What plans she has to meet the Scottish Executive to discuss the Scottish index of multiple deprivation report; and if she will make a statement. [101095]

Both the Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to the fight against poverty. Publication of the index and other indicators reflects our determination to measure the impact of our policies and the progress achieved.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that 16 of the 20 most deprived areas in Scotland are in the city of Glasgow? Does she agree that the only way in which Glasgow's deprivation and poverty problems can be tackled successfully is if the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive get together, agree that Glasgow is indeed a special case and allocate resources accordingly? Will she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do all that they can to ensure that that comes to pass?

There is a great deal of collective working in Glasgow through social inclusion partnerships and the better neighbourhood services fund. UK Departments contribute to, and are involved in, some aspects of that work. The Scottish Executive have certainly contributed to a city growth fund of £40 million for better neighbourhood services in Glasgow and, as I said, the social inclusion partnership. My hon. Friend may well have ideas about more collective and cohesive working, and I would certainly be pleased to discuss that with him afterwards with a view to giving information to UK Ministries and colleagues in the Scottish Executive.

Can the Minister explain to the people of Scotland why, after nearly six years of a Labour Government in London and four years of a Labour Government in Edinburgh one in three children in Scotland are being brought up in poverty, and one in four of our pensioners are living in poverty?

That is rather a myopic question. The hon. Lady has failed to take into account the impact on poverty of the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and children's credits. Before she bandies figures around in the House, she would do well to look at the actual figures on the proportion of Scottish children in low-income households which, using the absolute measure, fell by 21 per cent. in 2001–13 percentage points better than in 1997 and significantly better than it would be if we had to deal with a £4.5 billion hole in Scottish finances because we had divorced from the United Kingdom.

The Minister will know that the income deprivation indices for the economy are largely made up of figures on benefit take-up, including working families tax credit. The Government have not released any figures, but is she aware that the Library estimates that approximately 100,000 people in Scotland who are eligible for working families tax credit have not taken up their entitlement? With the introduction of the new regime in three weeks, what will the Government do to ensure that that inadequate take-up is improved?

I share the hon. Gentleman's views on the importance of take-up. It is Government policy to try to encourage people to take up tax credits, and I encourage hon. Members to promote those tax credits, as they have access to local media and community groups, which could do much to promote the beneficial aspects of Government policy on which most of us in the House agree.

May I bring to the Minister's attention the concentration of poverty and deprivation in, Glasgow? While considerable cuts in unemployment in Glasgow have gone a great way towards alleviating deprivation, does she accept that there is a substantial need for additional funding for the city? Those of us who are city Members do not want to call for independence for Glasgow, but we want additional resources for the city, both from Westminster and the Scottish Executive. Does my hon. Friend agree that partnership working is undoubtedly the way forward in the city, but it must be fully funded and must involve elected representatives at all levels?

I agree that partnership working is important, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend also recognised the importance of the drop in unemployment and, by implication, all the measures that we put in place to alleviate poverty. In view of the fact that two of my colleagues from Glasgow have highlighted specific issues relating to the city, I would be delighted to meet them and discuss some of those issues further as we have only a short time this morning.

May I tell the Government that we welcome the fact that the indices are much better than they were? With those better figures, policy makers are better armed to deal with some of the problems. However, there are still problems concerning rurality, as some parts of the country face depopulation, which is not reflected in the indices as currently cast. If the Minister is generously offering to meet Members to discuss what, I accept, are real problems in Glasgow will she extend the favour to those of us who represent rural areas?

As a Member from a rural area, I offer to meet myself and any other rural Members who wish to meet me, in both capacities.

As the hon. Lady has—rather plaintively, I thought—invited us to sell the child tax credit to our constituents, and as she has said that she is prepared to talk to UK Ministers, will she take up the issue of the simplification of means-tested benefits, so that the many people, including pensioners, who are entitled to them can find their way through the benefit forms and claim them?

The Government are constantly looking at ways in which to improve the form-filling involved, but the message that I am giving today is that I hope that hon. Members recognise that these benefits are of great value to our constituents and that they really ought to exercise just a little leadership in going out and making people aware of what they are entitled to.

What discussions she has had with Royal Mail concerning (a) postal services and (b) post offices in Scotland. [101096]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Allan Leighton, the chairman of Royal Mail Group, in November to discuss postal services and post offices in Scotland.

There is widespread concern that many rural post offices will be forced to close when the Government introduce the new method of paying pensions and benefits in three weeks' time. Will the Minister assure the House that the rather sinisterly named customer conversion centres will give unbiased information to pensioners? Will she also ensure that automated credit transfer will not be introduced until the computer systems have been properly tested? Finally, will the Government run a high-profile campaign to promote the new Post Office card account before it is introduced?

May I reassure the House that the net figure for post office closures in Scotland in 2001–02 was 26, compared with 63 in the previous year? That is a 59 per cent. reduction. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government have invested a great many resources in trying to maintain the network. What we are trying to do with the new way of paying benefits is to institute a far more secure—and, in many ways, easier—system, particularly for pensioners. If anyone suggests that the Government are somehow hiding this new initiative under some kind of collective bushel, I would ask them to look at some of the information that is out there in the post offices in the communities, and to be more positive about the move. The single most important message is that pensioners will still be able to collect the same money from the same place at the same time, but they will have more choice when they do so.

Is not the truth that most post offices close because the postmasters or postmistresses retire, and it is then incumbent on the Post Office to find someone to take over? That involves a great responsibility for the local Member of Parliament. In Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the local Member of Parliament liaises very closely with the Post Office, and tries to find someone to take over. If Opposition Members did that instead of coming along here and whingeing, there might be fewer post offices closing.

I could not have put it better myself.

I know that, given the way things are going for the Government, the Minister will have given some thought to how, where and when her benefits will he paid in retirement. Does she appreciate, however, that Scots are increasingly finding it easier to open a bank cash card account than a Post Office card account? What exactly is the Scotland Office doing to preserve the future of these vital small businesses throughout Scotland, to which the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred? Do she and the Secretary of State consider the key target of Government policy to be the maximisation or the minimisation of benefits being paid through post offices?

Speaking as someone who collected her family allowance through the post office every week on the button for many years, I have a strong commitment to the continuing service that the post offices provide. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as recently as last week, I spoke to Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions to highlight some of these concerns, and sought the reassurances that he seeks. The reality is, however, that people are voting with their feet in terms of the collection of benefits. More and more people are moving towards bank transfers, and we are trying to ensure that those people who are outside the banking system are brought into it. I would have thought that he would have supported that.

What would the Minister say to the pensioner in my constituency who received information from the Department for Work and Pensions regarding her pension, found the small part that referred to the Post Office card account, phoned the helpline and asked about opening such an account, and when it was discovered that she had a bank account, was pressed to have her pension paid into that account, rather than at the post office? Why do the Government seem so hell-bent on transferring business from post offices to banks?

One of the aims behind the move to the new banking system is to end financial exclusion. [Interruption.] Having asked a question, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) ought at least to listen to the answer. The Department for Work and Pensions helpline is trying to guide people to the account that would be best for them. In some circumstances, the Post Office card account may not be the best option for a pensioner. I am sorry that hon. Members are seeking to pursue a panic agenda on the move to a far simpler system for paying benefits.

If she will make a statement on progress with the Friends of Scotland initiative. [101097]

Friends of Scotland has so far attracted some 250 opinion formers from more than 20 countries around the world. They are already promoting a better understanding of contemporary Scotland. Our website is proving very successful in highlighting Scottish achievements and success in the fields of culture, education and business. In the past month, there were just under 300,000 hits and nearly 9,000 visitors to the site, of whom three quarters accessed the site information from overseas locations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive is now paying dividends? If so, what are the benefits of reaching out to the millions of Scots overseas?

The partnership that exists in that setting is proving very useful. Through Friends of Scotland, we are able to access key opinion formers, Prime Ministers, governors-general—for example, those of both Australia and New Zealand—Ministers and senior politicians, all of whom can be of huge value, not least to the Scottish Executive, but particularly to GlobalScot, the ground-breaking initiative of the Scottish Executive to sign up business leaders to act as mentors to inward investors. Those are key ways to bring jobs to Scotland. If only 1 per cent. of the 40 million people around the world who have some connection with Scotland were to visit Scotland, Glasgow's convention and tourist activity would be even begger than at present.

I hardly think that 250 Friends of Scotland are 1 per cent. of the 40 million Scots around the world. Can the right hon. Lady tell us the total cost of her time per Friend of Scotland, and her Department's expenditure on that programme?

The total expenditure of the Department comes out of its running costs of about £250,000 per annum. As the hon. Lady was never able to win a seat in Scotland, lives outside Scotland and makes occasional visits, I am sure that we would be delighted to sign her up as a Friend of Scotland.

What discussions she has had in the course of her consultation on the rights of Sunday shop workers in Scotland. [101098]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had discussions with various business and retail organisations and trade unions in the course of the consultation on Sunday working in Scotland.

Has my right hon. Friend met a single individual who car justify Scottish shop workers having fewer rights than shop workers throughout the rest of the United Kingdom? Does she agree with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said:

"we should fully protect the rights of those who work on Sundays in order that we may Shop then … employee protection must go hand in hand with the freedom to shop."—[Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 822.]?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I congratulate him on introducing a private Member's Bill to ensure that Scottish workers have the same protection as workers in England and Wales. If businesses had been prepared to honour the voluntary agreement that was put in place at the time of deregulation in England, the problem need not have arisen. I am happy to report that almost all the workers from Argos who lost their jobs in Aberdeen have reached a satisfactory settlement with the company, and I pay tribute to all my hon. Friends who made that possible.

Is the right hon. Lady concerned that many supermarket workers in England and Wales have to put up with five-out-of-seven-day contracts and that there is not much choice for any of them? Is it part of her brief, perhaps at some time in the future, to examine the rights of workers other than shop workers in that regard?

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a very clear sign of why people should join trade unions. Indeed, at the forefront of the campaign to ensure equality between Scottish and English shop workers has been the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. In a fair society, it is right that the sort of employment protection that this Government have developed should ensure that people have equal rights both north and south of the border. That is something to which the Government give priority.

If she will make a statement on recent discussions with the Scottish Parliament on Government policy on asylum seekers. [101099]

I have regular discussions with both Scottish Executive Ministers and Home Office Ministers on asylum and refugee policy.

What thought is being given to the possible influx of asylum seekers from Iraq?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I advise the House that last year, out of 85,865 applications for asylum in the UK. 14,940 were from Iraqis—more than double the number that applied in the previous year. The plans for dealing with the full range of potential consequences of armed conflict overseas are kept constantly under review. I have already indicated the number of Iraqi citizens currently seeking asylum, and Home Office officials routinely revise contingency plans to deal with increases in the number of asylum seekers. At present, there are no specific plans to take refugees from Iraq.

Does not the Minister see a contradiction between the declared policy of the First Minister in his speech in Edinburgh last month about attracting skilled workers and the practices of the Home Office in Scotland? Let us take, for example, the Chernov family, my constituents. Mr. Chernov is a skilled and highly qualified engineer, Mrs. Chernov is working and their son is at Fraserburgh college. They are a conscientious, hardworking, extremely popular and skilled family who have won a judicial review against deportation, but the Home Office wants to go back through the process to get them out of the country. Why is the Home Office spending vast amounts of public money trying to expel from Scotland exactly the sort of people whom the First Minister says that he wants to attract into the country?

I am not aware of the specifics of the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although I would be willing to discuss it with him later. May I advise the House, however, that the Home Office has increased the number of work permits for immigrants coming into Scotland and the United Kingdom to attract those very people about whom, in general terms, he spoke? If he wants me to discuss with him the specific issue that he raised, I shall be delighted to do so.

Reverting to the question asked by the Father of the House, is it not likely that, if the Prime Minister's admirable policy towards Iraq succeeds, which I am sure it will, there will not be much need for Iraqis to seek asylum anywhere?

I would hope that many Iraqis would feel safe about going home to their own country.

How many jobs in Scotland are (a) directly and (b) indirectly related to defence.[101100]

The most recently available estimates are that a total of 30,400 jobs in Scotland are directly related to defence and a further 10,640 jobs are indirectly related to it. The number of directly dependent jobs includes both MOD personnel and jobs in related industries directly dependent on defence procurement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will she estimate the cost to the Clyde and Rosyth of the cancellation of two aircraft carriers? Does she agree that the implications of Scotland divorcing itself from the rest of the UK and adopting the bow and arrow defence policies of others would be devastating?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the aircraft carrier contracts that will benefit both the Clyde and Rosyth. The point that he makes is very valid. For many years ahead, security of employment is now available for shipyard workers in Scotland. That would be jeopardised by the policies of the Scottish National party, one of whose members has already said "Oh well, we'll just have one aircraft carrier" without even being able to say how it would be paid for. In these uncertain times, it is important that we have stability and a defence industry that continues to contribute to the excellence of Scottish employment.

The Secretary of State knows of the quality and talents of the many companies that work in the North sea oil and gas industry. They could benefit the defence industry and the Ministry of Defence. What is she doing to encourage the Ministry of Defence to look wider so that those companies can broaden their base of commercial talent?

I have held discussions with Lord Bach, the Minister responsible for defence procurement, specifically about the Nigg yard, where there is a great opportunity if the alliance can take it. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that is especially relevant to heavy engineering and at the high-tech end of the marketplace. Opportunities exist and I am sure that the aircraft carrier contract means the creation of many jobs that will attract back to heavy industry many people who previously worked in shipbuilding and related employment. The Eurofighter helmet is an example of the way in which great engineering skill can make Scotland a centre of excellence. All Scots should he proud of it.

How many human rights matters have been referred to her in the last four weeks. [101092]

Since 4 February, I have received intimation of 36 devolution issue minutes, all of which concerned human rights matters.

Is thought being given to the delicate human rights problems that would surround any influx of asylum seekers from Iraq, of whom some might be henchpersons of Saddam Hussein?

The Government always give serious thought to human rights issues. That is why we introduced the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government are dealing with the position.

What devolution issues she has advised on since 4 February. [101093]

Since 4 February, I have examined devolution issues on a wide variety of topics including: challenges by life prisoners to fixing the punishment part of life licence hearings; the criminal liability of corporate bodies; pre-trial delay and whether the requirement on the defence to disclose that it plans to raise sexual history evidence breaches the accused's right to a fair trial.

The hon. and learned Lady knows that partnership law remains a reserved matter. Does she realise that during the passage of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill through the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive tabled amendment No. 169, which would interfere with partnership law? Should not she tell the Scottish Executive not to interfere, and to allow this House to continue to enjoy its reserved powers over partnership law?

Without specific notice of the amendment to which the hon. Lady refers, I cannot give her a chapter-and-verse answer. In general, the question whether a partnership issue is reserved or devolved depends on the way in which it is introduced. The Scottish Parliament can table any amendment that it wishes. However, I ultimately have four weeks in which to consider the Bill and decide whether it is within competence. I am entitled to take a view about the matter at that stage.

What human rights issues she has dealt with since 4 February. [101094]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

Does the Advocate General know that, during the investigation into the incident at Dunoon pier, about which I asked her four weeks ago, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has interviewed only three passengers and eye-witnesses? Given that there were 28 passengers and also eye-witnesses on the pier, will the hon. and learned Lady advise the agency that it should publicise the inquiry and contact details so that more witnesses can have the opportunity to give evidence? That would protect ferry passengers' rights.

My parliamentary and statutory duties do not cover such matters. General policy issues on such a subject are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is up to the agency to observe its duties. It might become a devolution issue if anyone is dissatisfied and wants to challenge the way in which the agency does that.

If she will make a statement on the impact on Scotland of implementing targets in the Energy White Paper. [101101]

There are both reserved and devolved responsibilities relevant to the delivery of the objectives set out in the White Paper "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy". The White Paper acknowledges the continuing need for co-operation between the Government and the Scottish Executive to address the energy challenges that we face.

Given that Scotland lost out to Denmark on the technology for wind development, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Scotland takes the opportunity presented by the White Paper in order to become a world leader in new technology for wave power, wind power and biomass? What is she doing to ensure also that Scotland's economy benefits from the export of renewable energy to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that the host communities have a direct stake in that?

I trust that the hon. Gentleman and his party will make their own contribution to the White Paper consultation.

If she will make a statement on the efficiency of the Court Service. [101887]

The Court Service annual report sets out full details of Court Service performance and audited accounts. The Court Service has demonstrated steady improvement in a series of areas, including reductions in delays in both civil and criminal cases.

That soothing bromide of a reply really does not meet the needs of the case. Does the hon. Lady not understand and accept that one of the real inefficiencies in the Government's changes to the Court Service in rural areas is the fact that witnesses and defendants must sometimes travel long distances, very inconveniently, as a result of the closure of more than 200 magistrates courts since the Government took office? Does she not recognise that the closures have dramatically undermined the whole principle of local justice?

The hon. Gentleman should withhold some of his righteous indignation. Decisions about magistrates courts are, in fact, made by local magistrates courts committees. They take account of a wide range of factors, including witness facilities in the local courts, access to justice and the use of courtrooms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, in the interests of justice, for those who provide our court service to liaise effectively with the police, local authorities, social services and others? What is her Department doing to ensure that a dialogue takes place between the agencies responsible for delivering justice to the many victims in our communities?

My hon. Friend is right about the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness that can arise from a lack of communication between the different criminal justice agencies. That is why I strongly support the establishment of the criminal justice boards, in which the Court Service and magistrates courts will play a central role—in particular, in reducing the number of ineffective trials.

Is not the key area for reform of the Court Service that of judicial appointments? Has the hon. Lady had an opportunity to read today's recommendation by Sir lain Glidewell in his report to the Bar Council? He says that the Lord Chancellor's position is politically unacceptable. That recommendation builds on the recommendation of Sir Colin Campbell, who asked for a wide-ranging debate, and a debate in the other place on Friday which, nemine contra, suggested that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be reduced. Is it not time for us to debate the Lord Chancellor's position, his role in judicial appointments and, indeed, a wide range of other subjects?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Lord Chancellor has done much to increase the openness and transparency of the appointments system. That includes the appointment of Colin Campbell to examine the overall position. We will of course consider the Glidewell report when it is published.

I am a member of the Magistrates Association, and last week, at the Coalville courthouse, I had a meeting with the clerk, the chairman and senior members of that bench. They advised me of major blunders by the Court Service in calculating the £385 million in Government grant for 2003–04 that is distributed to magistrates courts committees. Is it true that there is no intention to correct those mistakes, which are depriving poorly funded magistrates courts committees such as Leicestershire's of several hundred thousand pounds? Can the Minister look again at this wrongful distribution and remedy this injustice?

I shall certainly look at the position in Leicestershire. It is true that a new formula has been introduced this year to establish a far fairer system for distributing resources across the country. Some magistrates courts committees have been treated unfairly in the past, and have not received their fair allocation. We have also made it clear that it will take time to move towards a fair allocation and an improved system. That process is under way, and I shall certainly happily look again at the case that my hon. Friend raises.

What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received about the reopening of magistrates courts. [101888]

The decision to reopen magistrates courts is a matter for the independent magistrates courts committees. The Lord Chancellor's Department is working in partnership with local MCCs and local councils in several areas to build new magistrates courts.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but could she give the House some assurance about the situation in towns that are growing rapidly? The magistrates court in Leighton Buzzard, which is in my constituency, has been closed. The town's population is increasing from about 35,000 to 50,000, and it will become the second largest town in Bedfordshire. Given that huge increase, will the Minister offer me an assurance that her Department will look into establishing a mechanism to assess whether the magistrates court can be reopened, for the benefit of victims and of witnesses?

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the local MCC. It is for the MCC to assess local need and circumstances, and the requirements for magistrates courts in that area. I certainly agree that magistrates courts committees need to look ahead in their planning, and to examine population developments.

Does the Minister not recognise that her disingenuous answers to my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) disguise the fact that it is her Department's guidelines that box in magistrates courts committees? Ever since this Government came to power, month after month she and her predecessors have mouthed sweet platitudes at the Dispatch Box about this Government's supposed support for the lay magistracy. In fact, month in, month out, local magistrates courts are closing—indeed, more than 200 have closed since her Government came to power.

Order.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. Let me remind him of what happened in 1996, when 21 magistrates courts closed—considerably more than closed in the past year. As I have said, such numbers fluctuate, but in 1996 courts closed in Bromley, in Mansfield, in Hornsea, in Howden, in Market Weighton, in Old Street, in Halstead, in Biddulph, in Cheadle, in Kidsgrove, in Tonbridge, in Colwyn Bay, in Bedale—I could go on. The hon. Gentleman should realise that magistrates courts committees need to take responsible decisions about improving the facilities that they provide, and about improving access for witnesses, including disabled witnesses. It is their responsibility to do that, and that is what they are doing.

What plans the Department has to open new magistrates courts. [101889]

The Lord Chancellor's Department is working on a series of new court developments with magistrates courts around the country.

The Minister will be as concerned as I am at the amount of court time that is wasted through the non-attendance of witnesses. Does she agree that ensuring that local magistrates courts are indeed local, and ensuring short journey times for witnesses, are the best ways to overcome that problem?

The hon. Lady is right. Travelling times must be taken into account when considering magistrates and other courts. Improvements to county courts are aimed at increasing the number of local hearing venues by 15 per cent., to improve local access. In fact, the unified administration will provide the opportunity for MCCs and the Court Service to look closely at areas in which they can provide better local access. MCCs often have to take into account difficult issues, and it is their job to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that communities in Bolton are pleased by the decision that the magistrates court will be retained—and in a much improved building?

My hon. Friend is right. Both Bolton and Salford will benefit from new investment in magistrates courts. New courthouses are also up and running in Hull, Beverley, Bridlington, Hereford and Worcester, and investment programmes have been set up for new courthouses in Manchester, Derbyshire, Liverpool, Avon and Somerset and other areas, to improve the facilities in courtrooms for witnesses and victims, to whom it can make a real difference.

The Minister referred to the benefits of the unified courts administration. If that is put in place, will she encourage magistrates to make use of county court centres for hearings, where available, and vice versa, so that the gaps in both systems can be filled?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In some areas, the Court Service and the MCC are working together to improve the use of buildings. In some cases, either court on its own might not be viable, but by working together they can preserve or even increase the services in an area. We want to see that happen more often, as part of the unified administration.

What value does the Minister put on local and accessible justice, especially in connection with Trowbridge magistrates court, and when can the people of west Wiltshire expect to have a decision on the future of that courthouse?

The hon. Gentleman has met me to make his points about the Trowbridge magistrates court. I have asked for additional information about both the Trowbridge and the Devizes magistrates courts. As he will be aware, the MCC has proposed that they should be closed. The local council has appealed against the decision. It is for the Lord Chancellor's Department to determine that appeal and I will let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as the decision has been taken.

Will the Minister accept, from someone who has practised as a lawyer in many rural courts, :hat the case against closure of those courts is often exaggerated? What must really be taken into account is the need for properly resourced, good buildings for the convenience of all concerned, not least witnesses and victims.

My hon. Friend is right, and several issues must be taken into account. For example, if witnesses or victims have to sit in a corridor next to the family of the defendant, they can feel intimidated. Having the resources to invest in separate facilities for victims and witnesses is important to delivering justice—which is, in the end, what the courts should be about.

What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received regarding his Department's annual expenditure on external advisers. [101890]

The Lord Chancellor has received no recent representations on this subject. Parliamentary questions on this subject from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) were answered on 16 January and 24 February 2003 respectively.

The Minister will be aware that under Labour her Department's annual bill for external consultants and advisers has increased from £400,000 a year to £2.5 million—a sixfold increase of which Cardinal Wolsey himself would be proud. Given that the Department has lost control of its running costs, will she apologise to the British taxpayer?

The use of external consultants costs less than 0.5 per cent.of the Department's overall budget. External consultants are used only when we do not have the relevant expertise or skills in-house, and when their use provides value for money. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the July 2001 National Audit Office report, which looked at the use of external consultants in all Departments. It found that the Lord Chancellor's management of external consultants was pretty good. However, we also have an internal audit review to make sure that all the recommendations of the NAO report are carried out and implemented effectively.

Have the external consultants to the Lord Chancellor's Department made any attempt to earn their crust by pointing out the grave damage done by the closure of magistrates courts, to witnesses who may be deterred from turning up and to local papers that are deterred from reporting cases? Does she agree that it is vital for local justice that there should be public reporting of cases? What steps will she take to ensure that local newspapers receive advance notification of upcoming cases?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his question on magistrates courts into this question. External consultants have been used in the courts and tribunals programme, whose aim is to improve services to people using the courts and to make accessibility easier. However, the official solicitor, for example, has also used external consultants to ensure that services to very vulnerable clients and children are improved. That is the sort of use that we want to make of external consultants, when their use is necessary and represents value for money. We want to improve the services that we give to the people who use the courts services and the other services of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

If he will make a statement on his proposals for electronic voting in the House. [101896]

Any change to electronic voting would require a consensus among hon. Members, and the survey of their opinion in the last Parliament did not produce a majority for change. I understand the value that hon. Members place on the opportunity for contact with colleagues in the Division Lobbies, and I would need to be persuaded that there is a settled will for change before departing from the present practice.

In his glittering parliamentary career, that statement from the President of the Council will certainly rank as one of the highlights. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any electronic voting system would be costly and almost certainly open to abuse unless it involved the use of fingerprinting or was televised? Given that, does he accept that the late Lord Falkland's wise dictum—that that which it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change—should be followed?

The hon. Gentleman is generous in his remarks. He does not encourage me to think again in respect of the position that I have outlined to the House. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to abuse any voting system. I am confident that if a new system were introduced, its use would proceed in a calm way. However, there is a fundamental problem of topography when it comes to introducing electronic voting in the Chamber. We are almost unique among western democracies in that hon. Members do not have fixed seats. Almost every place that has introduced electronic voting has done so on the basis that there are fixed seats. I do not anticipate that hon. Members would want to depart from the present arrangements in the Chamber.

I assure the Leader of the House that he is wrong on that. It is curious that there are not even enough seats in the Chamber to allow every hon. Member to be here at the same time. If there were—[Interruption.] I have listened in silence to other hon. Members' points of view. I should like them to listen to mine. If there were sufficient seats there could be sufficient buttons for each hon. Member to press for each vote, personally, in sight of all their colleagues. We could save something like 14 minutes per vote, which would allow considerably more debate on Report, when we are considering amendments and scrutinising legislation.

I am justly rebuked by my hon. Friend for the error of my conclusion. I understand that some Members will see some attraction in his proposal, but it would alter the character of this Chamber for all time. For instance, the Chamber would have to be much larger.

We on this side of the House welcome the Leader of the House's robust answer. Does he agree that the main justification for any system of electronic voting is that it enables an elected Member to vote from his or her place? Any system that involved walking to an electronic machine would therefore be pointless. Does he accept that a proper electronic system could be introduced here only if we demolished this Chamber or, at any rate, altered it substantially? In view of that, does he agree that any further discussion and investigation of this matter is rather a waste of time?

I would not wish to go down in history as the Leader of the House who demolished the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the work required to accommodate change would be formidable. We should also be clear about the extent to which time would be saved. I presume that we would still ring the Division bells for some eight minutes before Members came in, so the time that we would save would be the next area for discussion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that another idea is floating about? If, perchance, electronic voting came in—and I would not vote for it—we would need a different system for different people. For instance, all those moonlighters on the Opposition Benches, who work outside this building making money on the side, would have to have a special little device, like a pager, so that when they went into their City stockbroking firms they could press their button there. I hope that my right hon. Friend has studied this issue carefully, because change would cost a hell of a lot of money. If that happens, we should charge those Tories for using those devices.

As I understand him, my hon. Friend agrees with the Conservatives in opposing electronic voting—although, in his own way, he has managed to find grounds for disagreement with them. If we were to make any change to the voting system, I am sure that the House would insist that, whatever the method, Members should vote in person. I fear that this afternoon's exchange has confirmed my impression that there is not a settled will for change.

What recent representations he has received on the modernisation of the House of Commons. [101897]

I continue to receive a number of representations from Members of Parliament and of the public. It would be a fair summary that nearly all possible views on modernisation are expressed in those representations and I regret that they are not all mutually consistent.

In the light of our experience last evening when a number of clauses were passed without any debate at all, does the right hon. Gentleman not find that the mood of the House has changed substantially? Would it not be in all our interests for this matter to be brought to the House for a vote, perhaps in September or at the end of this Session, rather than waiting until the end of this Parliament before we revisit it?

When the House considered this matter in October and took its decision, it took its decision for the rest of this Parliament. That seems to me an entirely fair period for which to reach an assessment. However, I must correct the hon. Gentleman about his comments on yesterday. There was no reduction in the time for debate on the Local Government Bill or any other Bill yesterday. The Bill received the same amount of debate as it would have done under the previous hours, by virtue of the fact that the debate continued until 10 o'clock, it being a Monday. However, the Bill would have received the same amount of debate time had it been a Tuesday or Wednesday, stopping at seven o'clock.

Many of us on the Labour Benches appreciate the modernisation and reforms that my right hon. Friend has initiated. Reforms such as putting a greater emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny do a great deal to enhance the reputation of this House. I fear that taking a step backwards at this stage would not be in anybody's interest.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the changes that we have made. We should not lose sight of the fact that the bulk of the changes have consensus support in the Chamber. I think that all Members of the Ho use welcome the fact that Question Time can now be more topical as a result of the sharp reduction in the period of notice required. The introductory cross-cutting question session in Westminster Hall was generally agreed to have been a great success, especially by the representatives of the youth organisations who attended and by the record number of Members who attended Westminster Hall on that occasion. All Members appreciate the distribution of the text of statements immediately after the Minister has completed making the statement.

Have the Leader of the House, or indeed the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs, considered suggestions that Parliament should have a more specific role in authorising the Government's use of the royal prerogative? Is it not ironic that the American President has to go to Congress for specific consent to permit American troops to go to war, while the British Prime Minister has no constitutional responsibility to the House in similar circumstances? It seems that President Blair is more presidential than President Bush.

I think that we could get too hung up on what may be the legal niceties of the situation. As I said at the start of the present Iraqi crisis, it is inconceivable that any Government could commit their troops to action without the support of Parliament. That remains my position; that remains the position of the Government. Of course, any Government must reserve the right to act immediately if the safety of our troops is at risk but, subject to that obvious reservation, a decision in this place should come first and I attach the highest importance to the right of the Commons to vote on the matter before there is any conflict.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main objective of programming was to ensure better scrutiny of legislation both in the Chamber and in Committee? Is he surprised., therefore, to learn that on many occasions the Opposition parties believe that because the knife falls at 5 o'clock, debate should finish at 5 o'clock and not continue after that time? Do we not need to look in more detail at trying to get an agreed system on times so as to ensure that Committees work better and Bills receive proper scrutiny?

As a member of the Chairman's Panel, my hon. Friend speaks with authority on experience in Committee. He will be aware that the Modernisation Committee, of which he is also a member, has agreed to keep the experience of programming under review, and we may have an opportunity to examine some of those points of detail later in the Session.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the House's new sitting hours on scrutiny of Government business. [101898]

It would be premature to attempt an assessment of changes that the House introduced for the remainder of this Parliament. My own impression is that the parallel measures of modernisation have enhanced Parliament's role of scrutiny, especially through Question Time becoming more topical. I hope that the other measures that we introduced will command the same degree of support.

The right hon. Gentleman has led the Modernisation Committee with considerable distinction and a great deal of commitment, and we respect him for that. However, will he accept from hon. Members, like myself, who have had considerable experience over many years, that there is a problem for a large number of Members of Parliament adequately to scrutinise legislation because of the many other things that are going on outside the Chamber? When we are squeezing the full week into two and a half days, it is difficult for Members to find time adequately to cover debates in this place—something that remains important. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again and perhaps consider holding a debate on, or a review of, the new rules and sittings before the end of the current Session?

I certainly do not accept that we have a two and a half day week. As Leader of the House, when I programme business I do so for the full four days and I expect Members to make themselves available for those full four days. Long before the hours were changed, Select Committees and Standing Committees frequently met at hours during which the House itself was sitting—normally after 4 o'clock. Committees now have the opportunity to sit earlier in the afternoon. There may be a particular problem at present, due not to the change in hours but to the large volume of legislation and the large number of Standing Committees. However, that problem will ease as the months proceed and I anticipate that, as that happens, some of the present difficulties will resolve themselves.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the hours issue was part of the overall modernisation package, which was designed to improve scrutiny, and that some hon. Members focus on hours because they find fundamental change difficult in their own personal way of doing their jobs and working? Indeed, is it not the case that some hon. Members suggested that they could not cope with the change after only two or three weeks? May I fully endorse the view that they will need some time to become totally accustomed to the new hours and that those hours should be considered in the wider context of scrutiny, which now involves using the whole Palace of Westminster—Westminster Hall, Select Committees, Standing Committees and the Chamber—more effectively?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the very important work that is done by hon. Members in Select Committees, Standing Committees and Westminster Hall, and I personally regret that that very important work does not attract the same attention as work in the Chamber. I would add that I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the point of changing the hours was not to make life more convenient for us, but to make the Chamber more representative of those in the world outside who elect us.

If the Leader of the House is so confident that his new hours have met with wide approval, why will he not give the House another opportunity to vote on them, rather than saying that they should be revisited only in the next Parliament?

I am saying that precisely because that is what Parliament itself agreed to last October and, certainly in the case of Tuesday sittings, by a very large majority indeed. [Interruption.] I am sorry—Thursdays. I have seen no evidence to suggest that, if the matter were put to the House again, there would a majority for abandoning the 7 o'clock end.