When she last met the Strategic Railway Authority to discuss transport in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [51346]

I do not know whether it is in order to say so, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that your address to Her Majesty was excellent, and I hope that some of the sketch writers heard it as well.

A legacy of rail privatisation is a fragmented and confused ticketing system. Recently, one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Naphy, attempted to buy a ticket on the Virgin train which runs directly from Aberdeen to Exeter and in the process discovered that no cheap rail tickets were available to anyone north of Edinburgh or Glasgow. When my hon. Friend meets the SRA, will he take up the issue of that blatant discrimination against all travellers from the north of Scotland, which is a further indictment of the rail privatisation system that we have been left with?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The Tories left the railways in a complete mess, with a lack of investment and fragmentation, and we cannot clear it up overnight, as my hon. Friend knows only too well. I agree with my hon. Friend also about the importance of accurate information not only on tickets but on prices, and particularly on the purchase of through tickets. I give him this pledge: I will discuss the matter with the SRA and other rail bodies, and report back to my hon. Friend who is, incidentally, along with the other two Members for Aberdeen, very assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents.

The Minister will be aware that the ongoing chaos on our railways is of great concern as regards Scottish employment and has implications for the future. Will he do better than the Minister for Transport did in questions last week and deny, rather than fuel, rumours that the upgrading of the west coast main line will stop at the border?

The upgrading of the west coast main line is very important for Scotland, and it is being carried out because of our huge investment in the railways—£64 billion is now available in real terms. That is more than the programme of spending on the railways in any of the last 50 years, during the whole of the Queen's reign.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the controversy surrounding the rail link between Glasgow and Glasgow airport. Will he allay those fears, give his full backing to that link and ensure that it is built quickly?

The Government, together with the SRA and the Scottish Executive, are carrying out a study of airport links, both to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which will be completed in the autumn. I personally welcome the SRA's readiness to consider the development of direct rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which are both vital to the future development of air services out of Scotland. However, I point out to my hon. Friend that there is already a rail link to one of Scotland's great airports, Prestwick, from where he can fly to five centres in Europe.

In meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority, will the Minister take on board what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) said about the problems of being outside the central belt and the railway network, and make it clear that it is not just ticketing that is a problem, but the whole investment in the infrastructure? Electrification stops at Edinburgh. We must make it plain to the SRA that Aberdeen should be part of the strategic rail network. It is important that journey times from Aberdeen southward are as fast as they are from Edinburgh southward.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is nearly my hon. Friend—on that. It is important to improve the links to Dundee, Aberdeen and the north in general. I am concerned about that and discussed it recently with representatives of GNER, who are thinking about having new trains that run straight through without electrification, so providing a quicker and better service to both Dundee and Aberdeen. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the £400 million that is being spent on Waverley station to allow more trains to run through it will also be of assistance. All in all, as far as the north-east is concerned, the rail organisations, with the wholehearted support of the Government, are doing everything possible to improve connections.

While strongly supporting the plan for a rail link from Edinburgh to Edinburgh airport, may I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I received last week, on the proposed Musselburgh Parkway station? Does he agree that one benefit of the proposed station would be that more people would travel from Lothian to London by rail? That would be a good thing, not just on general environmental policy grounds, but also in relation to congestion on the roads and at London airports.

My right hon. Friend makes a good case for the Musselburgh Parkway station. I discussed that with GNER immediately after he raised it at Scottish questions last month. When the franchise for the east coast is re-tendered after the two-year extension, the parties will have another opportunity to submit proposals for a 20-year franchise. The case for a station at Musselburgh can be considered then if a bidder sees the benefit of it to their proposals. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will lose no opportunity in making his case to the bidders.

If she will make a statement on trends in manufacturing employment in Scotland over the last 12 months. [51347]

The manufacturing sector continues to be very important to the economy of Scotland, employing around 281,000 people up to December last year and supporting a further 180,000 jobs in the Scottish economy. Both the Scottish Engineering quarterly review and the Bank of Scotland review in March this year reported an increase in manufacturing activity for the second month running, which is very encouraging. However, significant issues still need to be addressed in the manufacturing sector, and the Government, working in partnership with the Scottish Executive, will seek to do that.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She will be aware that manufacturing employment in Scotland, at the 281,000 figure that she cites, is at one of the lowest levels ever. Does she think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision to charge Scottish manufacturing firms an additional £50 million or more in employers' national insurance contributions will increase or reduce the number of manufacturing jobs in Scotland?

I have to say to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that Labour Members take no lessons on manufacturing industry from members of Her Majesty's Opposition. In the years the Tories were in office, 327,300 Scottish manufacturing jobs were lost—some 52 per cent. of the total—as a result of the rape of our coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding industries. It has been the job of this Government to put in place measures that will stabilise and add value to manufacturing employment, and also increase skills. We are working closely with Scottish industry to achieve that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's Budget was a Budget for fairness and enterprise? Does she also agree that employers and employees should take a fair responsibility for funding improvements to the NHS?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Improvements in the NHS are important in Scotland, as anywhere else, and it is significant that employers recognised before the Budget that the cost of ill health in Scotland was between £2 billion and £2.5 billion a year, so anything that improves the health and well-being of the Scottish work force benefits everybody. The procurement strategies of the health service will be important as the increased injection of cash finds its way through the system. An additional accumulated £8.2 billion of expenditure in the health service in Scotland is good news for Scottish business.

Notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady has just said, is it not the case that, according to a report in the Daily Record of 3 April, a reputable journal with which the right hon. Lady was once connected, no fewer than 18,374 manufacturing redundancies were announced in Scotland in January and February alone, 7,400 of which were in four companies—Motorola, NEC, BAE Systems and British Petroleum? I know that, famously, the Secretary of State believes that the Scottish economy is performing quite well, as she told us last year, but do not those figures give the lie to that? Before she embarks on her usual anti-Scottish National party rant, will she tell us three things that she is doing as Secretary of State to improve the lot of, and the dismal outlook for, Scottish manufacturing?

The hon. Gentleman is always good at talking Scotland down, but he never enters into a concrete debate about how, for example, to improve productivity in Scotland. He wants to talk about three things. How about the stable and strong economy, which this British Government have created for all the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular? How about the reduction in unemployment to historically low levels, which the hon. Gentleman never gives credit for, especially not to those people who have moved from welfare into work, which more and more are doing as a result of the Government's policies? Neither does the hon. Gentleman give credit to those in the hi-tech area of the Scottish economy, for example in the biotech and software sectors, which are experiencing unprecedented growth thanks to the economic conditions created by the Government. The hon. Gentleman is happy only when Scotland is not performing. Scotland is performing and the hon. Gentleman's party's fortunes are declining.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend visited my constituency and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, a successful American inward investment company. Does she agree that the SNP seems to spend its time living in the past and does not recognise that the financial services sector in Scotland is of huge importance to the economy of Scotland and the UK?

What my hon. Friend says is true and I pay tribute to her for her links with companies such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. I was greatly encouraged by what it told me yesterday. It came thinking that it would end up employing 200 or 300 people in Scotland, but so impressed was it with the skills and determination of people in Lanarkshire, Dumbartonshire and Glasgow that not only has it expanded in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it is now putting some of its securities operation into Glasgow, employing a further 400 people. The financial services sector in Scotland—not just in Edinburgh, but in places such as Glasgow and Cumbernauld—is going through a period of unprecedented growth. It contributes greatly to our gross domestic product and it thrives in the atmosphere of economic prudence and competence that the Government have created.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that manufacturing jobs—indeed any jobs in Scotland, but particularly in the telecoms manufacturing industry—depend heavily on a good and solid investment in communications infrastructure, such as broadband? In that regard, is she aware that of the £30 million that had been earmarked by Government for the rural roll-out of broadband only £4 million will go to Scotland, which perhaps has the greatest need of all? Can she assure us that she will speak to her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that broadband is properly rolled out in Scotland and there is not the social exclusion that will follow from lack of investment?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the pathfinder projects in Dumfries and Galloway and the highlands and islands that are aimed at extending broadband. Indeed, Wendy Alexander, the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, has made the issue one of her main priorities. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I look forward to the introduction of the Communications Bill, which will allow us to put the regulation of telecoms and broadcasting together in a much more modern setting. It is important that industry, the Executive and the Government work closely together to ensure the roll-out of broadband, which is just as important for the financial services industry as for other aspects of the telecommunications industry. It is high on the Government's list of priorities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one factor that is vitally important for the future of manufacturing in Scotland is ensuring that new technologies and developments that are created there result in manufacturing jobs remaining there? To that end, will she join me in welcoming the news on research and development that she mentioned with regard to the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor? Will she also join me in congratulating companies such as IBM in Greenock on investing millions of dollars in this country so that manufacturing jobs can remain in Scotland, where they belong?

I had a very enjoyable visit with my hon. Friend to IBM in Greenock only a few weeks ago. It is a well established company in Scotland, as it came there at the end of the second world war. It moved in primarily as a screwdriver manufacturing operation, but has now invested much of its international activity in the Greenock plant. I was impressed with the far-sightedness of IBM and its local management, which has produced a facility that is very good for the local community and exceptionally good for the reputation of the Scottish economy internationally, especially at the high-tech end of the telecoms market.

Is the Secretary of State aware that CBI Scotland states in its industrial trends report 2002:

"The outlook for Scottish manufacturers continues to look bleak"?

I would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to come and visit Scotland on occasion, because he will find a very different picture from the one that he paints. Indeed, I met the CBI as recently as last week. Its quarterly industrial trends survey shows that business optimism was positive among Scottish manufacturers for the first time since January 2000, and that export optimism for the year ahead is also positive for the first time since January 2001. Yes, significant problems remain for the Scottish economy—problems that we inherited because of the previous lack of investment in skills and research and development in Scotland. As a consequence of the action that we have taken in the past five years, record low numbers are in unemployment. For the first time ever, we also have record numbers of young people going straight from school into employment—something that we never saw during 18 years of Tory government.

What discussions she has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the provision of direct Eurostar rail services between Scotland and continental Europe. [51348]

The Government believe that all areas of the country should have good access to channel tunnel rail services. I will discuss this matter, among a range of issues of importance to Scotland, when I meet senior management from the Strategic Rail Authority shortly.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend recalls a promise made by a previous Conservative Government, who said that following construction of the channel tunnel, direct passenger rail services would be provided between the continent and all parts of the United Kingdom. Given the potential customer demand and economic benefits to cities such as Glasgow, will he now commit this Government to making good the Tories' broken promises on the issue?

It would be a very tall order to make good all the Tories' broken promises, but I can he helpful on the issue in question and tell my hon. Friend that later this year the SRA will publish a strategy for facilitating rail services through the channel tunnel from various parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he will welcome that step forward and the ability to take up one of the tasks that the Tories were signally unable to carry out.

Will the Minister now answer the question that he signally failed to answer earlier as to whether the upgrade of the west coast line will be carried across the border? Does he accept that if that fails to happen, it will prove the point made by the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland that the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year strategic plan is very much south-east centred?

Yes, I shall answer the question that I failed to answer earlier, having now found my place in my notes.

That was a straight answer.

I always find that honesty is the best policy.

Further to my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), will he impress upon the Strategic Rail Authority the importance of maintaining and improving direct rail links between Aberdeen and, if not Europe, at least London? Crucial to that is a major upgrading of the track between Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

I appreciate that. I have always been enthusiastic about extending electrification beyond Edinburgh. Having spoken to GNER, Railtrack and others involved, I recognise that better services can be provided more speedily through GNER acquiring faster and more efficient trains—diesel trains, which are now as fuel efficient and environmentally friendly as electric trains—and it intends to do that.

Order. May I ask the Minister kindly to allow me to get to Question 4? I call Mr. Eric Joyce.

What steps she is taking to promote tourism in central Scotland. [51349]

I had a very successful meeting in Madrid with leading members of the Spanish travel industry, all of whom are actively engaged in encouraging tourists to come to Scotland.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in late May Her Majesty the Queen will formally open the Falkirk wheel. Will she join me in congratulating all involved in the construction of the wheel, especially my constituents at the British Waterways Board and Morrison Construction, for creating a magnificent focus for tourism in central Scotland? Does she agree that it will be important for potential investors along the route of the canal carefully to consider the merits of developing the regenerated parts of the Forth and Clyde canals?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Bringing together the Forth and Clyde canal and the Union canal is an important tourist initiative in central Scotland. We should bear it in mind that the millennium wheel is unique. I have not yet had an opportunity to see it, but my colleagues on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs went away amazed at the feat of engineering that it took. We all look forward to its opening.

I recently visited the refurbished toll booth in Stirling, in central Scotland. I was impressed by the new arts and community facility, which is funded by Scottish Arts Council lottery grants. What is the Secretary of State doing to facilitate meetings between Visit Scotland and the Arts Council to ensure that the tourism potential of such developments, which are funded by lottery grants, are maximised?

It was a great pleasure to visit the toll booth with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) on the day that it opened, to announce that Her Majesty had granted city status to Stirling. I therefore know the toll booth, which is a stunning investment.

So as usual, the right hon. Lady is not getting involved in anything that will help Scotland. We have had nothing but a cloud of words about the west coast rail link north of the border. Will she clarify what will happen to it? Will she also estimate the effect on the recovery of the tourist industry in Scotland of the increase in national insurance, which is nothing but a tax on jobs?

That is what is known as an omnibus question. I know that I am not a good golfer, but deerstalking has nothing to do with golf. Those of us who spend our lives in Scotland rather than doing the occasional day trip acknowledge that important moves are being made to promote tourism in Scotland and improve rail links and direct flight links to Scotland. The hon. Lady's time would be better spent on promoting Scotland's values and the opportunities to visit it rather than on trying to talk it down.

What devolution issues have been raised since 19 March under the Scotland Act 1998. [51312]

Since 19 March, 30 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They have raised a variety of points, such as articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, which protect respectively the right to a fair trial and respect for private and family life. Some devolution issues have also related to the compatibility of secondary legislation with European Community law.

I am sure that the Advocate-General agrees with an article in The Scotsman on 21 January which stated:

"The Advocate-General's post is a crucial part of the devolution settlement … The … post is likely to continue and become a valued part of the UK constitution."

Hear, hear

I am delighted that there is so much support for my Question Time. The hon. Lady has been a consistent and effective questioner. It is a credit to my answers that she wants more time.

Has my hon. and learned Friend had any discussions about reviewing the performance of the Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of some of its awards to children who have been sexually abused? Some of its awards have been paid at the lower limit, which is disgraceful when higher levels of compensation are paid in England. Does that not concern my hon. and learned Friend? Could she have a word with her colleagues in Scotland about it?

I understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, but he must understand that these decisions are made by independent panels, so it would not be appropriate for me to intervene or to discuss them with him.

In how many court proceedings she is scheduled to appear in her capacity as Advocate-General in the next six months. [51313]

I am involved in the consideration of court proceedings on an ongoing basis. For example, I intend to appear personally as counsel, representing the Secretary of State for Defence, in the Macdonald case before the House of Lords. This case concerns questions of European law and human rights arising from the dismissal of a service man from the armed forces. I also intend to appear in the investigation, held under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, into the disappearance of the fishing vessel Trident off the north-east coast of Scotland in 1974. At present, specific dates for these hearings have not been set.

I thank the Advocate-General for her answer. That appears to bring the tally to a grand total of four court appearances since 6 June last year, with the dates of the two further appearances that she just mentioned still to be set. Does she not accept that there is some concern in Scotland that the number of her court appearances—far from not being routine, as she stated in an earlier reply—are rare to the point of extinction?

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has ever appeared in such a court as the House of Lords—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—or whether she understands the amount of preparation involved in such cases. Law Officers do not always appear personally. Since my appointment, I have made a point of doing this work in court. My last appearance was in the Appeal Court in Scotland a few weeks ago, when I spent a number of days in court as well as a large number of days preparing the case. Obviously, the timing of these court appearances is not under my control, and they sometimes conflict with parliamentary business. I also have to allow time for all the other advisory work that I do. I think that the hon. Lady is getting good value for money.

If he will make a statement on the Auld report and its implications for the work of the magistrates courts. [51316]

The period of comment on Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts has closed. As the Lord Chancellor has stated, the Government are now considering the recommendations—including assessments of costs and benefits—in detail, and taking into account all the comments that have been received. The Government intend to publish a White Paper announcing their conclusions before the summer recess.

The Minister will be aware that the magistracy has been a bulwark of justice in this country since as long ago as 1195. Does he agree that, if the Government accept Lord Justice Auld's proposals, they would be pandering to their command-and-control tendency, as detailed by the central magistrates court committee in The Guardian on 19 April, and that those proposals would present a serious threat of closure to magistrates courts, which would be another severe blow to rural areas?

No, I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the time to read Sir Robin Auld's report, he would have seen that his rhetoric bears absolutely no relation to the facts. Sir Robin Auld pays tribute to the work of the magistracy. I am happy to repeat that the Government value the work of the magistracy. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a bulwark of the criminal justice system, and it will remain so.

I commend my hon. Friend and his Department for their thorough consultation and the serious way in which they are listening to all views, but can he at least say that Auld's recommendation of a unified criminal court will go ahead? Within that, can he say that local justice delivered by magistrates will be entrenched as an important part of its role and practice?

I am not in a position to announce the outcome of the Government's deliberations on Sir Robin Auld's report. As my hon. Friend will know, we will announce our conclusions in a White Paper that will be published shortly. I can tell him that we have already indicated in our manifesto that we see the attractions of a unified court—that is on the record. It is absolutely clear that, whatever decisions we take, local justice will be very important.

The Auld report says that much of the work of a new district division could, with advantage, be undertaken in magistrates courthouses, reducing the trend of closure. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the trend is accelerating, not least in my area, with the proposed closure of Frome magistrates court. Given that Lord Justice Auld states unequivocally that the most important factor in these closures is

"the limits placed by central Government on magistrates courts committees' budgets",

I think that the hon. Gentleman could profitably spend some time reading Sir Robin Auld's report in detail. [Interruption.] If he is suggesting he has already read it, I think he should read it again and understand what Sir Robin Auld said.

I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the Auld report makes no specific recommendations on specialist courts for domestic violence, but does he agree that such courts would be an important step forward?

I certainly recognise the strength of the arguments. We have been looking at that matter carefully in the Department and we will continue to do so. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in this important area. She will have to await the publication of the White Paper to see what decisions we take in relation to Lord Justice Auld's report.

May I, first, congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the Address to Her Majesty, which has received great approbation throughout the country?

"the scope to close unnecessary courts".

Of course I recognise those concerns—they have been expressed frequently over the past few months. We have held wide-ranging consultation and had a large number of roadshows. Those views surface regularly, and of course we take them seriously. However, the hon. Gentleman is going to have to be patient and wait just a little longer for the publication of the White Paper to see what we propose.

If he will make a statement on the future of the courts in Grays. [51318]

Decisions on the future of the magistrates court at Grays are for the Essex magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with its three paying authorities: Essex county council, Southend borough council and Thurrock borough council.

May I tell the Minister that we in Grays are not happy about this? In fact, I lie to the House—we are very angry. One reason is that, in a letter to the council, the chairman of Essex magistrates courts committee blames the Minister's Department for insisting that it include the existing Basildon courthouse in its private finance initiative. I want the Minister to give an undertaking today that, when we appeal—as we will—he will get his Department to rethink that requirement. It is grossly unfair to the people of Thurrock, an ancient town with good communication links on the Thames gateway. Nor is it in the interests of efficient, local and accessible justice—the criteria that he repeatedly referred to in response to earlier questions. A Basildon courthouse is not accessible to—

Order. This is not an Adjournment debate; it is Lord Chancellor's questions.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I will take back to the Department the force of his feelings. More than that, I should remind him that, although there is a deadline of 10 May, we have still not received an appeal from any of the paying authorities. Should they decide to appeal, as he says they will, I am happy to repeat the offer that I made in correspondence to meet him and any other parties involved, so that we can discuss all the questions arising from this inevitably rather complex matter.

May I tell the Minister that, regardless of what might happen in Grays, the people of Chelmsford are delighted with the proposal—which forms part of the review and the changes to the magistrates court system in Essex—for a brand new, purpose-built courthouse in Chelmsford, the county town, for the provision of justice at the magistrates level?

Of course the hon. Gentleman may tell me that, and I am happy to hear it.

If he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Knutsford Crown court. [51321]

The Lord Chancellor has approved public consultation on the proposal to close the Crown court at Knutsford. The group manager responsible for the court began consultation on 10 April, and it will run for four weeks. Once all responses have been received, consideration will be given to whether a formal case for closure should be presented to the Lord Chancellor. The results of the consultation will need to be weighed, along with the opportunity costs and benefits associated with all the available options.

I thank the Minister for his answer. In the light of the Westminster Hall debate and our meeting, he will know of the strength of opinion in eastern and mid-Cheshire about the proposed closure of the court—and we have not even produced the petition yet. I thank him for the courtesy with which he has treated the representations of local people. Will he repeat on the Floor of the House what he intimated to me in private: that he will try very hard to maintain the public character of the courthouse, if the Crown court does indeed leave Knutsford?

I am of course happy to do that. As I have said, unfortunately, courts sometimes have to close, and that has always been the case. When important historic buildings such as Knutsford Crown court have to close, the court service will always try to preserve their public character. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the service has a public duty to ensure that whatever it does represents good value for money for the taxpayer, and that will be a consideration in this case. Of course, we will always look creatively and imaginatively at preserving public buildings of great historic merit.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in the discussion of listed buildings, because the reality is that the balance of justice in Chester, and in Cheshire generally, will require that the closure of courthouses is considered with great care. Courthouses are considerable distances from each other and, before my hon. Friend agrees to the closure of a courthouse, I hope that he will consider carefully the effect on other courthouses and those who need access to them.

My hon. Friend's point is well taken. We understand it and we also understand the particular problems in Cheshire. We have to balance a series of complicated factors, including travel times—especially for victims and witnesses. We must also be conscious of the fact that, in this case, the cost of maintaining the courthouse to the appropriate standard is some £5 million. As a matter of good public policy, we must question whether that expense can be justified.

What steps he will take to improve the quality of justice in magistrates courts. [51323]

Ninety-six per cent. of all criminal cases begin and end in magistrates courts, which says a vast amount about their importance to the system. Fewer than 1 per cent. of magistrates' decisions are appealed, which says much about the quality of their decision making. We remain, as I have already said, fully committed to maintaining the lay magistracy and our system of community justice as a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

I do not want to swap too many statistics with my hon. Friend, but 73 per cent. of not-guilty pleas in the magistrates courts result in a conviction, compared to 57 per cent. in the Crown court. That must be a cause of concern, however one looks at it, and an obstacle to any real redistribution of business between the two courts. Is my hon. Friend aware that practitioners think—and historically have thought—that magistrates over-convict because of their lack of legal skills to deal with legal points and admissibility? Does he agree that while preserving a lay element in criminal trials is vital, the way forward is to limit the role of magistrates to that of fact-finders only, just like the more successful jurors?

My hon. and learned Friend has a distinguished background in the law and obviously takes pride in her profession. I do not wish to go into the details of the statistics, but the two court systems try different cases and, therefore, one would not expect exactly the same outcomes. I should also reassure the House, for those who are not already aware of the fact, that magistrates are always advised by fully legally qualified justices' clerks. Therefore, I am slightly surprised that my hon. and learned Friend seems to imagine that no legal expertise is applied in magistrates courts. Magistrates also receive full training before they sit in court and regularly receive refresher training. As I have said—and shall repeat, because it is so important—the Government are wholly committed to the future of the lay magistracy as a cornerstone of our system of justice.

What plans he has to introduce further changes to the length of parliamentary recesses. [51331]

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently considering the proposals set out in the memorandum by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last December. I am convinced that changing the pattern of the summer recess would help to ensure better scrutiny of the Government.

Over the past decade or so, the number of hon. Members with children of school or pre-school age has greatly increased. Those Members much appreciate the efforts that have been made to dovetail parliamentary recesses with the school holidays. When the Minister considers implementing the changes proposed for the summer recess next year, will he fully bear in mind the school holidays proposed, both in England and Scotland, before reaching any decision? Easter is a moveable feast each year, so will he also ensure that he does not repeat the problems of last year, when the recess began as the school holidays were about to end?

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the purposes of the modernisation and reform programme is to ensure that the House becomes a more family friendly institution, in recognition of the increased number of Members with children of school or pre-school age and of the need to attract more of them from England and Scotland as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland. I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support, and when the proposals are taken forward by the Modernisation Committee I hope that we can ensure that we have a summer recess that coincides much more closely with school summer holidays throughout the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend states one objective, but will he confirm that the main objective of any change to recesses and the way in which the House sits in the parliamentary year is to enable the House to legislate better and Members of Parliament to do their job better in their constituencies, because there are two aspects to the job—at Westminster and in the constituency?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I see no contradiction between having a more family friendly Parliament and one that also enables greater effective scrutiny of legislation and the accountability of Government. My hon. Friend has served with distinction on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. The specific proposal in the memorandum of the Leader of the House would enable us to continue to have the same length of recess over the summer period but would involve the House reconvening in September. I believe that that would enhance the accountability of Government and the scrutiny of legislation.

Are there any cost implications to the changes?

I see no reason for any significant cost implications, although, clearly, that matter is to be considered by the Modernisation Committee.

What plans he has to take forward his proposals for reform of Select Committees. [51333]

I intend to bring Standing Order changes before the House in the near future to implement the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. These will strengthen our system of scrutiny by providing for a more transparent and independent system of nomination to Select Committees and by increasing the resources and specialist staff available to them. In the meantime, I warmly welcome the decision last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appear twice a year before the Liaison Committee, which will be the first time any Prime Minister has appeared before a Select Committee in modern times.

Does my right hon. Friend hope to submit the new proposals in time for the new Scrutiny Committees, if agreed, to give pre-legislative scrutiny to draft Bills in the next Session? Will he consider including in the objectives of the proposed Scrutiny Committees not only taking evidence from Ministers but scrutinising the agendas of European Council meetings in advance?

My hon. Friend wrote to the Modernisation Committee with the helpful proposal that we might add to the core tasks of the Scrutiny Committees the requirement to make sure that they remain abreast of the scrutiny of European directives and legislation. The point has force and we will consider whether to amend the core tasks accordingly before we debate this in the House.

Does the Leader of the House recognise that members of the Liaison Committee warmly welcome most of the proposals from the Modernisation Committee? On their behalf, I express their delight at the remarkable announcement from the Prime Minister that he will face two full public sessions of questioning before the Liaison Committee each year.

First, may I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about the decision of the Prime Minister to appear before his Committee? It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister should appear before the Liaison Committee, which contains the Chairs of all the Select and Scrutiny Committees and can thus carry out scrutiny of any issue within the office of the Prime Minister.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that point? It does not matter how big the Select Committees are—some Members will always want to be on them. Surely, what is crucial is the effectiveness of the Select Committees and maintaining good and regular attendance of their 11, nine, or whatever, members. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore think carefully before putting the current proposal before the House?

The hon. Gentleman makes with strength a point about which he obviously feels powerfully. I shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Liaison Committee when I visit it next week, and I hope that on that occasion we can understand each other and see whether there is a way forward.

What plans he has to put proposals before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for reform of private Bill procedure. [51334]

Private Bill procedure was reviewed by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure in 1987–88, and many of the matters previously covered by that procedure are now covered by the Transport and Works Act 1992. Before the general election last year, the House agreed to Standing Order changes that allow the House to consider the compatibility of the European convention on human rights with private Bills. The Modernisation Committee might discuss that in future.

May I encourage the Minister to see that the Modernisation Committee does look at the matter again? Can we interpret the fact that the Leader of the House did not vote on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill the other week as an indication that he, like me, considered the whole thing a charade and something that the Government should not have had their hands on? Should not the Modernisation Committee and the Government review the procedure to consider whether it should be changed? It was designed, and most used, to deal with the building of Victorian railways. Is it appropriate that, in a modern Parliament, there should be such an archaic procedure—one that the Government pretend not to be involved in, even though in fact they are involved? Surely, we should say what we mean and mean what we say—especially the Government—about all legislation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The quantity of private legislation has been hugely reduced by various measures—the Transport and Works Act and the Financial Services Act 1986.

May I urge my hon. Friend to consider reforming the procedure for private Members' Bills? For instance, if we were to adopt a similar pattern for our sitting times on Wednesdays as the one we currently use on Thursdays, might it be possible to bring private Members' Bills into the main body of the Kirk and consider them on Wednesday and Thursday evenings?

That matter certainly merits further debate; it is under review and will be taken forward by the Modernisation Committee.

What the proposals for reform of the House of Lords are; and if he will make a statement. [51335]

When the Government will announce their proposals on House of Lords reform. [51336]

When he expects to make an announcement on further progress on House of Lords reform. [51337]

The Government are committed to reform of the House of Lords to create a modern, effective second Chamber. As I have previously informed the House, we received 1,000 responses to the White Paper. As the Select Committee on Public Administration observes in its sixth report, published today,

"the Government wishes to consider them carefully before deciding on the way ahead".

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is the Committee correct to think that the weight of responses to the White Paper is closer to its thinking than to that of the Government? Is he satisfied with the response, which seems to record previously existing points of agreement and disagreement rather than to reflect new thinking? Can we expect new thinking before the summer recess, when the Government have promised their full response?

The Select Committee stated in its report this morning that it is understandable that the Government are unable to give a complete and final response, given that it is necessary for us to consider carefully the responses to the White Paper. I have said to the House before, and I am happy to confirm in the context of this Question Time, that the great majority of responses indicate support for a majority elected second Chamber. Clearly, that must be a factor in considering how to take this matter forward. In terms of what we hope to announce before the summer recess, of course we would expect to go further than we have been able to indicate to the Select Committee at present, and I hope that that will point a way forward for us to make sure that we can legislate in the near future for a reformed, effective, representative second Chamber.

May I remind my right hon. Friend of his comments following the publication of the ill-fated White Paper on House of Lords reform? He said that the search will go on for a "centre of gravity" on this issue and that we need a "period of reflection." Does he not agree that, five months on, we have reflected more than enough? Given the 304 right hon. and hon. Members who signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) calling for a substantially elected second Chamber, there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that this is the road that we should go down.

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to remind me of the debate in the House; I assure him that every moment of it is engraved on my memory. I was conscious that the majority of Members taking part in the debate wanted a higher democratic element in the new second Chamber. Of course a period of reflection must come to a conclusion. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I must invite him to wait a little bit longer before we announce that. That period of reflection is very important to make sure that we take seriously not just what is expressed in the House but what is expressed by the public and the others who responded. I assure my hon. Friend that we are conscious of the need to maintain momentum on this, and we are also conscious of the need to make sure that the House can legislate at an early opportunity. That is why I hope that we can announce how we intend to proceed before the summer recess.

Before the long-delayed second stage of House of Lords reform creaks into life, do the Government intend to request the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend a further tranche of the ludicrously named people's peers? If so, what changes of criteria does the Minister believe are necessary to widen the pool from which these people will be recruited so that we avoid the appointment of the cosy clique variety that we saw last year?

My hon. Friend makes his point with considerable colour. He will have observed that there have been no recent appointments from the Appointments Commission, and it is important that the House should be able to reach a view on what should be the future composition of the House. It is much more important that we address our mind to how we see the long-term reform of the House. I hope that, in the process of doing that, we can find the centre of gravity. I believe that the Public Administration Committee proved that it was possible for those who want reform to reach agreement.