How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the increases in the minimum income guarantee in April. [41515]

How many pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the increases in the basic state pension in April. [41517]

In Scotland, around 181,000 claimants will benefit from the increase in the minimum income guarantee in April and around 900,000 people will benefit from the increase in the basic state pension. Once again, a Labour Government are delivering for Scotland's pensioners.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. No doubt, he will be aware that many of my constituents receive the minimum income guarantee, which provides a crucial safety net, but what worries me—this is the substance of my question—is that many people may not he aware of it. The minimum income guarantee is no accident. It is a direct result of sound economic policy and the Government's social responsibility, and it is coupled with the national minimum wage and the principled politics of socialism. I came into politics to deliver those kinds of benefits to our people. However, I emphasise that there are a number of—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, but perhaps the Minister can answer from the information that he has already.

But it was a good speech, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend knows, the minimum income guarantee will increase in line with earnings, and that is welcome for the poorest pensioners. We have also, thankfully, made it easier to claim the minimum income guarantee. The form has been reduced from 40 pages to 10, and we have introduced a new telephone claim service, all of which has made it easier for pensioners to claim the minimum income guarantee.

I certainly welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, and so will 10,760 pensioners in Dunfermline and west Fife when they receive their increases. Does he agree that a sizeable group of pensioners, who have worked hard all their lives and put a little aside in savings or extra pension, still lose out, especially as their increases go to pay extra council tax, water charges or fuel bills? Will he join me in saying that we must all work together to ensure that the pension credit, when it is introduced next year, delivers to those pensioners and provides decency and dignity in their retirement?

My hon. Friend, like myself, represents a mining area and knows that many miners and widows on very small additional pensions are affected in the way that she describes. The pension credit will benefit about half the pensioner households in Scotland. Pensioner couples with incomes below £200 and single pensioners with incomes below £135 a week will benefit, and it will reward those with savings on low and modest incomes. We are the first Government ever to reward thrift in pensioners.

Has the Minister found time in his busy diary to read the recent MORI survey that reported that only slightly more than one in four people in Scotland were content with the Government's attempt to tackle pensioner poverty? Bearing in mind his links with Age Concern Scotland, which co-sponsored that survey, what is he doing to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that future Government policy tallies with Age Concern Scotland's requests?

I also made time in my busy diary to vote against foxhunting last night, and the hon. Gentleman might have managed to do so, because, after all, he claims to be a Unionist. He is right to suggest that I used to work for Age Concern Scotland, and I know that pensioners in Scotland now feel better than they have ever done under any previous Government, which was shown very strongly when they voted in the last election to return a Labour Government with a majority almost as large as in 1997.

Will the Minister confirm that, on 21 January 2050, he will be 108 years old? Would he care to contemplate PricewaterhouseCoopers' recent estimate that, in that year, the basic state pension will be worth 6 per cent. of average earnings? Does he think that a weekly income of less than £30 a week at today's prices is an adequate foundation on which to build future retirement incomes?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, on 4 July this year, I will have been married for 33 years—he was there in a very particular role on that occasion. He will know that with the basic pension, minimum income guarantee, winter fuel allowance and a range of other measures, and with the way in which we are tackling the problem of private pensions, the Government are taking every possible action to ensure that pensioners, including members of the Government who might soon be pensioners, are well off in future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has great concern about the implications for company pensions, about recent announcements, and especially FRS17, which I know will worry my hon. Friend. He has asked the Accounting Standards Board, which is independent of government, to consider these matters, which may be out of line with international accounting standards.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of increasing pensioners' income has been the introduction of the £200 winter fuel allowance? Will he take steps to ensure that any pensioner aged over 60 in Scotland who has not yet claimed this year's allowance will be advised that he or she must do so before the end of March? We must ensure that everyone in Scotland benefits from this generous allowance.

My hon. Friend is right. I ask everyone—colleagues, Opposition Members and the media—to publicise the fact that men who are over 60 and eligible for the allowance can still claim up to the end of this month—[Interruption.] No, I am not eligible, but almost.

Would it surprise the Minister to know that at a recent gathering of pensioners in my constituency, 14 of the 22 present were not receiving their proper benefits or credits? Given that those numbers are probably replicated throughout Scotland, is it not time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ditched his complicated credits and gave pensioners the decent pension that they deserve?

They are getting a decent pension and much more besides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that on board and let his constituents know. Members have a responsibility to spread this information. They must ensure that it appears in their local newspapers and make it known in their surgeries. They must talk to Age Concern groups and pensioner groups. Labour Members are doing that and Opposition Members should do it as well.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the Government's policy to eradicate poverty, especially pensioner poverty? I am concerned that the latest statistic shows that four of the 10 worst areas in the United Kingdom are in Glasgow. Could we make an extra effort through the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament to do something about the problem?

We are the first Government—the Scottish Executive support this—to commit ourselves to ending pensioner poverty and child poverty. It will take some time to achieve that after 18 years of Tory Government, but we are determined to do it.

I am sure that we will not forget, but in case we do, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his wife on their wedding anniversary in July? Given the Government's ambition of increasing substantially the number of people who can to rely on private pensions, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of retired people on means-tested benefits will increase from 40 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. next year? How does he plan to encourage people to save for their retirement when the Government take £5 billion a year from pension funds and will not reform annuities? Is not the pension system in a crisis of the Government's own making?

No. We keep being told about the £5 billion a year that is taken from pension funds and advance corporation tax. There were the exact equivalents in the reductions of ACT. We do not hear about that. The main problem with pension funds recently has been the fall in the stock market and FRS17, which I mentioned earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has taken action on FRS17. He has also set up the Pickering review, which will report by June or July 2002. We are therefore taking swift and effective action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to sort out the mess of the mis-selling of private pensions created by the previous Government.

What steps she will be taking to promote Scotland's interests in the future of Europe debate. [41516]

The Government wish to encourage a wide-ranging debate on the future of Europe in advance of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. I will continue to contribute to that debate. Indeed, the Spanish presidency of the European Union is organising a major seminar on that issue next month in Segovia, where I shall speak.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is taking part in that conference. As she is aware, one of the key issues facing Europe is enlargement. As she knows, enlargement will mean that more than 70 million people will join the eurozone. Does she agree that Scottish business and Scottish jobs are likely to suffer if more countries join the eurozone while the United Kingdom remains outside? Does she therefore agree that Scottish business and Scottish jobs need more than ever an early decision on British membership of the single currency?

Scottish business and Scottish jobs need to be certain that the economic conditions are right for Britain's membership of the single currency. We are the only Government ever to have said that we have no objection in principle to the single currency, but joining it must be within the context of meeting the five economic conditions set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about enlargement, which may mean something like £175 million per annum coming to Scotland; however, that money will come to Scotland only if Scottish companies are prepared.

Can the Secretary of State identify for the House the precise benefits that will accrue to Scottish workers from the Prime Minister's new right-wing alliance with Silvio Berlusconi? Can she draw on her own experience to warn him of the dangers of becoming entangled with unscrupulous media tycoons?

I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the Prime Minister should have any contact with democratically elected Prime Ministers. Indeed, as well as working with the Italian Government—I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about that Government—the Government have worked with all the other 14 members of the European Union. Consequently, we now play a leading role in the European Union. As a direct result of the Government's policies on a flexible work force, increasing skills, and developing the knowledge economy, we have the lowest unemployment for more than a generation, more people in employment than for 40 years, the lowest interest rates and one of the most prosperous economies in Europe.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Scotland has a greater interest in European prosperity because we have a much greater proportion of trade with Europe than does the rest of the UK? Does she accept that if we consider joining the euro, we must ensure that we do so at the right rate? Joining at the present rate would lock in a degree of uncompetitiveness that would not serve us well in future. Does she accept that the devaluation that would be necessary if we changed the rates in the short term would cause inflation, which would be in no one's interest?

The Government's policy on exchange rates is that they will fluctuate and find their own balance in the medium term, which is as it should be. I repeat to my hon. Friend the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz); it is important that the five economic tests are met. A key issue is ensuring that we have a robust place in the European Union and are able to withstand external shocks; I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was referring to that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a world of difference between promoting Scotland's interests and doing what she has been doing—trying to promote the interests of the Prime Minister? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister wants a united states of Europe, with a single constitution, a single currency, a single foreign policy, a single economic policy and a euro-army? Is not that why Ministers are not standing up for Scotland against the rising tide of euro-federalism? Would not Scotland's interests be better served by a free market, flexible union of member states, to enable Scotland to retain its national identity and its own currency?

Every time the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box, he displays his lack of knowledge about Scotland. Scotland benefits more than other parts of the European Union from our membership. A greater proportion of our exports goes to our European partners than goes to the United States of America, for example. We have benefited from the Government's policy of playing a leading role in Europe, rather than the previous Government's bonkers policy of trying to pretend that we could pull up the drawbridge on Europe. Businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are appalled by the attitude that the former leader of the Conservative party propounds in her most recent book. I urge him to come to the Dispatch Box and repudiate the views of Baroness Thatcher.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will take no cognisance of the Conservative party, which wants to come out of Europe? That is the honest message that the Conservatives should be putting across. When she discusses the future of Europe in Spain next month, will she keep in mind the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the number of financial services jobs now exceeds 250,000? Apt financial regulation and EC directives are extremely important if the industry is to flourish in the future.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The financial services sector in Edinburgh is a major engine for growth in the Scottish economy. Last Thursday, representatives of the financial community met my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and me to discuss liberalisation and the completion of the single market in financial services. One of the great successes of the Barcelona summit was the movement towards completion of the single market in financial services. Already 25 measures have been approved; seven more are likely to be approved by the end of the year. Such measures are crucial to Scotland and represent a great opportunity for Scottish financial services. If we listen to the Conservative party, we hear euroscepticism that is damaging to Scotland's best interests. If we listen to the nationalists, their policy is to take us out of the European Union, because two former eurocrats said that perhaps, if they were awfully good, an independent Scotland might get into the EU. That is backward looking and regressive. We speak about the real issues; they speak about separation.

What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on how the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will affect Scotland. [41514]

My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of matters.

I am sure that the Minister is appalled, as I am, that Scottish rail passengers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It says here."] It certainly does. I am sure that he is appalled that Scottish rail passengers are again being inconvenienced by strikes by the drivers. What action are he and his counterpart on the Scottish Executive taking to tell the unions that the strikes are out of order? If he does not take action, does he realise that the strikes will continue for two days a week until the end of the year? Can he tell me what part he played in the £34 million handout?

We are concerned at the way that the Scottish travelling public will be inconvenienced—and have been inconvenienced—by the strikes. Our first concern is for the Scottish passengers. Both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive believe that the operators and the trade union representatives should get back round the table as quickly as possible to resolve the dispute. I take the opportunity today to call on the management and the unions to resolve the matter through negotiation as soon as possible.

Last week, at a meeting with the leader of East Lothian council, the chief executive of Great North Eastern railway confirmed that the company still wants to build a new Edinburgh Parkway station at Musselburgh. Does he agree that such a station will encourage more people to travel to London by rail rather than by air, which itself would be a good thing, and provide a better service for commuters into Edinburgh, which would lead to more people travelling by rail to Edinburgh, which would also be a good thing? Will my hon. Friend give such a station his full support?

The SRA wants to encourage more people to use the railways and a 50 per cent. increase in passenger kilometres is envisaged. My right hon. Friend will know that the £400 million redevelopment of Waverley station is included, and he will welcome that. I shall certainly take on board his specific suggestion, discuss it with my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Scottish Executive and write to him in due course.

As the unions have announced another 11 days of strikes against commuters in Scotland, will the Minister take any action or will he just talk about taking action? What plans does he have in his busy diary to champion the commuters and stop that disruption to the wealth-creating community in Scotland where growth is still below trend?

I thought that I answered that in reply to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). Unlike the hon. Lady, I am a regular user of trains—trains in Scotland and to and from Scotland—so I understand the concerns. I even travel to Tynecastle by train occasionally, and very fruitful it has been recently. What I said earlier is important. We do not want to interfere. Interfering Governments can create more problems. I suggested earlier that negotiations round the table between the unions and the management should take place as quickly as possible to resolve the matter and, once again, I repeat that that is what should happen.

What devolution issues have been raised since 12 February under the Scotland Act 1998. [41539]

What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [41540]

What devolution issues have been raised since 12 February under the Scotland Act 1998. [41542]

Since 12 February, 36 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, and 17 of those concerned questions of delay in criminal proceedings in relation to article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights. Last week, I argued a case in the High Court of Justiciary over four days, which may help to resolve some of the difficulties in devolution cases based on delay.

I draw the Advocate-General's attention to another important devolution issue that was raised in the House a couple of weeks ago and in the Scottish Parliament last week, and that concerns the important issue of planning consent for new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Will she take this opportunity to clarify the matter once and for all and to agree with her colleague in the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport, who, on 14 March in the Scottish Parliament, said that the final decision lay with the Scottish Parliament and that there could be no question of Westminster reclaiming jurisdiction on the matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament?

I do not think that the hon. Lady fully understands my role, despite my best efforts. My role is to consider devolution issues when they are intimated to me and, in due course, if a devolution issue is intimated to me on that matter I shall certainly consider it, but I am not here to give answers to hypothetical questions in relation to legislation that does not yet exist.

What advice does the Advocate-General have as to the proper authority to address the concerns of my former constituent, ex-Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, about the alleged suppression of police evidence in relation to Lockerbie?

I am certainly aware of my hon. Friend's long interest in these matters and I am sure that he will make his usual strenuous efforts on behalf of his former constituent but, as he knows, these matters are devolved. The matter is for the Scottish Executive under the Scotland Act 1998 and he should direct all inquiries to them.

With regard to the vexed issue of who will have the final say on planning future nuclear power stations, the Advocate-General will understand that the particular problem is who will have the last word. Is it an energy problem, and will it be the Department in London, or is it a planning problem, and will it be the Scottish Minister?

The hon. Lady must understand that that depends entirely on how the legislation is framed and the form in which it comes. The legislation can be framed in a variety of ways, and if and when it is passed by the Scottish Parliament—or if it comes to me in my role as Advocate-General—I shall deal with it.

How many cases she has been asked to pursue by the Inland Revenue; and how many she has pursued. [41541]

There has been provision in legislation since 1857 to the effect that proceedings in the Court of Session raised by the Inland Revenue shall be in the name of the appropriate Law Officer. Following devolution, the Advocate-General became the appropriate Law Officer. The Advocate-General has no responsibility for raising or conducting proceedings. That responsibility, along with all policy decisions, remains with the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. Proceedings are instructed or conducted by the office of the solicitor to the Inland Revenue, and, since May 1999, more than 1,300 Inland Revenue actions have been dealt with, as I have just explained.

I am disappointed to hear that there does not seem to be discretion as to whether to take those actions forward. Perhaps the Advocate-General will consider whether, once legal advice has been sought, some actions should not be pursued on the grounds that there may have been a genuine mistake. In particular, will she consider whether a growing number of cases are having to be pursued because of the complexity of the tax system? Perhaps she will encourage the Chancellor to consider simplifying the tax system, especially in the light of self-assessment.

As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, policy matters and the conduct of litigation in Inland Revenue cases are not matters for me as Advocate-General. In my role as a constituency Member, however, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments.

How many serving lay magistrates there were in (a) 1979, (b) 1987 and (c) 2001; and how many are expected to be serving in 2003. [41544]

In 1979 there were 24,021 magistrates; in 1987 there were 27,926 magistrates; and in 2001 there were 28,735 magistrates. It is impossible to say how many magistrates will be serving in 2003. I would expect that there will be more or less the same number as were serving in 2001, but the number appointed and the numbers leaving the magistracy fluctuates inevitably from year to year.

Will the Minister accept that the figures show that there was growth in the number of lay magistrates every year from 1979 to 1997, but, that since 1997, there has been a considerable net reduction? Indeed, there are now fewer magistrates than there were 10 years ago. Is it Government policy that more lay people should be encouraged to be lay magistrates taking part in the criminal justice system in that way? If so, why have the numbers tailed off in the last five years of the Labour Government? What will the Government do to make sure that the numbers get back on the upward trend that they were following in each year of the predecessor Government?

The Government's policy is to have adequate numbers of people joining the lay magistracy. We feel that that is currently the case, although, inevitably, numbers fluctuate. The important point lying behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that we want people to continue to apply to become lay magistrates, as they play a very important part in our system of justice. We are making considerable efforts not only to encourage more people to apply but to ensure that we have a proper range of diversity, in terms of class and ethnic composition. We are doing pretty well on gender at the moment, but we need to drive our efforts forward. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committees are doing a splendid job at the moment, but we will shortly announce a national recruitment strategy to keep the pressure up and to make sure that we get the magistrates that we deserve.

Does the Minister feel that the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are succeeding in their efforts to try to make magistrates benches more representative of the areas in which they serve? Does he feel that there are sufficient numbers of working people in many areas on magistrates benches? Is the work load of magistrates increasing and becoming impossible to manage?

I shall take my hon. Friend's questions in sequence. We are having considerable success. I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees in broadening the diversity of the magistrates bench. To give one example, 9.3 per cent. of magistrates recruited last year were from ethnic minorities. The proportion is therefore increasing, and we are having considerable success. There are not enough people from as wide a social class base as we would wish, and we need to do better on that, too. The work load of magistrates has not been increasing unduly, and there is no evidence that that is a disincentive to people joining the bench.

Does the Minister accept that there was a degree of complacency in the way in which he has addressed this question? After all, there has been a sharp drop in the number of lay magistrates—down by 5.2 per cent. between January 2000 and April 2001. As he tacitly admitted, under the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, the number of justices of the peace increased. Despite what the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions last week, does the Minister accept that the sharp drop in the number of magistrates—together with the recent admission by the Lord Chancellor that the number of criminals brought to justice last year fell by 80,000—is the primary reason why more and more criminals are getting away scot-free? The Government have flaunted their manifesto commitment in this respect.

It is extremely unwise of the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the previous Conservative Government's record. Under them, crime doubled and the system of criminal justice came very close to collapse, not least because they invested nothing like the funds that need to be invested. We are now investing them.

If he will review the provisions of the witness allowance Act to ensure that those appearing as witnesses are not out of pocket. [41545]

There is no single witness allowance Act. Allowances are set in various regulations and are paid to non-expert witnesses in both criminal and civil cases. Financial loss allowances, which are reviewed annually, are set payments whose size depends on the time that a witness spends at court. The current levels are calculated to ensure that those with average earnings or less should not be out of pocket. Travel and subsistence are paid separately.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but wish to point out that being a witness can he both stressful and time consuming. People are also sometimes left out of pocket. When she reviews the payments, will she undertake to consider the other measures that could be taken to make the whole process a much less stressful experience, especially for those witnesses who are particularly vulnerable?

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, about which we have been concerned. We have introduced a number of changes, such as video links and witness liaison officers. The Crown court in Bristol is already up and running with a witness support centre and it is using the new pager system, so that witnesses do not have to wait around court for hours on end. Such measures will particularly help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.

We know that we have a long-standing problem about providing proper support and facilities for witnesses and particularly in trying to ensure that the physical structure of the courts provides proper places for witnesses to go and to be supported. Will my hon. Friend say something about progress on that front?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Such important facilities should be available, in particular for family cases. We are making progress in all courts to ensure that proper facilities are available, including witness support centres, and that there are also facilities for the separation of witnesses when that is necessary.

If he will make a statement on progress with the Office of Fair Trading report with reference to the Queen's counsel system. [41546]

The appointment of Queen's counsel is one of a number of issues relating to the legal profession raised in the OFT report that fall to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider. We will consult shortly on the issues raised.

I remind my hon. Friend that the OFT report questioned

"whether…it was right for the Government to have responsibility for conferring on selected practitioners…a title that manifestly enhances their earning power and competitive position",

"There remain concerns…that there is no continuous quality appraisal…inadequate peer review…and…no professional examinations",

"it is questionable what the value of the system is to consumers."

As always, my hon. Friend states his views with great eloquence and force. As he is well aware, those matters raise complex issues of law, which have taken time to consider. We will make an announcement shortly about the process of consultation on action in respect of those matters.

What initiatives are being pursued to improve the rate of recruitment of judges to the High Court bench; and if he will make a statement. [41547]

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that he continues to be able to appoint practitioners and circuit judges of the highest quality to the High Court bench. The Government have decided to accept the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendation that the salaries of High Court judges be increased by 8 per cent. over two years. That recognises the importance of maintaining the high quality of appointments to the High Court bench. The increase is in addition to a wide range of other initiatives, including the creation of a commission for judicial appointments.

I thank the Minister for that reply. There is an increasing body of opinion that many able candidates are not putting in for appointment at the present time because of the package available to those on the High Court bench. I appreciate that salary is not the only issue, but there is now a huge gulf between the earnings of senior silks and those of those on the High Court bench, which might in future undermine the quality of appointments made.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but as he acknowledges salary has never been a factor deterring people from taking up an appointment to the High Court bench. Those who have refused appointment in the past three years have cited lifestyle and family reasons. Judges being appointed earlier in life—in their 40s—but having families rather later in life may provide reasons to decline the Lord Chancellor's offer. It has long been the case that those in practice at the senior Bar take a significant drop in income if they decide to undertake public service by going on to the High Court bench, but there is no shortage of candidates: 52 practitioners and seven circuit judges applied for appointment in 2000, and of those 25 were determined to be appointable.

Whether the Lord Chancellor intends to continue sitting as a judge; and if he will make a statement. [41548]

It is important to the Lord Chancellor's role as head of the judiciary that he should sit from time to time on appeals, as all previous Lord Chancellors have done. In deciding whether he is eligible to sit on an appeal, the Lord Chancellor is guided by the same principles as apply to all judges.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but since there are—rightly or wrongly—concerns, especially since the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed, about the Lord Chancellor's position as both a judge in the House of Lords and a senior Cabinet Minister, and since there is not a single woman in the House of Lords judiciary, would he not be praised far and wide if he announced that he would not sit again and appointed a women judge to fill the gap?

The Government believe strongly that the Lord Chancellor's combined role as head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet is important to maintaining the independence of the judiciary. As I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware, the Lord Chancellor is hardly the retiring type, nor is it up to him to nominate his successor, but I am sure that he will make careful note of her application.

If he will make a statement on how judges and magistrates are trained in the comparative efficacy of criminal sentencing. [41550]

Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, which is an independent and non-departmental public body that also supervises the training of magistrates.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept that magistrates, in particular, do not receive sufficient detailed information on the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences, which is perhaps reflected in the disproportionate number of custodial sentences handed down by magistrates courts? Will he therefore look into the matter further and try to increase the number of non-custodial sentences imposed by magistrates courts?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are constantly looking at the best way to achieve efficacy in sentencing. He will be well aware of the recommendations of the Halliday report. They are still under consideration, and the Government will announce their decision shortly.

What recent discussions he has had on reform of the House of Lords. [41558]

If he will make a statement on responses received to the Government's public consultation on reform of the House of Lords. [41564]

The Government are giving careful consideration to the responses to their consultation paper. More than 1,000 were received, and the Lord Chancellor has promised that we will publish them.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but what discussions—if any—have taken place between Cabinet Ministers since the conclusion of the consultation process? What work is under way to produce within seven weeks a response to the Public Administration Committee's report, and to produce plans for reform of the House of Lords that are acceptable to this House? In a recent speech, the Prime Minister described that as a necessary part of the "third phase" of new Labour.

Like my hon. Friend, I read that speech with great care, and I was encouraged by its commitment to House of Lords reform as part of the Government's "third phase". She asks whether members of the Government have discussed this issue, and I can assure her that there are constant discussions between us. I have no doubt that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering when it will be appropriate to bring us together to consider the responses formally.

It is interesting to learn from my right hon. Friend how many people have replied to the consultation exercise, but it would be particularly interesting to know how many of those respondents prefer an elected element to the second Chamber, especially bearing it in mind that almost half the Members of this House signed an early-day motion calling for a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber. We should also remember that, in giving evidence to the Public Administration Committee, the Lord Chancellor said that a majority of Members oppose a large elected element.

A number of Members of Parliament and peers responded to the White Paper, and their views are on the record. As I said, we will publish the responses in full in due course, so the House will understand if I do not go into them in detail. However, my hon. Friend asked me a direct question, and I would be misleading the House if I did not say that the overwhelming majority of respondents favour a substantially elected second Chamber.

Does the Leader of the House consider that the outcome of this evening's vote on hunting in the other place could affect the time scale for House of Lords reform? Have the discussions to which he referred dealt with the way in which the Parliament Act could be employed in such circumstances?

I was rather hoping that our questions might provide a 15-minute interlude in the debate on hunting. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no—I cannot see that that has any bearing on the timetable for House of Lords reform.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman face a real dilemma, in that a majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party, of the Opposition parties, of the Public Administration Committee and of the public want a largely elected second Chamber, but just one man—the Prime Minister—wants to sustain a House of cronies? Will the right hon. Gentleman properly represent the views that exist in the House by going to Downing street this week and telling the Prime Minister that he has got it wrong on this issue, and that he should back down? Or is he afraid that, if he did that, he might be sent to the other place?

I entertain no such apprehensions. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read with more care, as I am sure that he would wish to, the speeches my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They are always rewarding, and frequently inspiring. In my right hon. Friend's most recent speech, he will find a very clear commitment to reform.

Should not House of Lords reform aim to give future Members of that House a greater spirit of independence? Would not measures such as long, non-renewable terms, the exclusion of Ministers and the development of an investigative rather than legislative role weaken the grip of Whips, and reduce the often malign influence that they exert, in this House and elsewhere?

I cannot hold out any prospect of a second Chamber without Whips, but my hon. Friend touches on what I think is a broad consensus in the debate—that the purpose of the second Chamber should be to revise, deliberate and advise, and not to usurp the role of the first Chamber. That is why it is important that we get the balance right: the second Chamber must be legitimate, in that it represents the British people, but it must not compete with this House in terms of the democratic mandate.

What is my right hon. Friend's definition of the phrase "in due course" in relation to the response to the consultation? Does he agree that the experience with appointed second Chambers in other countries is that they are as likely as elected second Chambers to flex their muscles and disagree with their lower Houses? Might not the debate taking place in the other House today be a further illustration of that?

I do not want to predict the outcome of today's debate in the other place, although I shall follow it with close interest. My right hon. Friend asks about the definition of "in due course", but the House should bear in mind that—quite rightly and properly—we delayed the end of the consultation period so that we could take account of the report from the Select Committee on Public Administration. We have committed ourselves to responding to that report in the course of April. I think that it would be sensible to publish the responses in the same period.

What plans he has to pursue the reform of Select Committees. [415591]

What plans he has for implementing reform of the Select Committee system. [41560]

The Modernisation Committee published last month its proposals to strengthen the Select Committees, including a more independent and impartial system of nomination to the Select Committees, more specialist staff to support them, and a larger Committee size to enable more members to take part in scrutiny.

Given my right hon. Friend's view that good scrutiny makes for good Government, and that Select Committees are the most developed vehicle for scrutiny, will he do his best to ensure that, in future, Bills are produced in draft in sufficient time to allow thorough scrutiny before they are brought to this Chamber for Second Reading?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's proposal, and with the thrust of her question. I have said repeatedly to the House that, if we want the House of Commons to shape legislation, it is important that it and its Members have an opportunity to intervene early, when a Bill is still in draft form. It will take time to achieve the objective of making pre-legislative scrutiny the norm and the routine for most Bills, but I hope that we will produce more draft Bills in the course of this Session than was the case in the previous Session, and that we continue to increase the number in the next Session.

I begin by declaring an interest to my right hon. Friend. Under the current system of appointing Select Committee members, and despite my best endeavours, I have been completely unsuccessful in getting on to one, so I welcome any reform.

My hon. Friend will be encouraged by the proposal to increase the size of the membership of Select Committees, which will allow another 50 Members to join them. I hope that his ambition will thereby be fulfilled when the report is accepted.

Has the Leader of the House noted—I am sure that he has—the strong view expressed by the Liaison Committee that all Select Committees should get more involved in Departments' estimates? Has he further noted the willingness of the National Audit Office to get involved in the work of advising Committees? Does he agree that Parliament built up its powers on the basis of financial scrutiny and that there is much more that Select Committees can do to hold the Executive to account on financial matters?

Yes, and I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for welcoming our proposals on providing staff. I referred to the National Audit Office; its offer is very helpful. If the Select Committee system is to be successful in carrying out the high-quality standards of scrutiny that we all desire, it must be able to tackle financial estimates and to look at outturns at the end of the financial year.

The Leader of the House is correct that the Liaison Committee broadly supported the proposals by the Modernisation Committee, but does he accept that one suggestion that did not command support from the majority of its members was that the number of Select Committees should be substantially increased, and that many Chairmen and members of Committees take the view that the present number of Committees is an optimum number that enables effective scrutiny and effective participation in the work of Committees?

The hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not get a 100 per cent. score, but in his press release the Chairman of the Liaison Committee described the reports as excellent, and I shall happily settle for that as a pass mark.

Before 1997, I served for eight years on the Select Committee on European Legislation—now European Scrutiny—which scrutinises European Union matters and does valuable work for the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that its authority should be extended so that it can deal with individual nations in the European Union—taking that brief away from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—and its work can be much more substantial as regards dealing with matters that go beyond procedural issues and are concerned with the entire politics of the European Union?

I got myself into some hot water with the Foreign Affairs Committee last July, and I would not wish to repeat the experience. However, my hon. Friend is right that we need to consider how we scrutinise European policy and regulations. I am looking forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on that issue, and I give hon. Members an undertaking that we will look sympathetically at ways in which the House can improve its scrutiny of European affairs.

What assessment he has made of the implications for legislative scrutiny of the experimental arrangements for programming of legislation. [41561]

I am delighted that anticipation of my answer to the question seems to have filled the Conservative Benches. When hon. Members from all parties have worked together constructively, I believe that programming has achieved its objective of providing a more robust framework for scrutiny of legislation.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary share my concern that under the new programming arrangements, Committees are all too often denied the opportunity properly to scrutinise legislation, especially through the operation of what have become known as knives, used by Government Whips? Are not important aspects of legislation undebated by hon. Members? The Education Bill, which has gone to the House of Lords, included powers for the Secretary of State to form companies, powers for school governors, provisions for forming federations of schools and for admissions, exclusions and attendance. All were undebated by the House of Commons and we now have to depend on another place to do our job for us. Is not that regrettable?

We shall, of course, keep the progress of programming under review. Flexibility is built into the programming regime. For example, an additional day was provided for discussion of the Education Bill on Report. Programming can benefit all hon. Members, but the Opposition have a choice about whether they want to use it for delay and obstruction or for genuine scrutiny and debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the memo that the shadow Leader of the House sent last September. It stated:

"We should be more discriminating in targeting Bills in Standing Committee, putting 'A' teams on the bigger … Bills to ensure searching scrutiny, testing out Ministers, and that the Bill cannot he completed in the allocated time, thus passing it to the Lords imperfectly scrutinised."