When she expects to announce the results of the Scottish boundary commission. [89136]

The commission is required to submit its report on the current parliamentary constituencies review before December 2006. It is a matter for the commission when, within that time scale, it does so.

May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to wish you and the whole House a peaceful and good new year? I have a specific, simple question for my right hon. Friend: does she expect to fight the next general election on the new boundaries?

The boundary commission has a long period in which to prepare its report—December 2006 is quite a long way off. That is largely because the old way of working meant that its task was a scissors-and-paste job, and putting together all the maps took considerable time, but nowadays, with modern software, that need not be the case. My guess is as good as my hon. Friend's. I anticipate that the commission could report much sooner than December 2006, but it may find that it needs longer to conclude its deliberations.

The suspicion persists that the Secretary of State plans to delay implementation of the new constituencies, thus not only securing her own precarious position but offering a shady deal to silence the siren voices of those Members behind her who are furious about her decision with regard to the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is not only the First Minister who has been stitched up during the Christmas recess. Will the commission's report and the orders necessary to implement it be laid before the House in time for any general election in 2005 or 2006—yes or no?

The hon. Gentleman should listen; I just explained that the boundary commission does not have to report until 2006. He may choose to address his questions to that independent body. I should have thought that anyone on the Conservative Benches should be wary of talking about people being in a precarious position.

I am sure that the Secretary of State's colleagues were looking for a great deal more comfort than she was able to provide in her reply. It sounds the death knell for many of her hon. Friends. Let me put the question a different way: does she believe that we will be contesting the next election on the new boundaries? Does she agree that the Scottish public will be appalled by her colleagues' cynical behaviour and the naked self-interest that they are prepared to demonstrate to try to preserve their seats? The scramble for seats begins ahead of the next election.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and especially for his remarks during the recess, when he expressed anxiety that I may be campaigning for the return of a Labour-led Scottish Executive in Edinburgh. I confirm that I will be doing so.

How many people in Scotland benefit from the national minimum wage. [89137]

Some 110,000 people in Scotland have benefited from the national minimum wage since it was introduced in 1999.

What further action is being taken by the Government to ensure that there is high awareness of the national minimum wage among employers and employees? Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet the Scottish Low Pay Unit, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Inland Revenue to ensure that all that can be done is being done?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that the Scottish Affairs Committee, which she chairs, is looking to investigate home working and the minimum wage. Both the Department for Trade and Industry and the Inland Revenue are being evangelical about the minimum wage. My hon. Friend will be delighted, as I hope will the House, to hear that at the end of this month a pilot project will be launched in Scotland, in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland, the Scottish Low Pay Unit and the Inland Revenue, to make sure not only that there is compliance but that individual workers know what their rights are.

Is the Minister aware that one in 15 Scots workers who benefit from the minimum wage are under 21 and consequently on a lower rate? Given the success of the minimum wage, is it not now time to end that discrimination and give those 7,000 young Scots workers equal pay for an equal job?

If I recollect the Liberal Democrats' position on the national minimum wage correctly, they were not particularly in favour of it at the time. I welcome their conversion. On younger workers, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a clear direction that they should be looking at training and educational opportunities. We have gone along with the widely held view that to introduce an adult rate before the age of 21 would be counter-productive, given the other priorities that young people have to pursue.

While I recognise that the national minimum wage has done enormous good for Scottish workers, is the Minister aware that a report published this week says that those same workers have faced assaults and threats in a third of Scottish work places? When she next meets trade unions and employers, will she undertake to bring up that very serious subject? Surely it is not right that people should feel threatened and intimidated while they strive to earn a living.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that particularly important point. He is quite right—no worker should feel threatened and intimidated either going to work or while at work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will seek to raise the matter when we next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and employers' organisations.

When she proposes to bring forward legislation to amend the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the size of the Scottish Parliament. [89138]

I shall seek agreement to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

How many indications of support has the Secretary of State had for her proposals from Labour Back Benchers?

Of the replies to the consultation exercise that I undertook, there were 18 responses from hon. Members, six of which opposed the proposals—it was basically 2:1. Indeed, let me point out that the Labour party, the Co-operative party and the Scottish trade union movement all agree with my position. Only the Scottish Conservative party has stood against the proposals.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is ludicrous that the House should determine the size of the Scottish Parliament? Will she undertake that, in the Bill on the matter, there will be provision to transfer that power to the Scottish Parliament so that in future it can determine its appropriate size?

No.

What plans she has to provide financial support for coastal communities affected by the reduction of fishing effort in the North sea. [89139]

if she will make a statement on the Scottish fishing industry. [89143]

The Government are committed to protecting the interests of the UK fishing industry. A large part of the industry has depended on fish species whose stocks have been in decline, and this has necessitated some difficult decisions on future fishing effort. The decisions taken by the European Union's Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels last month will be reported to the House shortly by the fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

I am grateful for that important answer. Will the Secretary of State personally support an approach to Treasury Ministers to try to secure a new emergency package of short-term relief on the grounds that, over the next three to six months—the cuts will be introduced in February—trying to maintain some kind of stability in the fishing industry will be difficult until a package of decommissioning can be negotiated with it?

Before I reply to the hon. Gentleman, may I take the opportunity on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, to congratulate him on his recent knighthood. All of us who have benefited from his interest in parliamentary matters have much to be grateful for. He has also comprehensively upstaged everybody who had a 30th wedding anniversary last year.

May I welcome everything that the right hon. Lady said about Government support for the fishing industry? I hope that she will impress on her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to put money where the Government's mouth is. That money needs to go from the UK Treasury to the Scottish Executive, who can spend it in conjunction with the Scottish fishing industry not just on decommissioning, if that is considered necessary, but on other options including funded tie-up schemes.

On the final point, there is considerable debate about funded tie-up schemes. It is anticipated that restoring stocks to the North sea will take a considerable time. There must be serious analysis of decommissioning v. funded tie-ups, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that at the highest levels of government, considerable attention is being devoted to those matters. The situation is serious and there are no simple answers. The Government are determined to do what we can to assist the fishing communities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement in The Scotsman today by George MacRae, secretary of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association? He said:

"The industry has to deal with the stark reality of the result of the Brussels talks, be pragmatic and continue to work with government to improve the lot of the fishermen".

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I read with great interest the comments of Mr. George MacRae this morning. He also said that while arguments about blame are inevitable to enable politicians to score points off each other, particularly in the lead-up to the 2003 elections, they will achieve nothing to help the industry. That is an extremely important point. There is a real need for people to work together to protect the fishing communities. I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the comments of Hamish Morrison, who said:

"The Archangel Gabriel could not have negotiated a better deal"

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the deep concern in the fishing industry, among both catchers and processors, and in their dependent communities. Will she seek urgent talks with the Prime Minister and the First Minister to consider what practical assistance can be given?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions are already planned not just with the Prime Minister and the First Minister, but with representatives of the fishing communities. We share Mr. MacRae's view that it is important that we all pull together to ensure the best possible outcome for the future.

I am glad that the Secretary of State supports the views of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, which just two days ago called for the resignation of the UK fisheries Minister. Can the Secretary of State explain how the fisheries Minister could have signed a deal that allows a fleet—the most conservation-minded fleet, fishing with 120mm mesh—nine days fishing, according to the Council regulation, while the Danish industrial fleet, fishing exactly the same waters, is allowed 23 days' fishing with hairnet mesh that destroys everything in its path? Will the proposed aid package try to protect and preserve the fishing fleet and the fishing communities that depend on it, or will it merely try to run down the industry even further than it has been run down already?

The hon. Gentleman does not help the cause of the fishermen. He is the man who called the European Fisheries Commissioner a thug and an ignoramus. Is that supposed to help us in our negotiations? The Danish fishing community has also been badly affected by the measures. We are well aware of the difficulties that all the North sea fishing communities face. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop posturing. It is important that we deal with the facts. All the decommissioning efforts being undertaken by the fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland have been taken into account in the negotiations. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we started off from a position where, come 1 January, we would have seen a total ban on fisheries in the North sea. [Interruption.] The proposal then was seven days of fishing per month—

Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. The Secretary of State is entitled to reply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent announcement by Fullerton, a computer manufacturer in Inverclyde, of its intention to close its manufacturing base, with the loss of some 500 jobs and the consequential effect of that not only on my constituency, but on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who is at this moment speaking to the unions and the management at that plant. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that those manufacturing communities that suffer job losses, such as those in Port Glasgow and Greenock, will receive the same financial support and resources afforded to those in the fishing communities?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) is already meeting the management of another employer in the community. The Scottish Executive have announced that they will put in place the procedures that are normal in such circumstances. I share my hon. Friend's view that we should ensure that every community that is affected by unemployment is treated fairly and in a way that is sustainable for the long-term. I understand that another announcement is expected this afternoon. Commercial confidentiality prevents me from speaking about that, but I hope that the situation might prove much less bleak than people have been anticipating.

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on his knighthood? We look forward to his continuing contribution in this House.

Since the conclusion of the discussions in Brussels, the Government have been very much engaged with the debate about what we can do to ensure the continuity of the fishing communities. The First Minister has met representatives of the fishing communities on a number of occasions and the Prime Minister is to meet representatives before the end of the month. I met the fisheries Minister this morning to discuss what sort of package can be made available to ensure the continuation of the fishing industry and to provide some help in the transition that is required because of these rather unfortunate times.

There was clearly no guarantee in that answer that an arrangement will be in place by the beginning of February. However, at the end of March, there will be discussions on long-term proposals for the North sea. What part, if any, will the right hon. Lady play in those discussions? Will the Government advocate that the UK fishery should be managed nationally?

On the second point, no, there is no prospect of repatriating fisheries policy. Fish do not carry passports. The most important way forward for the fishing community is a common fisheries policy. Indeed, in all the debate about the fisheries industries, the successes that this Government have achieved in relation to the common fisheries policy have been completely overlooked. On the discussions that must take place in March in respect of the new system, and discussions post July, I have been in discussions with the fisheries Minister as recently as this morning on the line that the British Government should take.

What action she is taking to consult Scottish business and trade union interests on cross-border economic issues. [89140]

In conjunction with the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently held a seminar involving the main Scottish business organisations and the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the macro-economic policy directions set out in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report. My right hon. Friend plans to hold another seminar with those organisations and other key stakeholders in the Scottish economy to provide input to the Chancellor's Budget preparations.

As a result of the Chancellor's macroeconomic policies, we now have the highest employment in Scotland for more than a generation. Despite that, for every one job created in disadvantaged areas, three are created in the more prosperous and advantaged areas. Will the Minister ensure that Scottish business and trade unions take advantage of the initiatives for enterprise set out in the Budget, so that those in the disadvantaged areas that I and many of my colleagues represent can get the job increases into their areas?

I recognise the picture that my hon. Friend paints. He will be aware that the Government aim to promote the productivity agenda in Scotland. Key to that promotion is the fact that we work together hand in hand, as both a UK Government and a Scottish Executive, to deliver improvements for the communities that have suffered historic weaknesses in terms of economic development.

Does the Minister agree that most people in Scotland would prefer taxpayers' money to be spent on job creation, as two of her hon. Friends just said in their questions? As everyone has said in respect of the fishing communities, taxpayers' money would be better spent on helping people than on employing more politicians and bureaucrats and building more buildings for more and more government in Edinburgh.

I am pleased to advise the hon. Lady that the Scottish people are happy to recognise that we have the highest recorded level of employment in Scotland, and the lowest unemployment count, for 27 years. That stands in stark contrast with some of the issues that we had to deal with during 18 years under her party's Government.

When she last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment issues. [89141]

I have regular contact with representatives of the STUC to discuss a wide range of issues. I last met the STUC general council on 2 December 2002.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the great majority of jobs in the North sea are in the oil and gas industries. Does she agree that we can never take those jobs for granted, and will she commit herself to maintaining strong relationships with the STUC and the trade unions, and with employers?

I spend a considerable amount of time talking to the trade unions about the North sea—of course, as a former energy Minister I have a substantial number of contacts there—but I also maintain close contact with the STUC. The North sea is going through a period of change—it faces great opportunities, as well great challenges—and we must ensure that the Scottish economy benefits from that. Indeed, the Chancellor's introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances for investment in the North sea is very much to be welcomed.

What devolution issues she has considered since 26 November 2002. [89151]

What devolution issues she has considered since 26 November 2002. [89152]

Since 26 November, 34 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me, all but one of which related to criminal law. All of them concerned human rights issues, and a substantial number concerned undue delay in criminal proceedings. Others included cases on the law on rape; the fixing of the punishment part of the sentence of a life prisoner, to replace the old system of serving an indeterminate length of sentence; and the powers of the Crown to use surveillance tapes from prison visiting rooms. The one civil case involved delay in an appeal from the application of a children's panel reporter to the sheriff for an interim exclusion order.

The hon. and learned Lady was very helpful in answering my question of a month ago, saying that a procedure exists under the Scotland Act 1998, but can she explain what that procedure is? In the event that a Scottish airport sought to expand, who would take the final decision: the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Executive, or the Secretary of State for Transport?

As I have tried to explain to the hon. Lady—I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her—the answer depends entirely on the circumstances of the particular case. We cannot speculate about a case in isolation. The Scotland Act 1998 makes provision for reserved matters and the rest are devolved, but every single case must be looked at entirely in the context of its particular circumstances. The answer to her speculative question is therefore very difficult to give, because I do not know the context in which she puts forward her request for information. However, as I said, I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her at length, at her convenience.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her earlier answer. How many delay cases are currently outstanding, and are safeguards in place in Scotland to prevent any undue delay in trial?

There are approximately 700 delay cases outstanding, albeit that the Appeal Court has doubtless dealt with some of them already. However, that number must be seen in the context of the thousands of cases that proceed through the Scottish courts. I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that a number of different procedures exist in Scots law that prevent undue delay in trial. Perhaps the most famous one is the so-called "110 day rule", which means that, in general terms, a person who is in custody in Scotland must be brought for trial within 110 days. In many ways, that piece of Scots jurisprudence has been the envy of many other jurisdictions.

What human rights issues she has dealt with since 26 November 2002. [89154]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). All of the devolution cases to which I referred in that answer involved human rights issues.

I thank the Advocate-General for that answer. May I draw her attention to some of the recent actions of the state-owned Caledonian MacBrayne shipping company, which have deprived many people with disabilities of their human rights? For example, the catamaran that runs between Gourock and Dunoon is not accessible to people with disabilities. The ticketing arrangements on some vessels also discriminate against disabled people. What actions can the Government take to prevent Caledonian MacBrayne from depriving disabled people of their human rights?

As far as my responsibility is concerned, the Government have given citizens a right of challenge if they think that their human rights under the European convention have been breached. Clearly, hon. Members would have to advise constituents as to whether legal advice was appropriate in any given case to determine whether that right of challenge should be invoked. The more general policy issue is not my responsibility, but the Government have a good record in respect of introducing protection and rights for members of the public who are disabled.

If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for a unified criminal courts system and the representations that he has received in response. [89158]

The Auld review proposed that there should be a unified courts administration to improve the effectiveness of the courts and of the justice system. We are taking that recommendation forward, but with some modifications. Those modifications include the introduction of local courts administration councils, which go further than the Auld recommendations. We have received a wide range of representations and continue to work closely with stakeholders on the design of the new organisation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that there needs to be a good degree of sensitivity in ensuring that the new unified courts system has a good strong local connection for management and accountability purposes? Magistrates and magistrates clerks in Stafford have a constructive attitude towards the change, provided that they are involved properly with other local stakeholders. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be consultation at every stage in the future, so that people feel involved in the decision-making process as well as in the system that we eventually get?

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and the response from the magistrates and clerks in Stafford. He is right to say that we are keen to involve in the design of the new system all stakeholders in the criminal justice system and the courts service. The new design must learn from and build on their experience. In particular, it must have a local aspect, which is why we have introduced the courts administration councils. For the first time, magistrates, judges and local people will be able to have a say in how all courts in an area are run.

Does the Lord Chancellor ever listen to the representations made to him? Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the experimental night sittings will not be taken forward in the new system and that they have been abandoned after costing £5.4 million and an average of £4,000 per case? Will she confirm that all informed opinion told the Lord Chancellor that the experiment would not work—with the exception of No. 10 Downing street? What is the point of consultation if responses are not listened to?

The Lord Chancellor of course takes very seriously all the responses to consultation. It was right to set up the pilot programmes in Manchester and in one magistrates court in London. The final report on those programmes is yet to be published. It is true that the night courts proved disproportionately expensive, but the early-morning sittings were useful. The final conclusions have yet to be drawn, and the final decisions have yet to be taken.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how she and the Lord Chancellor intend to satisfy the profound concerns of the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees? The role of courts councils under the proposed model is inconsistent with clear principles of local management and accountability. As she knows, that and the weak and ineffectual consultative councils are unacceptable to the magistrates courts committees. How can she deny that the uniform court system is driven by the political objective of reducing public resources for political purposes, rather than of improving justice? The Lord Chancellor's unacceptable comments—addressed to judges and magistrates in the present and future unified courts—that many first-time burglars should be sent to prison only as a last resort are driven by the political objective of reducing the prison population, rather—

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary should answer part of that question.

What a lot of nonsense. There were about eight different attempts to ask questions. The hon. Gentleman started by making a point about the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. I understand its views and have had many meetings with it, but I completely disagree with it. It wants the new courts organisation to mirror the current structure of the magistrates courts committees, where 43 different organisations run the courts. That is contrary to the recommendation of Sir Robin Auld, who pointed out that having 43 different organisations running the courts led to fragmentation, division, complication and duplication of procedures.

What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received on changes to the voting system. [89159]

The Lord Chancellor's Department receives a small but steady stream of representations from organisations on changes to the voting system. In addition, we have received jointly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister a wide range of recent responses to the consultation paper on the 2004 elections and weekend voting.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Has the Lord Chancellor's Department formed a view on all-postal ballots? Is there an intention to have more pilot exercises in the next lot of local elections?

There will indeed be more pilot exercises for all-postal voting, and they are being taken forward by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Electoral Commission considered the previous round of pilot exercises and concluded that they had had a significant impact on raising turnout, which is an extremely important factor, but equally that more pilot exercises were needed to ensure that people could have full confidence and that there was proper security against fraud.

What steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to strengthen his Department's support for victims of domestic violence. [89161]

My Department is committed to tackling domestic violence and is leading work on improving links between the civil, family and criminal law. We are taking action to give survivors of domestic violence swift and effective protection, to bring perpetrators to justice and to make sure that children's contact with their parents is safe for all family members. We are working closely with the Home Office on its recently announced consultation paper on domestic violence.

Does the Minister agree that it is important to make people aware that allegations should be brought to the courts as soon as possible and to ensure that victims are aware of the support that the police and other agencies can give them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. That is why we recently amended the Children Act 1998, so that the courts must take into account the effects of domestic violence when considering cases involving contact with children. However, we also want to go further, so we will ensure through secondary legislation that the courts know about and investigate any allegations of domestic violence at the start of any child contact proceedings. The court will have to decide whether domestic violence took place before considering any contact or evidence issues. If the court decides that domestic violence has taken place but still orders contact between the parent and child, reasons will have to be given as to why contact was allowed.

If she will make a statement about the Government's policy towards birth certificates for transsexual people. [89162]

On 13 December, I issued a statement, published in Hansard on 16 December, that set out our plans to give transsexual people recognition in their acquired gender, including our intention to legislate for registrars general to create a new record in relation to transsexual people.

I speak on behalf of three constituents who are transsexuals who have approached me because they have all had problems in relation to official documents that record their gender inappropriately. The Government have no choice but to change the law because the European Court of Human Rights has said that we must, but transsexuals, such as my constituents, still face problems. The question on their lips is not whether the Government will legislate, but when the Government will legislate.

I fully accept the points that ray hon. Friend has made. He eloquently sets out the difficult position in which many transsexual people find themselves. We propose to publish a draft Bill, which will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say exactly when that draft Bill will be published but my officials are currently actively engaged in bringing the work forward. Clearly, the timing of substantive legislation after the draft Bill is a matter for the Legislative Programme Committee and parliamentary business managers. It is difficult to secure time within busy legislative programmes, but I assure him that we are committed to legislating as soon as possible.

Further to the Minister's answer, is she aware of cases such as that of a constituent of mine who has been a woman for 40 years but cannot claim a woman's pension because she is shown as a man on her birth certificate? Although such people welcome the Government's overall approach, a real sense of urgency exists in relation to some of these cases. Will she bear that in mind in trying to expedite the legislation?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that particular issue. I hope that he will appreciate that many issues need to be considered when drafting legislation on this matter. It is therefore important that the legislation addresses all the different aspects that are likely to arise, which is why we want to make sure that we get the legislation right.

Will my hon. Friend make sure that, under any legislation that comes forward, the new certificate that will be issued to show the new gender and new name of the person will allow that person to be issued with a passport in their new gender and new name. That is an issue about which one of my constituents is most concerned.

That will certainly be possible. At the moment, I believe that people can be issued with a different certificate, and it is more an issue of explaining why the birth certificate is different from the passport application. That is certainly one of the issues that will be addressed in the legislation.

What responses the Lord Chancellor has received on the document "Same day elections and weekend voting". [89163]

Responses to the consultation paper have to be sent to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom we are jointly conducting the consultation, by the end of January 2003. By mid-December, around 100 responses had been received from local authorities, councillors, MPs and members of the public. We will consider the responses before coming to conclusions.

I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Many hon. Members, across the House, are very concerned about low turnouts, and we work hard to legitimise politics and to make politics seem real within our communities. We are therefore very concerned when people choose not to vote. In relation to changing the system, has her Department received evidence indicating that voting at the weekend would increase participation?

Interestingly, very little research has been done on weekend voting, and only a small number of experiments have been done in that regard. That is why we are interested in responses to the consultation in relation to whether more trials should be conducted. For people who go to work and have kids, finding time to vote on a busy Thursday can be a real hassle. Exercising one's democratic rights and going out to vote should not be a hassle. It is therefore right that we consider ways of making it easier for people to vote, without kidding ourselves that changing the voting system will solve all the problems of turnout.

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Let us start as we want to go on.

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask Question 29.

On how many occasions hearings in licensing magistrates courts have had to be adjourned because of lack of space to hear objectors in each of the last three years. [89164]

The Lord Chancellor's Department collects nationally only the details of the number of licensing sessions held and has no detail in relation to adjourned licensing hearings or the reasons for any adjournments.

Happy new year again, Mr. Speaker. The season had got to me.

I shall certainly look into the case that my hon. Friend has raised. He will be aware that the Government have proposed transferring licensing responsibilities to local authorities as part of the work being taken forward by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In the long term, these are the issues that local authorities will need to address.

To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to allow for private Members' Bills to be debated on a day other than Friday. [89167]

The Procedure Committee has already announced an inquiry that will include the procedures for private Members' Bills and the time made available for debates on them. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council looks forward very much to its report.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I urge him and his colleagues to support positively the idea that private Members' Bills should be debated on a mid-week evening to take advantage of the time available under the new timetabling arrangements? If that were to be done, it would encourage a much bigger attendance by Members at private Members' business and it would make it easier for Members from further afield to take part in such business. If the business were properly programmed, it could also allow more private Members' Bills to be discussed and dealt with. That would therefore allow more hon. Members to enjoy the success that I had last Session when I took a private Member's Bill through the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success. He and I belong to the small and privileged club of those Members who have managed to get a private Member's Bill on to the statute book. I urge him and other Members who feel strongly about the issue to make their representations to the Procedure Committee whose deadline for evidence is at the end of this week.

I commiserate with the Minister, who seems to have had an accident during the recess. I ask him to be totally even-handed on this matter when he considers the Government's interests and those of Back Benchers. He will recognise—and I hope that the President of the Council will too—that, since the Jopling reforms, both private Members' Bills and private Members' motions have disappeared as an effective way for Back Benchers to make their presence felt in this place. The opportunities for Back Benchers have been grossly discouraged and, to a large extent, extinguished. While the Procedure Committee is considering the specific issue of private Members' Bills, will the Minister undertake to make representations to the President of the Council that the Modernisation Committee should also be looking at the wider issue?

I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As I understand it, he has announced that he will not be standing at the next election. He will be sorely missed by them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members are effectively barred from attending Friday debates on private Member's Bills because that is the only day of the week in which they can undertake constituency duties when offices, factories and schools are open? It is essential that we have that right on a Friday for 52 weeks of the year, other than when we are on our annual holiday.

I do take that point on board and I urge my hon. Friend to make it to the Procedure Committee in any evidence that he may care to give to it.

I first wish the Minister a full and speedy recovery. I presume his injuries are a lesson to us all about the dangers of cycling.

No, and by the look on the faces of some of the right hon. Gentleman's Back-Bench colleagues it is clear that a number of them certainly like to take time off to do second jobs. It is worth reminding the House and, perhaps, the outside world that this Westminster House of Commons sits for more days than virtually any other legislature in the developed world. In fact, according to a survey on the number of days that legislatures in Commonwealth countries sat in 2001, this House sat on more days than any other with the exception of the legislature of the state of Borno in Nigeria.

Will the review look wider than the day on which we deal with private Member's Bills to consider the procedure as well? If we are to make the most effective use of our time, should not we look at all the rules governing private Members' Bills because in my experience most of the time is sadly abortive?

That, I imagine, is why the Procedure Committee decided to have not a narrow, but a very broad review into the system of private Members' Bills, including their procedure and when they are debated.

To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement about further reform of the House of Lords. [89169]

To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement about progress with Government plans for House of Lords Reform. [89174]

The Government welcome the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform and are gratefuls the work it has done. We look forward to the debates which are to be held later this month in both Houses of Parliament. The way forward on reform will be considered in the light of the outcome of the votes on the options put forward by the Joint Committee and will provide a remit to that Committee to work up a more detailed set of recommendations.

When I speak to Members of Parliament in central and eastern Europe, Africa and developing countries about the merits of democracy, I find it extremely difficult to explain why a Chamber of our Parliament is archaic, only partly reformed and unelected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible option is to fail to reach agreement in this House and with the other place, and to fail to complete reform, because the status quo is untenable?

I can understand my hon. Friend's difficulties. The House of Lords is about to have a by-election in which the sole qualification for candidates and electors is to be a hereditary peer. That is a rather eccentric version of democracy and reinforces the case for bringing real democracy to the second Chamber. I agree that the worst possible outcome would be the one that we have had too often in the past, in which we end up with no reform because the great majority who want it cannot agree among themselves on what reform to go for.

Although I personally have strong views in favour of an elected second Chamber, as a member of the Joint Committee may I stress that its report contains a number of matters on which there is consensus and on which we can build and make rapid progress, not least on the widespread agreement about the powers of the second Chamber? Despite strongly held views, it is possible to agree even on the difficult issues of composition, as the excellent report by our Public Administration Committee showed.

Yes, as I have observed to the House before, the Public Administration Committee report was unanimous and showed that it was possible to find a centre of gravity among Members in favour of reform. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the report from the Joint Committee spells out the wide degree of consensus that exists on the remit, powers and scope of a second Chamber. It is now necessary to find that centre of gravity for the options for the composition of a reformed Chamber so that we can proceed with the reforms that so many in this Chamber want.

Does the Leader of the House expect to introduce legislation before 17 July this year?

I would not expect to introduce legislation in this Session because, as I indicated to the House when I made the announcement committing us to a Joint Committee, the longer the final report of the Joint Committee took to be produced, the more difficult it would be to introduce such legislation in the current Session. I hope that we will make good speed with the debate on the Joint Committee report and with the votes and the options put forward. It is then for the Joint Committee to come forward with a report providing a detailed scheme based on whatever is the majority wish of this House and the other place. I hope that we see that report well before 17 July and that it will enable us to take forward legislation in this Parliament.

Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Lord Chancellor say this morning on the "Today" programme that the argument was really polarised between a wholly appointed and a wholly elected second Chamber? May I ask whether that represents Government policy? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the majority of us will go for the wholly elected option?

I arose especially early and completed my breakfast in order that I might give the Lord Chancellor my full and undivided attention. [Laughter.] May I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government's policy is as stated by both the Lord Chancellor and myself, and that both Houses will have a free vote? There will be seven options open to both Houses to vote on—all Members will have a free vote on those seven options, which include an all-appointed and an all-elected House and five variants in between of a mixed House. It is for the House, not the Government, to decide where the settled will is, but I very much hope that those votes will produce a commanding, convincing majority for one option that will restore momentum to reform.

Is not the importance of the Lord Chancellor's broadcast at 7 o'clock this morning the fact that it showed that there is some division in the Government on the issue? Labour Members of Parliament and other radicals in this place want the Leader of the House to tell the Lord Chancellor in unequivocal terms that we wish to see the completion of the upper House reform in this Parliament. It should not be kicked into touch by the Lord Chancellor or by anyone else in that place, as they have done with other legislation that we were committed to when we were elected in 1997.

I shall reflect on the precise terms in which I might convey that message to the Lord Chancellor. I put it to my hon. Friend that we have said that this matter must be resolved by Parliament. It is a parliamentary matter; the second Chamber of this Parliament is being reformed. It is therefore right for this House that the other House should have a free vote. That being the case, it would be wrong for the Government to express one single united view among the seven options available. However, it is important that we find a settled will—a centre of gravity—for reform and then all coalesce around that option for reform and make sure that this time we actually carry through the reform that has evaded Parliament for 100 years.

To ask the President of the Council what further changes to the standard timetable of the House he is proposing during this year. [89170]

The House has recently agreed significant changes which begin today. These include, for the first time, having an annual parliamentary calendar which will give some predictability to our timetable, a change that has been warmly welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. There are no current plans for further changes but the Modernisation Committee will, of course, monitor and assess the impact of the recent reforms.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that I welcome the new year and the new timetable, and hope that they will both be happy for all of us. However, as we settle into the new regime, can my hon. Friend assure us that proper practices of political scheming—much loved by Members of this House—and the valuable work undertaken by the usual channels will continue and thrive under the new regime?

It is certainly beyond my powers and, I suspect, beyond the powers of any Member here to put an end to what my hon. Friend describes as political scheming.

What proportion of public hearings of Select Committees in this Session could be viewed by internet users in real time? [89171]

Up to this morning, there have been 110 public meetings of Select Committees in the current Session of which 28—some 25 per cent.—were webcast.

How long will it be until that figure is 100 per cent?

It may be some time. The hon. Gentleman takes a genuine interest in those matters, and I thank him for that. He will know that a webcast experiment was conducted in 2002 through joint offices in both Houses. It involved four channels covering "gavel to gavel" proceedings in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Westminster Hall and one Select Committee at any given time. That experiment is being reviewed. We hope to have options that flow from the review, and I hope that the Board of Management will take some decisions later this year.

Will the President of the Council make a statement on the exercise of his responsibilities as Visitor in respect of universities? [89173]

As President of the Council, I exercise the role of Visitor in respect of 17 universities and colleges. In that capacity, I determine petitions from students and, occasionally, from staff who have exhausted all internal complaints and appeals procedures. I received 35 such petitions last year. None required a visit to the university concerned.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Without casting any aspersions on his academic credentials as a product of Aberdeen grammar school and Edinburgh university, does he agree that his role as Visitor in respect of a number of universities is, following Bagehot, a dignified rather than an efficient part of our constitution? Dare I say that it might be a suitable subject for consideration for reform by the Modernisation Committee?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not calling into question my academic qualifications for the post, but I can assure him—I think this will bring him some relief—that we have reached agreement with the universities on the appointment of an independent adjudicator for students. It is our intention and that of the universities that the adjudicator will be up and running for the next university session. From then on, those cases referred to me and to the other Visitors will be referred to that independent adjudicator. That simple solution will ensure that we have a proper mechanism, but one that we have negotiated in agreement with the universities themselves.