When he next intends to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the economy in Scotland. [133806]

I met representatives of the STUC on 21 August to discuss a wide range of issues.

In this era of the knowledge economy, does the Secretary of State agree that the proposal by British Energy to move 150 top-quality engineering graduate jobs—and possibly another 150 indirect jobs—from Scotland to England is totally unacceptable? Does he further agree that a possible consequence of that proposal is the closure of a nuclear power station with another 500 jobs at risk? Will he assure us that he will do everything that he can, along with his Cabinet colleagues, the Scottish Executive and the STUC, to keep as many of those jobs in Scotland as possible?

My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that discussions between British Energy and its unions about those proposals are continuing. The headquarters will remain in Scotland; it is proposed that there will be about 85 redundancies, and following British Energy's taking responsibility for nuclear power stations both north and south of the border, it wants to bring together all the engineers and technicians who are responsible for the maintenance of those power stations. Hunterston and Torness power stations have a long time still to run, and, between them, they employ nearly 1,000 people in highly skilled jobs that are an essential part of the Scottish economy.

Obviously one of the industries that will dominate such discussions is fishing, which employs 42,000 people around Scotland's coastline. Has the Secretary of State had time to look at the scientific advice published last Friday by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea which shows North sea haddock stocks at 500,000 tonnes, the highest level since 1971? Why, in those circumstances, are fishing communities still suffering doubt and uncertainty about their prospects, instead of looking forward to a booming fishery?

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of a number of reports about fishing stocks.

This is the official ICES report.

There have been other reports. The important point is to make sure that we put in place a regime that will ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. The fisheries strategy unit, which the Government will attend, meets tomorrow. I have never yet heard the hon. Gentleman face up to the fact that we need to take steps to ensure that fishing stocks are preserved so that the industry has a long-term future. Instead, we constantly get the impression from him that there is no reason to conserve stocks at all. That cannot be right.

Does the Secretary of State agree that his recent announcement giving the go-ahead to the new Scottish air traffic control centre will make an excellent contribution to the Scottish economy, contributing as it will over £25 million a year to the Ayrshire economy?

My hon. Friend is right and she deserves a great deal of credit for fighting to get the UK's second air traffic control centre at Prestwick. That centre will control air traffic movements across the north Atlantic and the northern part of the UK, right down to Amsterdam. When it is completed, it will be the sixth largest air traffic control centre in Europe and will play an important part in the single skies air traffic control system. My hon. Friend is right to say that it will play a significant part in ensuring the future success of the Ayrshire economy.

When the Secretary of State next meets the STUC to discuss the economy in Scotland, what will he say about the rapid growth of the Scottish consumer debt mountain, which now stands at £26.5 billion? What measures will the Government take to ensure that the economic recovery will be sustainable, rather than a consumer debt-led boom?

The Government have put in place a range of measures to ensure a strong, stable economy. One reason that we have the highest levels of employment and the lowest levels of unemployment for a generation is that we have that stable economy. As the Chancellor has made clear, all our economic policies are geared towards ensuring that this country has sustainable long-term growth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend's stewardship that we have such a strong economy—one that is still growing when most of our major competitors have faced recession, have been in recession or, in some cases, are in recession.

Will my right hon. Friend raise with the STUC the importance to the Scottish economy of shipbuilding, ship repair and ship refit work? Does he agree that the future aircraft carrier will, whatever its final size, be the biggest warship ever produced and holds the key to a long-term future for Rosyth dockyard? Will he work with the STUC to retain some of Scotland's top engineering skills and ensure that the aircraft carrier work begins on time?

My hon. Friend is right that the order from the Ministry of Defence for the aircraft carrier is of great significance to Scotland. Indeed, it shows the benefit of Scotland being part of the United Kingdom, as defence is a crucial part of our economy. The MOD continues to work on the specification of the new aircraft carrier, but she is right to emphasise its importance. She can rest assured that all my colleagues and I will do everything that we can to make sure that the work is carried out as quickly as possible.

Behind all the spin, is the Secretary of State proud of his Government's record since Labour came to office in 1997, under which economic growth in Scotland has been lower than in the UK? In fact, Scotland's gross domestic product, as he knows, has been lower in each successive quarter since 1998. Is he proud of that record?

I should have thought that, today of all days, the hon. Gentleman would have confined his predictions of gloom and doom to the party to which he belongs. We all look forward to the publication of many political diaries, but I strongly urge him to publish his quickly because it may become time-expired in the not-too-distant future.

I am full-time—the right hon. Gentleman is the part-timer.

The hon. Gentleman says that he is working full-time on his diary, which speaks volumes about where the principal Opposition party is today. Its members are writing diaries about their own downfall rather than concentrating on the real issues affecting Scotland.

What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive with regard to the use of powers granted by the Fireworks Act 2003. [133807]

May I echo the Prime Minister's congratulations last week to my hon. Friend on his excellent work in piloting that important measure through Parliament? I recently met the Minister for Finance and Public Services in the Scottish Executive to discuss a range of issues, including the Fireworks Act 2003.

I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Is she aware of the excellent educational drama "Toast", which South Lanarkshire community safety partnership is piloting in schools throughout Lanarkshire? Margaret Brunton, the council's home safety officer, said:

"This play is hard hitting and will hopefully make pupils think carefully before becoming involved in dangerous behaviour involving fireworks".

The issue of funding projects in Scotland is very much one for the Scottish Executive, and it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to tell them what to do. However, I am delighted to echo my hon. Friend's comments about that production's dramatic approach to firework safety, which I think is the ethic that underpins it. Not only have I heard of the company and its productions but I can tell hon. Members that it is going to Cathkin high school on 31 October, John Ogilvie high school in Hamilton on 3 and 4 November and Earnock high school in Hamilton on 5 November.

The Fireworks Act has been passed, but one of the biggest problems is controlling legislation and making sure that offenders are pursued. In today's papers there is a report of someone who launched a gerbil on the end of a rocket, which shows the mentality of some people in this country. Will the Minister assure the House that, whether they are members of the public or manufacturers, people who break the code will be pursued to the full extent of the law?

The Government are very much aware of the importance of making sure that firework legislation operates effectively. Like many hon. Members, I read reports of that sickening incident in today's newspapers. Legislation has been in place for a long time to deal with issues relating to the protection of animals. Indeed, as far back as 1912 it was an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to domestic or captive animals through the use of fireworks. I certainly hope that in this and other instances the authorities use the legal protection that is in place to ensure that people are not disadvantaged or discomfited and do not suffer fear or terror because of the abuse of fireworks.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there are proposals for the opening of a fireworks factory in my constituency. Yesterday that was the subject of some disturbing allegations in The Herald. Will she raise with the Scottish Executive the concern of my constituents, which predates yesterday's newspaper report? They fear for public safety and public order, and I ask my hon. Friend to take such action as is available to her so that my constituents can rest easy in their beds at night.

I read the article in yesterday's newspaper, and I understand my right hon. Friend's concerns. Planning and health and safety issues are involved. I assure her that I will raise the matters that she highlighted with the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister concerning student funding in Scotland. [133808]

I have frequent discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues, including that one.

The Secretary of State is presumably aware that there is cross-party consensus in Scotland against top-up fees. Does he intend to lead his Scottish troops into the Division Lobby at Westminster to vote to impose top-up fees south of the border, notwithstanding their damaging impact on the university sector in Scotland, or does he intend, unusually, to vote in favour of Scotland's interests and against top-up fees?

I am surprised, first, that the hon. Lady raised the question, because if she had her way, England would be a foreign country and she would have no influence whatsoever on the education system, and secondly, that she does not recognise the logic of what she is saying. Of course, Scotland's education system and the education system of the rest of the United Kingdom are inextricably linked. Both those facts make nonsense of her basic philosophy of independence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerns of many university principals in Scotland about the financial disadvantage that their universities, higher education institutes and research programmes will face with the selective introduction of top-up fees south of the border? Will he undertake to convey those fears, which were expressed to him at a recent meeting in Dundee, to the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education at the earliest opportunity?

Indeed, we had that discussion. I remember it well and my hon. Friend was present, which is why he recalls it so vividly. The First Minister has made it clear that, depending on the final shape and form of the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Scottish Executive will have to consider the implications. They are reviewing the matter at present. On higher education and university education in Scotland, I point out that funding per head in Scotland is significantly higher than it is in England. Moreover, the Scottish Executive have made additional funds available to Scottish universities, so the issue is not as simple as some people make out. Of course, we must ensure that, whatever the funding regime north and south of the border, we take account of the implications. Our overall objective must be, first, to make sure that more young people get into higher education—the Tories' policy would mean that fewer went to university—and secondly, we should put funding on a sustainable basis for the long term. None of the Opposition parties has any coherent plan for doing that.

As the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) have had a meeting to discuss this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman give us his assessment of the effect on Scottish universities and their students of the introduction of tuition fees in England?

As I have indicated, the system of support for universities and higher education in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. The First Minister has said that he will want to consider the implications of the proposals once they are finally published. The point that I was making is that, in considering these matters, we must look at every aspect of funding. At the moment, Scottish universities are better funded than their counterparts south of the border—something on which principals will no doubt want to reflect. Of course, legitimate points will need to be raised and discussed, and the First Minister has already said that that is precisely what he intends to do.

May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's assessment is that Scottish university funding will be cut because it is greater than in England? What discussions has he had or does he plan to have with his Scottish colleagues in this House who signed early-day motion 799 in opposition to the introduction of tuition fees?

The only proposal to cut funding for universities comes from the party for which the hon. Lady speaks. It proposes that fewer students will go to university. That is how it intends to pay for higher education in this country. Under the Conservatives, there would be fewer students, so there would be less money for all universities. That may be her policy, but it is not ours.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is enormously important that we encourage more young working-class Scots to take part in higher education?

Yes. One reason why the Scottish Executive looked at the funding of university students was to ensure that more young people came forward— especially those without a family tradition of going to university and those from disadvantaged families. It is very important that everyone who can possibly benefit from higher education does so. That is why I find the Conservative policy of paying for student finance by cutting the number of students going to university so difficult to understand.

What discussions he has had with (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) the European Commission regarding the implications for subsidised ferry services sailing from ports in Scotland of the recent European Court ruling in the Altmark case; and if he will make a statement. [133809]

In line with normal practice on European Commission issues, there have been discussions between officials of the Scottish Executive and the Department for Transport. However, the subsidy for ferry services in Scotland is devolved and tendering is a decision for the Scottish Executive.

Negotiations with Europe are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The European Court ruling made it perfectly clear that subsidised bus services no longer need to go out to tender, so it would be an anomaly if subsidised ferry services such as CalMac still had to do so. If the legal advice given to the Secretary of State is that the current rules mean that CalMac services would still have to go out to tender, will he go to Brussels and renegotiate the maritime regulations so that the tendering process can be abandoned? The process is expensive, time-wasting and diverts resources from the real job of improving ferry services in Scotland.

I reiterate that Scottish Ministers are responsible for all aspects of tendering of CalMac services. May I also alert the hon. Gentleman to the fact that his Liberal Democrat colleague Nicol Stephen, Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive, is at odds with his interpretation of the judgment? Yesterday, in a parliamentary answer, he said:

"The consequences of the Altmark case for ferry services are far from clear."

"As a matter of urgency, we will seek clarification of the legal position and raise the issue with the European Commission".

Is my hon. Friend aware of the sterling work done by her predecessor and his predecessor in trying to get the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry up and running again? Will she discuss with Nicol Stephen whether there is now a prospect of getting that ferry going at least for the summer season? If she is successful, will she invite all her predecessors to the first sailing?

My mother used to say that self-praise is no praise, but in the case of my right hon. Friend, such praise is truly justified, as he fought a doughty battle to ensure that the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry came on line. As he and the House are aware, there have been some difficulties in ensuring that a tender is allocated for the service. The matter has been totally devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but we keep a close interest in developments. I assure him that when the new line is open, I shall ensure that his name is at the top of the list for any invitation.

If he will make a statement on prospects for inward manufacturing investment in Scotland. [133810]

Inward investment continues to make an important contribution to the Scottish economy. The Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, provide support for the Scottish Executive's economic strategy and for the work of its inward investment agency, Scottish Development International.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Like all hon. Members, he will be aware that the Scottish work force has very high skill levels and a fine reputation for its work ethic. Is he concerned about the most recent quarterly trends survey by CBI Scotland, which reports that manufacturing orders are falling and that declining output is putting pressure on prices and jobs? I would not want the Scottish work force to suffer as a result of regulation and a lack of flexibility in the work force.

The hon. Gentleman is right that Scotland has very high skill levels. Although many industries have gone through a transitional period in which they faced difficulties, many people are buoyant about the prospects for Scotland's economy, not only because of its high skill levels, but because of the support that is provided in terms of the economy by the Government at Westminster and the Scottish Executive. For example, I noticed yesterday that Edinburgh university has set up a new £40 million science facility that could in time lead to many new jobs in an extremely skilled area where people are optimistic about the future. Of course we will take into account the CBI report, but generally the prospects for the Scottish economy are good, just as are the prospects for the UK economy, provided that we stick to our policy of providing a strong and stable economic environment. If we do that, everyone has good reason to be optimistic.

What devolution issues she has considered since 9 September. [133821]

What devolution issues have been raised with her since 9 September. [133822]

Since 9 September, 66 devolution issues have been intimated to me. The majority related to criminal law matters such as delay in bringing cases to trial, confiscation action under the proceeds of crime legislation, and the scope of the offences of breach of the peace and shameless indecency. In the civil arena, there were devolution minutes concerning prison conditions at Barlinnie and a significant number on the regime for recovering fixed penalty traffic fines.

Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that it would be in the public interest to make available to Lord Fraser the Wark Clements tapes on the true cost of the Scottish Parliament? What representations has she made or received in that regard and does she agree that it would be in the public interest to release that information, given that the Scottish Parliament paid for the making of those tapes?

I am sure that we are all very interested in the tapes. Fortunately, it is not my job to advise the BBC or the inquiry, but I shall certainly bring the hon. Lady's representations to the attention of the appropriate quarters.

None the less, can the Advocate-General say whether, given that broadcasting is reserved to Westminster, she is of the view that the BBC is acting in accordance with the Nolan principles of openness, honesty and leadership? Surely, she must agree that if it was it would make the evidence available forthwith.

It is a Scottish Executive inquiry and therefore not a matter for the UK Government. So far as the BBC's responsibilities are concerned, it has to be advised about contractual matters and any other matters that it thinks relevant. No doubt its legal advisers will take all such representations into account.

Has anyone raised with the Advocate-General the devolution implications of the fact that a majority of parties active in Scotland are in favour of a referendum on the European constitution?

No.

Will the Advocate-General discuss with the Lord Advocate whether Lord Fraser might be given additional powers to require the BBC to give the Holyrood tapes to the inquiry, given that that is in the public interest?

I am sure that the Lord Advocate has sufficient lateral thinking ability to consider those matters himself.

What assessment she has made of the implications for subsidised ferry services sailing to and from ports in Scotland of the recent European Court ruling in the Altmark case. [133823]

The operation of subsidised ferry services in Scotland is devolved. It is therefore for the Scottish Executive to consider what implications, if any, the Altmark case may have for ferry services in Scotland. In the event of a challenge in the Scottish courts, I would of course have to consider whether I wished to intervene if a devolution issue were raised.

Negotiations with Europe are the Government's responsibility, but if it were ruled that the subsidised ferry services did not need to go out to tender, the Scottish Executive could give the CampbeltownBallycastle route straight to CalMac without having to go through the long and involved tendering process. Could the Advocate-General please look at her law books and reach a conclusion? The present unfair situation helps no one.

The matter is complex, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. It is not as simple as he suggests for me to look at my law books and to come up with a solution, much as I should like to do so. As I have explained, a process is available that is similar in some ways to the process used in the Altmark case. A challenge was made in the German courts in that instance, and a reference was made to the European Court for clarification. Although there are parallels, the issues involved are not identical; but if the matter cannot be resolved by agreement, there is always the process whereby a challenge can be made and an authoritative ruling from the European Court of Justice can be obtained following an application by the Scottish courts to Europe.

If he will make a statement on limiting lawyers' fees in immigration and asylum cases funded by the Legal Services Commission. [134513]

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals in our recent consultation paper on publicly funded immigration and asylum work. We have now collated and analysed all 260 responses received. The Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs has also undertaken an inquiry, and is due to report shortly. We will consider its report along with other responses before any decisions on future policy are made.

As my hon. Friend knows, it is proposed that advice and assistance in such cases should be limited to five hours. Is he aware that expert lawyers have suggested to the Committee that that is insufficient time for the proper preparation of a case? More specifically, what proposals are there for extending the time in more complex cases?

We referred to possible exceptions on pages 8 and 9 of the consultation paper. We asked lawyers what they should be. The five-hour cap was based on a typical, average case. I have heard representations on more complex cases. I know that the Select Committee will be considering the issue, and we hope to present detailed proposals once it has reported.

:I hear what the Minister has to say, but the Law Society has expressed its determination to root out those who overcharge from the legal aid system. As the Minister may know, I have already called for reform of the system, and I welcome the accreditation system that the Government have come up with, but how can the Government believe that it will help legal aid, asylum seekers or the public interest if—as we have just heard—they try to cap the amount by imposing impossible targets for the amount of time that a case must take? I hear what the Minister says about pages 8 and 9 of the paper, but the plain fact is that trying to impose impossible targets is neither in the interest of legal aid or of the asylum seeker nor in the public interest.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the accreditation system. He will know that in the consultation document we referred to the establishment of a unique file number, and there was support for that as well.

Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the likely impact of the additional work on hon. Members' advice surgeries when asylum seekers who may previously have qualified for legal advice suddenly find that they no longer do so and expect us to do the work that the lawyers once did? That applies especially to diverse constituencies such as mine and, perhaps, my hon. Friend's.

I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to my constituency, which probably has the largest number of new arrivals in the country. Of course, we have listened carefully to parliamentarians on the matter. We spoke to the all-party group on refugees and I gave testimony to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. We are listening to Members of Parliament, lawyers and broader stakeholders. However, it is right to place some focus on the system because we know that there are lawyers who unscrupulously run through it asylum cases that should not gain support. Hon. Members have had much to say about that. Indeed, the Speaker wrote to the Lord Chancellor about the matter.

Order. The Minister should not give away secrets about the Speaker.

New policies on the issue appear to tumble from the Government at an extraordinary rate. That has led to the current shambolic position. Given that there are undoubtedly some vexatious and ill-founded appeals, and also some shysters who give unprincipled and incompetent advice, why, instead of dealing with them, must the Minister make it impossible for good, conscientious practitioners to do an adequate job for their clients? Will not that cost more in the long run in ill-prepared cases?

No, is the simple answer. The system is not a shambles. The Prime Minister said in September that he wanted the number of those arriving in this country to decrease from 9,000 to half that figure. The number is now under 4,000, which is a tremendous improvement. However, the budget has increased from £80 million to £174 million in three years and we must ensure value for money. Labour Members want to do that and I had hoped that our Liberal Democrat colleagues would support us in the enterprise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem lies with the decision-making process in the Home Office and that the real shambles occurs at the immigration and nationality directorate? If the decisions were made in a more appropriate way that was much more easily understandable, the amount of money spent on legal aid would be reduced. What discussions has he held with his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the flow of cases is streamlined and that decision making improves?

My hon. Friend knows that we have a single asylum fund and a joint ministerial board on which I sit with the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I went to Croydon to talk to caseworkers and ascertain what they are doing. Standards have improved; caseworkers now sample cases, they are supported by senior caseworkers and Treasury solicitors review a random selection of cases. That constitutes improvement and they want to do more. However, the Department for Constitutional Affairs must consider our contribution on legal aid.

What plans the Department has to hold an all-postal ballot in Scotland for the 2004 European parliamentary elections. [134514]

The European and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, which is currently in Committee, allows innovative voting methods to be piloted in one or more regions or nations of the United Kingdom in the 2004 European parliamentary elections. The Government have not yet decided where any pilot should be held. That decision will be made following advice from the independent Electoral Commission, which is currently considering the matter.

If the Government decided to proceed with an all-postal ballot in Scotland, it would be the largest of its kind ever undertaken. What measures would be taken to improve security, which has been a cause for real concern in the smaller pilot schemes?

Postal voting has been a feature of our electoral system for quite some time, and I am not convinced by the argument that it is any more prone to fraud or malpractice than conventional voting systems. Nevertheless, the Bill contains provisions to extend the time limit for prosecutions for electoral offences and to allow arrests for personation to be made outside polling stations as well as inside them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that those measures represent positive steps forward.

May I urge the Minister to hold this pilot in Scotland? There will be no local authority elections there next year, which would make it much simpler. Would he also care to hazard a guess as to why the Liberals, the nationalists and the Tories in Scotland do not want to make it easier for people to vote in the election?

Order. The Minister does not have to guess that; he just has to answer the first question.

Far be it from me to engage in party political banter; I would not want to go that far. Suffice it to say that I get a feeling that there is a keenness in certain regions and nations to have all-postal voting. Some of my hon. Friends have already made representations to me on this matter, and I am sure that Opposition Members will do so in due course.

The House and the world outside will no doubt be fascinated to know that, despite the Government's theoretical majority, the Bill that the Minister mentioned suffered a catastrophic defeat in Committee this morning because the Government were attempting to guillotine it and ram it through with indecent haste. Does the Minister recognise that the Government's attempt to introduce the Bill before the Electoral Commission has even finished its consultation, and to start the Committee stage only a bare week after the Second Reading—in which many hon. Members on the Government Back Benches signally failed to support the Government's own policy—shows that the Government are gerrymandering the constitution? Does he acknowledge that this is not the way in which important matters to do with elections should be dealt with in the House?

The hon. Gentleman was in Committee with me this morning, when there was a minor disagreement about timing and about when we should conduct some of the debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "You lost."] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will debate the Bill in Committee. It will proceed and we will ensure that innovative mechanisms, such as all-postal piloting and electronic voting, will take place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make more substantive points on policy issues in the future.

When the Secretary of State intends to complete the review of the not-for-profit contract issued to organisations offering legal services as part of the community legal service in order to incorporate retail prices index increases in salary scales; and if he will make a statement. [134515]

The Government are committed to the increasing contribution of the not-for-profit sector to legal aid work. The Legal Services Commission is currently reviewing the cost to the not-for-profit sector of providing publicly funded advice. A questionnaire will go out to suppliers in mid-November, and I hope to announce the outcome of the review early in the new year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It indicates that some progress has been made, which is a good thing. Does he agree that if we are to have a high-quality community legal service, it is essential that we should treat those who choose to operate in that area fairly? Will he guarantee that what happened this year will not happen again?

I know that my hon. Friend has been active in the north Bristol area, where the not-for-profit sector provides advice. He will know that there is an historic difference between the way in which we contract for advice with solicitors and the way in which we do so with the not-for-profit sector. Notwithstanding that, we want to see a greater contribution from the not-for-profit sector. The amount of money that we are contributing to it has increased from £35 million in 2001 to £51 million this year. There have been problems—that is why we are conducting the review—but I hope that we shall be able to come back in the new year and make some positive progress in this area.

Considering the overall cost of legal services, including the important not-for-profit sector, will the Minister keep his diary clear for Friday, by which time he will have in his hands the report on immigration and asylum cases to which he referred earlier? In the meantime, can he provide any guidance on whether there will be any savings, which could help the particular sector that we are talking about, arising from the Home Secretary's statement last Friday that 15,000 cases will not now go through the appeals system?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that many of those cases are old ones going back to the end of the 1990s. Many of the people involved have completed and gone through the appeals procedure. Nevertheless, we estimate that there will be a saving of about £13 million.

Will my hon. Friend require those who work for the community legal service to identify areas where local people have no access to legally aided advice and assistance—the so-called advice deserts? When they are identified, what will my hon. Friend do to fill the gaps?

We are conducting an entire review of legal aid, examining the supply, the purchase and the demand. We know, of course, that there are some rural areas where we have to keep a close eye on supply. However, I shall tell my hon. Friend about last year's figures. There were 2,909 providers on the criminal side and this year there are still 2,909 providers. On the civil side, there were just under 5,000 providers last year, and that number has dropped by 200 this year. So, talking about deserts is a bit strong. We want to guarantee that the great Attlee invention of legal aid will continue into the next century.

If he will make a further statement on reform of the House of Lords. [134516]

The Government published the consultation paper, "Next steps for the House of Lords" on 18 September, and the consultation period ends on 12 December. The Government intend to introduce legislation to reform the second Chamber as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Have not the Government been thoroughly irresponsible in beginning the reform of the House of Lords without having a clear idea of how it could be completed without detracting from the Lords' effectiveness as an amending Chamber? Will the Government now learn from their mistakes and opt for the status quo, leaving in place the 92 hereditary peers who exhibit integrity and independence and could never be accused of being the placemen for any Government?

No, I do not think that it is right to allow the hereditary system to continue. I believe that it is wrong for people to sit in Parliament by virtue of their birth and it is time that we moved forward on that. Yet again, I detect a split or division of view among Conservative Members—one of so many that it is difficult to see for the cracks.

May I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend that any future opportunity to determine the reform of the House of Lords will include a clear-cut opportunity for hon. Members to comment on how the regions and nations of the United Kingdom can properly have a voice in a second Chamber?

While appointments will continue to be a feature of the second Chamber, we have said in our consultation paper that it is right to look to tasking any future statutory appointments commission to reflect the need for regional and national diversity. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to take steps towards reform, but the door is not closed for the future and we shall continue a dialogue with the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform on those next steps.

When the Government introduce legislation, will they ensure that the long title is sufficiently broad to permit the House to consider amendments that would allow a more democratic solution?

I would not wish to pre-empt the Queen's Speech on the nature or timing of any future legislation. Suffice it to say that I understand that there remain differences of opinion on both sides of the House about the composition of the reformed upper House. I believe, however, that the status quo—the option of doing nothing—should not be taken. We are pressing forward where we can, and I believe that removing the hereditary peers will be a positive step forward.

What steps the Secretary of State will take to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the Crown prerogative. [134517]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on Public Administration is currently conducting an inquiry into the exercise of prerogative powers. The Government will respond to any recommendations it makes in the usual way.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that what we actually have in this country is not an unwritten constitution, but a constitution written in invisible ink? That includes the power to make war—perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us whether the vote in this Parliament has changed that by precedent. Does he agree that it is time to hold a candle to that paper, so that the citizens of this country, and also this Parliament, can know the rules under which we are governed?

I hope that my hon. Friend will give the Government a chance. We are already undertaking an enormous programme of major constitutional reform: making a proper separation of powers between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature; creating a supreme court; creating an independent judicial appointments commission; and reforming the House of Lords. I am sure that all matters are possible for review, but at this point in time I would like to see the Select Committee's report.

To ask the Leader of the House if he will bring forward proposals to revert to the previous sitting hours for the House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. [134528]

To ask the Leader of the House if he will take steps to reintroduce the sitting hours of the House for Tuesdays as they were before October 2002. [134530]

No. In October last year, a majority of Members voted to alter the sitting hours so that the House now sits from 11.30 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The Standing Orders were changed for the rest of this Parliament, which will allow us a sufficient period to make a considered judgment on the effect of the changes.

The new hours really are not working as they were originally intended to. On a personal level, I find that I cannot do anything like as many constituency visits to schools and community groups as I used to do. In my Select Committee, we find that our evidence sessions are badly squeezed so that we cannot properly scrutinise experts or Ministers. Even the public cannot visit the Chamber as frequently as they could before. Hon. Members are very good at being in two places at once, but now we find on Tuesdays and Wednesdays that we have to be in three, four or five at once, and we simply cannot do it. Many of those who voted—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the point.

My hon. Friend has made the point to me as well, in forceful terms. I understand the issues that he raises. There is a problem with constituency visits. Some Members have complained that the Chamber is locked in the evening, so they cannot bring visitors who may be dining with them into the Chamber. Such teething problems should be sorted out.

My concern is not constituency visits but the House properly holding the Government to account, and the Tuesday hours simply prevent us from doing that. They inhibit Back-Bench contributions in debate in particular. Given that the mood of the House has changed since that very tight vote on Tuesday hours, is it not time to revisit this question—or are the Government running scared of increased scrutiny?

We know who is running scared at this particular time, do we not? All the Conservative Members are chasing each other, running scared around the place. On the point that the hon. Gentleman raises—I respect his point of view on this and he is right to raise it—the fact is that there is now more scrutiny of the Executive and the Government than ever before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Oh, indeed there is. We have the Prime Minister answering questions at the Liaison Committee, topical questions are now allowed in the Chamber, and we have cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. The truth is that the number of hours that we sit now is exactly the same as before, so there is the same opportunity to hold the Government to account and to question Ministers. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a point about the hours—fair enough—but he cannot defend his position by saying there is less scrutiny; there is not.

Is it not clear that the change in hours is bringing the House of Commons into disrepute? It is very important that we are aware of how the general public regard a House that has so little respect for itself. The House is now prepared to sit only in the middle of the week and to ignore the views of its own Members. If the Leader of the House is following the interests of elected Members, he should bring to the House a simple device to get another vote to make clear what we really think.

My hon. Friend is one of the most doughty defenders of the House's independence and of its vital role in our constitution. I acknowledge that very freely, but this is not a question of how the public relate to the Chamber. The House sits for exactly the same number of days as before. We do not sit only in the middle of the week. We sit on Monday and Thursday, and on some Fridays—[Interruption.] Yes, sometimes we do sit on a Friday. However, the real issue is whether the public understand why it is that when the rest of the population work normal hours, we do not. Another element is how the public regard an institution that was almost unique in the world in sitting the hours that it used to sit. Other legislative bodies across the world sit more normal hours.

I congratulate the Leader of the House on what he has said today. There is clearly a difference of view on this matter. We should take stock as we would make ourselves look ridiculous if, having made a decision, we were to change our minds just a year later. We should let the House consider these matters at the beginning of the next Parliament, and in that way come to a considered view. The arguments about timetabling, for instance, may well be valid, but we should let the reforms settle down and make up our minds at the beginning of the next Parliament.

I very much endorse the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, in the sense that the House made a decision for the rest of this Parliament. There are strong views on either side of the argument, and I am listening to them. Specific points have been made about constituency visits, about the Chamber being locked too early in the evening, and about the timing of Standing Committees and Select Committees. We should try to resolve all such matters and see how things work out. If hon. Members feel that the new hours have not worked and there is an overwhelming desire to reverse the change, we will have a chance to do so when we have had time to judge the experience.

To ask the Leader of the House if he will bring forward proposals to allow Ministers from the House of Lords to answer questions in the Commons. [134529]

That is an interesting question. Of course, there is provision already for Ministers who are Members of the House of Lords to be questioned in the Grand Committees and in the new Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference, and Lords Ministers frequently appear before Commons Select Committees.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer, but "Erskine May" makes it clear that there is no reason why any Member of either House of Parliament should not speak on the Floor of either House, provided that permission were granted by both Houses. In the interim period before we have a wholly elected Second Chamber, would not it make more sense for Ministers from the House of Lords—and this applies especially to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who is about to bring forward very important legislation—to be able to be put to the test in this Chamber, in front of elected politicians?

Again, my hon. Friend makes another interesting point. He is right to say that Standing Orders in both the Commons and the Lords would need to be changed for what he describes to come about. However, the House may be interested to learn that precedents do exist. Commons Journal No. 99 records that in 1572 and 1604 Ministers who were Members of the House of Lords did answer questions. The Earl of Hertford and his brother, Mr. Seymour, were both ordered to the Bar and to sit on stools with their heads covered. I do not think that my noble Friend the Secretary of State would look forward to that.

I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that it is not necessary to go back five centuries in this matter. Is not it time to take up the suggestion, made by hon. Members of all parties, that all Ministers should be elected Members of this House? I suppose an alternative would be to wait until the other House is elected, but it will be difficult to pursue the problem and make matters more acceptable democratically until all Ministers are accountable to the electorate by some means or other.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but custom and practice is that the Government are held to account collectively and Ministers answer questions in both Houses to their respective Houses. Westminster Hall may offer an opportunity for an examination of the issue and the hon. Gentleman may want to put forward that suggestion.

To ask the Leader of the House what recent representations he has received regarding the arrangements for the parliamentary term in November. [134531]

I have received one letter from an hon. Member about Parliament's autumn calendar.

My question was meant to be about September, not November; the Table Office could not read my writing.

I will happily supply the hon. Gentleman with the costs and will put a copy of my reply in the Library.