme works—

Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal in this campaign, but I must remind him that he is not speaking in an Adjournment debate at the moment; he is putting questions. There are other Members who want to ask questions, so I hope that he will put his question right away.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) for the work that he has done in the all-party group. Anyone who says that Back-Bench Members cannot make a difference is wrong. My hon. Friend has shown, along with his colleagues in the all-party group, that Members of Parliament can play a valuable role in helping the Government to formulate policy. I am grateful to him also for acknowledging that the Government announcement today will go a long way towards helping families who have lost out in the past. I hope that all the parents concerned will accept that we have made a number of changes which I hope will make a real difference to the problems and difficulties that they face.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which illustrates why we worked so hard for a change of Government—although I am sorry that it has taken us a little while to get this far. I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who put the issue on the agenda a couple of weeks ago. I particularly welcome the recognition of the need for backdating some of the payments. In many instances, we are talking not about children but about grown people and their carers. The Secretary of State has recognised that there is a need for no-fault compensation in this aspect of public health policy and NHS activity. Will he now explore the possibility of introducing no-fault compensation in other areas of national health concern?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, nothing in what I said today makes the case for no-fault liability. That was raised by the Pearson commission in the 1970s and rejected by the then Government in 1983. Successive Governments have not changed the position so far as that is concerned. The vaccine damage payment scheme is a separate matter and is focused on a particular problem affecting a particular group of people. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken on his last point.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that, no matter what is said by Opposition Members today—mealy-mouthed or otherwise—thousands of families will thank the Government for proposing changes to the scheme and that families affected by vaccine damage can look forward to better care from the state in the future than they have received in the past?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right in saying that many families have waited too long for this scheme to be put on a proper footing, but we have now done that.

At least two families in my constituency will very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. Cases such as theirs are appalling: perhaps it is because they are so few and so random that they are so sad.

I can help the hon. Gentleman on both points. First, we aim to ensure that people who have received a payment in the past will receive a top-up payment so that they get the equivalent in real terms of the £100,000 total sum that is to be paid. All the relevant provisions will be set out in regulations. The lump sum, unlike the change in the threshold or the time limit for claims, will be dealt with in regulations which I hope to bring before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

I wish to add my support for my right hon. Friend's very welcome statement. I am especially pleased that he referred to families who were affected when the scheme began in 1979. Although those families received payments, they have nevertheless felt a serious sense of injustice over the ensuing 21 years—of which this Government have been in power for only three.

I want to bring the regulations forward as quickly as I can, as it is important that payments—especially those involving the lump sum—are made as quickly as possible. After waiting so long for an increase in the lump sum, most families will want to receive it as quickly as possible. That is what I intend to make sure happens.

As a member of the all-party group, and on behalf of my constituent Hamish Thompson, may I thank the Secretary of State for what he has achieved in terms of removing the time limits, lowering the disability threshold and increasing the top-up payment? However, I have one practical request.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that I can provide by tomorrow an official who could give chapter and verse on the number of matters about which I have just informed the House. Lobby groups and parents have been in contact with the Department. Once we have the details, we intend to write to them and set out the position. That might be the best way to proceed, as hon. Members will know that trying to run what amounts to an information stall is not always a practical response to lobbies in this place.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the welcome announcement that he has made today. I seek clarification on two small matters.

On the latter point, I want to ensure that people are not unfairly excluded simply because they do not come within the new scheme. Clearly, the primary legislation that is required will take longer to introduce because of other constraints, but I want to avoid the situation in which someone who would qualify now is barred because of the old rules. Not many people are in that situation, but it would be unfair to exclude them.

I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the statement. Will the Secretary of State underline the point made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart)? While we try to help those people who have suffered for reasons that some of us cannot fully understand, we should also be sending out the message that, on the whole, vaccination is helpful and safe. We must assure people that the vaccine programme should be followed through because it has been so positive. Having said that, I plead with the Secretary of State to look again with compassion on those parents who lost children as a result of vaccine damage: they have sometimes been left without any clear guidance concerning the real problem and have been fobbed off with reasons that are not acceptable.

All of us, as Members of this House or as individuals, have come across families who have agonised over that problem, to which there is no easy answer. As I know, nothing that I can say from this Dispatch Box will provide comfort to parents in that position. On parents whose children died, as I said in my statement, nothing can make up for what has happened. As a Government, all that we can do is to ensure that we provide help as appropriate for parents who have been in that dreadful situation.

In view of the frankly uncalled-for contribution from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, in contrast with the contributions of Opposition Back Benchers, I remind my right hon. Friend that David Ennals had made the undertaking—and a Labour Government would have carried it out—on the delicate question of time limits which he has honoured, which was very much open to argument. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend for generously topping up the lump sum. Will he, the Department of Health and other colleagues reflect, however, because that raises the thorny issue of medical negligence? Will he look sympathetically at the case put forward by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton on medical negligence because, in one form or another, heaven help us, these problems may well arise again and we ought to tackle that question.

The statement was not about medical negligence, which is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, not for me. On the events of 1979, I understood that the then Labour Government certainly intended to complete the reforms, but unfortunately were not able to do so. I have nothing whatever to say about the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to which my hon. Friend referred.

I too offer a warm welcome to the statement from the Secretary of State. In reducing the threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. disablement, is the right hon. Gentleman considering altering some of the assessment procedures that are used? He, like all hon. Members, will know that one of the most distressing aspects is the definition of the threshold that enables people to be recipients of the benefits. Will that be included in the legislation?

No, I cannot promise that. I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes about medical assessments. There will always be some problems with them but, as I said in my statement, I consider the tariff level of 80 per cent. to be too high for the degree of disability, so I want to reduce it to 60 per cent. We always keep procedures under review, but I cannot promise to make specific changes in respect of this particular group of people.

I thank my right hon. Friend for this act of justice. Labour Members take pride in the fact that, in doing something about this matter, the Government have done what previous Governments conspicuously failed to do. May I say, especially on behalf of those 900 people who are now in their 30s, many of whom are totally dependent, for whom life is a struggle and whose families often live in great poverty, that this action is vastly overdue? It was a scandal that when they had taken part in a public health programme and received a certificate to say that damage was caused by vaccine, they were rewarded with only £10,000. That was a scandal waiting to be addressed, and I am glad that the Government have now addressed it.

I certainly hope that they will. Now that the announcement has been made, people rightly want to see the sums that are due to them.

I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State made and congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) most warmly on the important work that he has done, but may I suggest that the required legislation could be given greater priority if the Government were to relegate to the circular filing tray their planned legislation against hunting with dogs?

I believe that most Members on both sides of the House have recognised that this is a very difficult matter. We are dealing with children who have suffered serious damage as a result of what has happened to them, and I do not think that this is the time and place for Tory knockabout politics.

I welcome the statement. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider extending the principle underlying the scheme by joining forces with the Secretary of State for Health to re-examine the case for a no-fault compensation scheme for medical accidents.

This is not a compensation scheme, and never has been since it was set up in 1979. It exists in recognition of the extra burden that families are obliged to shoulder. As I said in reply to some other hon. Friends earlier, the question of no-fault liability is a matter for the Lord Chancellor; it is not the subject of my statement.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to a written answer, reported at column 373W of yesterday's Hansard.

nor the source of such advice.—[Official Report, 26 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 373W.]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for kindly supplying me with the question and answer to which he referred. As he knows, I am not responsible for the responses given by Ministers to questions. I can only suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sufficiently ingenious as to table other questions or to raise the matter through the Order Paper in other ways—by such means he might be able to obtain the information he seeks. I understand and take his point; he does not want to know the advice that was given—he wants to know its source. He may find other methods—in questions or other exchanges on the Floor of the House—whereby his question will be answered.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Sometimes, ministerial answers provide a block on further questions of a similar nature. As that answer was unprecedented—as far as I am aware—can we be sure that, until the Government provide some justification, it will be possible for Members to seek information from the Government on this and other issues, and that the Government will not use the answer as a way of blocking similar questions?

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time. He and I both know exactly what is meant by the Government blocking further questions. I have not dealt with such a situation for some time, although in my early days as Speaker I had to do so. I cannot give him any guarantees, but I am aware of the point he makes.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for enforcement of the ministerial code of conduct.

In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government … I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code. Ministers will find the Code a useful source of guidance and reference as they undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.

The effect of the foreword is to underline the status of the Code as the Prime Minister's document, written not only as guidance for Ministers but also as a pledge to the public.

The Prime Minister remains the ultimate judge of the requirements of the Code and the appropriate consequences of breaches of it.

There is.. no objection to a Minister holding trade union membership but care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest. Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence.

They … should receive no remuneration from a union.

Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interests.

It is a well-established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him under an obligation.

Ministers will want to order their affairs so that no conflict arises or is thought to arise between their private interests … and their public duties. Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest but Ministers should submit any such case to the Prime Minister for his decision.

remained entirely detached from the consideration of that business.

expected Mr. Prescott to have made some mention within his Department of his interest in the subject matter of the order.

should certainly have registered the benefit obtained from his tenancy of the flat.

It is not for me … to adjudicate publicly on Ministers' conduct. The Prime Minister is fully satisfied that John Prescott has done nothing which in any way, shape or form reflects on his integrity or his ability to do his job.

rose—

Order. Ten-minute Bills are not usually interrupted.

Who on the Government Benches recalls the Prime Minister telling all Labour Members a week after Labour's election victory that they were not in government to enjoy "the trappings of power"? Does the Prime Minister believe that this is an illustration of the "highest standards of propriety" which he then demanded? Members may doubt it. This may explain why within the past month the Prime Minister has twice refused to give evidence on the workings of the ministerial code to the Select Committee on Public Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore shown that he is neither fit nor capable to administer his own code.

Order. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has kept within the bounds of the motion but he is now going far from them. I ask him to withdraw his last remark.

I certainly withdraw, Madam Speaker. I hope that all Labour Members will agree that this is an issue of genuine and great concern. I feel that we should beware of over-regulating the behaviour of Members, but in the case of Ministers there can be no doubt, as the Prime Minister agrees, that the "highest standards" of behaviour and propriety should be seen to be enforced. This case makes a mockery of the words and spirit of the ministerial code. It can only further undermine public respect for Ministers and other politicians.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am genuinely concerned about the use of the ten-minute Bill procedure for individual venting of spleen, especially when the Select Committee on Standard and Privileges has dealt with the matter on behalf of the House. 1 am concerned that Members should be able somehow to circumvent the judgment of that Committee when the procedure should be used for other purposes.

That is not a point of order. As I explained during the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I listened carefully to every word he uttered and was ready to stop him if he went too far or failed to remain within our rules of procedure. However, let me say again those wise words of "Erskine May", which I have not repeated in the House for some time:

Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.