What estimate he has made of the cost to the Scottish whisky industry of introducing a duty paid stamping scheme. [146391]

The Government have made it clear that we will proceed with tax stamps for spirits if the industry is unable to put forward an alternative proposal that would be as effective in tackling spirits fraud.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer; it may be an answer to something, but it was certainly not an answer to the question that I asked.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the last six Budgets, duty on Scotch whisky has been frozen, which has brought considerable benefit. That did not happen under previous Governments; it has happened because of the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The House knows that the problem is that spirits fraud has been rising year on year. It is estimated that about 16 per cent. of the spirits market has been subject to fraud, amounting to about £600 million. After many years of discussing those things with the industry, the Chancellor has said that we must do something about the problem. He believes that stamps offer the best way forward, but has made it clear that the door is open to the industry if it can propose something more effective. I understand that the industry has been speaking to Customs and Excise, but I am sure that most Members accept that no Government can put up with losing nearly £600 million a year because of fraud. That money could be usefully invested in services and other things. Something has to be done about the problem and if the hon. Gentleman has any good ideas, we should be happy to hear from him.

The Secretary of State will know that I am the secretary of the all-party group on Scotch whisky and that, along with colleagues on both sides of the House, I have made strong representations to the Government and to the Chancellor to ask them to try to find alternatives to the stamp duty. What part will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take in any representations that are made, in relation both to industry management and to the trade unions?

I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in whisky—I confess that I, too, take an interest in the subject from time to time.

Can the Secretary of State name even one leading figure in the Scotch whisky industry who is in favour of the proposal?

It is not surprising that people in the industry are reluctant to take responsibility for ensuring that tax is paid. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Government have two duties. First, we must do everything that we can to encourage industries, but, secondly, no Government can stand by and watch their revenue being systematically removed owing to fraud. I should have thought that the nationalists would accept that.

The Secretary of State will know that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) was not a Member when we persuaded the Treasury, in the last Parliament, not to bring in strip stamps. At that time, there was no doubt that the industry association and all those involved in the whisky and spirit industry accepted that there was massive fraud and that we had to do something about it. It is clear that we have to do something, but do we have to bring in this inefficient system that has already been used abroad and abandoned? I believe that the association will meet the Chancellor in February, so will the Secretary of State lobby at that time for a much broader survey of exactly how much fraud is going on? What is the source of the fraud and can we find a better way of dealing with it than strip stamping the bottles, which will cost small producers such as Whyte and MacKay in my constituency a disproportionate amount of money?

As I said, the Chancellor has made it clear that he is happy to discuss with the industry other ways to combat fraud. The problem is that those discussions have been going on for some years now and the amount of fraud has been growing year on year. We have reached a stage where, whether the fraud is £600 million or £100 million either side of that figure, an increasing amount of money is going missing from the Exchequer. Of course, there may be other ways to deal with the matter—that is what the Chancellor said—but, unless the industry can come up with another means that is just as effective and workable, he sees no alternative but to introduce the tax stamps. To do nothing and pretend that the problem will somehow go away seems foolish because all the evidence shows that fraud is increasing year by year. Let no one forget that we have frozen the duty on whisky for six successive Budgets. The Chancellor has said that he intends to continue that for the rest of this Parliament, but he can do so only if we do something about the fraud that is being perpetrated in the industry.

Given the Government's borrowing requirement of £120 billion for the years to 2006, one might have thought that they would want to encourage one of Scotland's most successful trade and revenue-generating industries to fund their burgeoning deficit. Did the Chancellor consult the Secretary of State before the pre-Budget report and the announcement paving the way for this damaging whisky tax stamp proposal? If so, why did he not veto it?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not expressed any concern about the fraud that is being practised on the spirits industry. As for Budget deficits, he was not a Member at the time, but those of us who have been Members for some years will remember that Government borrowing rose to astronomical levels when the Conservative party was in office. The borrowing that we have today is not only manageable, but a small proportion of the amount borrowing compared with our competitor countries, never mind what happened in the past.

What assessment he has made of the implications for Scotland of the Miles report on housing finance. [146392]

The interim report by David Miles on the UK mortgage market was published on 9 December 2003. The Government will consider it carefully and look forward to the final report, which is due by the 2004 Budget. It would therefore be premature to make any assessment specifically for Scotland.

When the Government come to consider the final Miles report, and also the Barker report, will she make it clear to the Treasury that the problems associated with volatility and shortage of supply in the housing market affect not just the south-east of England, but places such as Edinburgh as well? Will she use her good offices with the Treasury to ensure that, if any pilot scheme emerges from the reports, my constituents in Edinburgh, who often have difficulty affording housing in the city, will benefit from those reports?

Many of us share my hon. Friend's understanding of the hot spots in the housing market in Edinburgh, and even my own constituency of Stirling faces significant difficulties. I reassure him that the Scottish Executive are fully engaged with the Miles report. In fact, I hope that his comments about including Scotland in any pilot areas that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may embark on will be fully taken into account.

In his interim report, Professor Miles states that there is

"a poor understanding of risk"

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. One of the difficulties, particularly with those on fixed or lower incomes, is perhaps that they do not appreciate the full risk that they are taking on, partly because of poor advice when they take on that debt. The Miles report is only an interim one and has made no recommendations, and David Miles has said that he wants to discuss issues related to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes with the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.

What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about cross-border health issues. [146393]

I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of subjects.

Unlike that answer, I would like to be helpful to the Government. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Labour Government supported—and many Scottish Members voted for—foundation hospitals for England, but that the Scottish Executive took a different decision. Should we not be seeking the provision of the best possible health care for all people of the United Kingdom? If foundation hospitals are supposed to provide that for the people of England, will he share with me the reason why the Scottish Executive reached a different decision and opposed foundation hospitals in Scotland?

They did so because they were entitled to take that decision. The whole point and consequence of devolution in Scotland, Wales and London is that it is open to the devolved bodies to take different decisions on devolved matters. That is a logical consequence of devolution, and it is why the Scottish Executive took that decision.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the publication of Scotland's proposed sexual health strategy? While the number of people dying from AIDS in Scotland has been dramatically reduced, is he aware that those who survive face a growing threat from resistance to anti-HIV drugs? Will he encourage Ministers in the Department of Health to consult their Scottish counterparts on that and other HIV issues, not least because the number of people diagnosed with HIV in Scotland is again approaching record levels?

My right hon. Friend is right to raise a matter in which he has long taken an interest. It took people a long time to realise how serious HIV and AIDS were, especially in Scotland. It took longer than it should have done for people to realise that action needed to be taken. I know that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the Scottish Executive share the same concern. The last thing that we need is to become complacent about HIV and AIDS, because they are as much a threat now as they were all those years ago.

The Secretary of State will be aware that Scotland is losing four out of 10 of its newly trained medical graduates. Does he think that that figure will increase or decrease when England secures better finance and resources for foundation hospitals?

Scottish universities get a higher portion of funding per head of population than universities in England at the moment. The big issue is to ensure that we get more funding into all universities, both north and south of the border. The Government have been increasing funding. The issue in relation to student finance in England is making the system fairer and getting rid of top-up fees up front—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is against that. We must ensure that there is adequate funding for Scotland and England over a long period. We have found over the years that other countries have done better than us. The people who oppose the legislation that we shall discuss in the House shortly must ask themselves how they would get more money into higher education. The hon. Gentleman does not have an answer for Scotland, and he certainly does not have an answer for elsewhere.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents travel to Cumbria, and Carlisle in particular, to avail themselves of both basic and specialist NHS treatment? Is it not the duty of every hon. Member to participate in debates and vote on a truly national health service for the entire UK?

We are all Members of the House and we vote as we think appropriate. I was interested by an article that appeared today inThe Scotsman. The Conservative spokesman on Scotland seems to take the same view, because I note that he voted for the Mersey Tunnels Bill. It is difficult to conceive how that legislation could possible affect Scotland. He also voted for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. The article reports that he said in mitigation that

"on occasion he may have voted in error for a matter only of concern to England".

When he last met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss the Scottish fishing industry. [146394]

I regularly meet representatives of a wide range of organisations in Scotland, and I keep in close touch with developments affecting the Scottish fishing industry.

We all wish the Scottish Fisheries Minister, Ross Finnie, well in his present medical condition. Last Thursday, however, he said that the fishing deal in Brussels had an "unintended consequence" and he might have to go back to Brussels to change parts of it. The deal is vital for the survival of the white fish fleet in Scotland, so can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will give Mr. Finnie his full support as a Cabinet Minister and participate in those discussions?

I echo the hon. Gentleman in wishing Ross Finnie well for his forthcoming operation. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House send him their best wishes.

It is correct that there was a significant and welcome increase in the haddock quota and a breakthrough establishing the twin principles of decoupling and spatial management. The Minister will know that there is some concern about the operation of the cod box, which is a designated area north of the Hebrides in which cod fishing is banned. However, we have ended up with a ban on all fishing in that area, including pelagic fishing and the potting of crab. The Minister will know from her own family experience of the crab industry that it is not particularly easy to catch a cod in a crab pot, so the cod box may need to be adjusted. Will she take that on board and raise it in discussions with her colleague, the Scottish Fisheries Minister?

I should say for the sake of clarification that I do not moonlight as a lobster or crab fisherman, but my hon. Friend is right that I have some knowledge from family associations of the fishing industry and the difficulties experienced by fishermen who go out in all kinds of weather to catch the fish that we like to eat. I accept the point that he made, and I am sure that similar representations were made last week to Ross Finnie, who has given a commitment to look at such issues.

Will the Minister confirm one positive benefit to Scots fishermen accruing from 30 years' membership of the common fisheries policy?

If that is a coded question about whether I think we should withdraw from the European Union, I am afraid that I am not going to fall for that bait no matter how attractively it is packaged. I remind the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and people who criticise the common fisheries policy—we all have our criticisms of the CFP—that had it not been in place, we would have had to reach an international agreement about how we manage fishery stocks, particularly in the North sea and around our coast. I hope that he at least has the courtesy to recognise that we came out of those negotiations with a better deal than anything that was ever negotiated by his party.

We did not do very well with that question. Is the Minister aware of comments by the Scottish Executive, who said that the objectives of the December Council had been achieved, including

"better outcomes for fishing businesses and better outcomes for fishing communities"?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not willing to face the reality. The difficulty that must be balanced by our Fisheries Ministers at Westminster and in Scotland and the European Union is that there is a conservation issue, as well as a fishing issue. I am deeply sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not willing to recognise that one of the challenges that we face in managing our fisheries is how we conserve them so that there will be a future for the fishing industry and for fishing communities, including members of my own family, across the whole of Scotland.

What devolution issues she has considered since 2 December 2003. [146406]

What devolution issues have been raised since 2 December 2003. [146407]

What devolution issues have been raised with her since 2 December 2003. [146408]

What devolution issues she has considered since 2 December 2003. [146409]

What devolution issues she has considered since 2 December 2003. [146410]

I consider all devolution issues that are intimated to me. Since 2 December 2003, there have been 32 devolution issues. Two of them arose in the civil area, while the rest concerned criminal matters such as pre-trial delay, failure to communicate information required by sea fishing measures, and the use of sexual history evidence in trials.

In relation to the current debate about our proposals for the new supreme court, what advantages does my hon. and learned Friend consider the proposals have over the existing arrangements for the Privy Council in connection with the Scottish legal system?

Considerable representations have been made on the matter. In my personal experience, appearing both in the Privy Council and the House of Lords, legal principles and disputes do not necessarily fall into easily defined categories. They have a nasty habit of spreading across into other areas. Thus, a devolution issue before the Privy Council may raise more general principles that in other cases are considered by the House of Lords. One possible advantage of a supreme court would be that only one superior court would exist to decide such cases. But there are, as my hon. Friend knows, a range of issues that a number of Members of Parliament have raised, as well as many other groups, all of which are being considered by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Sticking with the supreme court, does the Advocate-General agree with her fellow members of the Faculty of Advocates who recently concluded that the current proposals for a UK supreme court were unconstitutional? If she disagrees, can she tell the House why?

The proposals are being considered along with other proposals. If there were any suggestion that there was any illegality in the proposed arrangements, that might be referred to me as a Law Officer but, on the general issues, there is no question, in my view, of their being unconstitutional, in the sense of illegal. They may be politically controversial, which is another matter altogether.

Does the Advocate-General share the view of Lord Hope of Craighead, who, with regard to the creation of a supreme court, told the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 2 December last year:

"what we are talking about, when we are talking about a final court of appeal in Scottish cases, is an amendment of the Court of Session Act, which is a Scottish Act, which really is under the supervision of the"

Of course I defer entirely to Lord Hope, particularly when I am appearing in front of him, but in other areas of dispute, it depends how the proposals are brought forward. These matters are all still being considered.

At the European Fisheries Council meeting in December, a decision was taken that placed certain restrictions on Scottish fishermen fishing in the North sea, but the same restrictions were not imposed on fishermen from other European countries. Surely that is illegal under the treaty of Rome. Does the Advocate-General agree that that is illegal discrimination?

If there was a substantive case of that being illegal discrimination, no doubt someone might raise it as a devolution issue. In that case, I should be happy to consider it.

Has the hon. and learned Lady been asked to give her advice on the constitutional implications of the West Lothian question of Scottish Members of Parliament being allowed to vote on laws that will apply exclusively in England? If a test case were brought, which Law Officer would act as adviser?

I shall be delighted to see any test case that is brought and to consider it. I am sure that such a case would raise interesting issues. On the general question, the constitutional issue that the hon. Lady mentions seems to me a political controversy, not a legal one.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on energy policy. [146395]

I have regular contact with the First Minister across a range of subjects.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving such a full reply. What action is he taking to ensure the security of the electricity supply in view of the fact that thousands of homes and businesses lost electricity in southern Scotland over new year? Will he consider the undergrounding of domestic supplies before we have to import our electricity supply, by 2012 or 2020, from external, independent, third-country dodgy suppliers?

There are two points there. First, the hon. Lady is right to be concerned at any interruption in electricity supplies. Over the past few months, there have been some quite serious disruptions to electricity supplies not only in Scotland, but in London and other parts of England. The Department of Trade and Industry, my Department and others are looking at the matter, first to find out exactly what happened and secondly to take appropriate action.

What representations he has received on where the proposed UK supreme court should sit when considering devolution issues. [147116]

I have received a wide range of representations on the proposal for a UK supreme court, including a small number referring specifically to where the court should sit. I will publish the responses to the consultation shortly. Various options for the main permanent base of the supreme court are being considered, although the Government believe that, as a UK court, it should be located in the UK capital city. That will not preclude it from sitting elsewhere in the United Kingdom from time to time. It would be for the supreme court itself to decide when it was appropriate to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. When he considers the matter further, will he bear it in mind that the White Paper on Scotland's Parliament, which was published back in 1997, said at paragraph 4.17 that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, when dealing with devolution issues, might sit in Edinburgh "as appropriate"? That has never happened, as he will be well aware. Will he find out why not and also consider why there should therefore be a requirement on the new supreme court to sit from time to time, when considering devolution issues, in Edinburgh or elsewhere in the UK as appropriate?

My hon. Friend comments on the consultation paper—I think that he responded to it—that contained a proposal to consider transferring the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of devolution issues to the new United Kingdom supreme court. As I said in my earlier answer, it might be appropriate for such a supreme court to sit in places other than London around the country, but that would be a matter for it and would be subject to logistical questions. I am not closed-minded on that.

Is it not abundantly clear, not least from the evidence of Lords Cullen and Hope and the Faculty of Advocates, that the Government have completely failed to understand the Scottish dimension of what they are proposing with the supreme court? Given that we still have no idea where the court will eventually sit—to the extent that the Lord Chancellor has suggested that it may end up camping out in the House of Lords—should we not take time to get this very important reform, which many of us support wholeheartedly, right rather than rushing it through so haphazardly?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of having a consultation paper in respect of any subsequent legislation is to scrutinise such matters in much more detail. We will look very carefully at the representations made about the location of the supreme court. I believe fundamentally that, as a UK supreme court, it should be located in the UK capital city. As I said, however, that will not preclude it from sitting in other parts of the country from time to time.

If my hon. Friend looks at the evidence that has been given so far to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, he will see that many other concerns have been raised. May I press him on his answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Surely a pause in the consultation process and an extension of the timetable would give the House, and the country, the opportunity to have a proper, firm set of proposals on replacing the current system. I do not oppose the proposals, but more time is needed.

I understand that my hon. Friend and the Constitutional Affairs Committee have been looking at those matters, and we are happy to have that dialogue and to learn from any suggestions that they might make. However, an inordinate delay would not be in the interests of the proposal. It is right that we should undertake a consultation process, analyse and respond to the responses, and introduce legislation—and that is what we intend to do.

What plans he has to amend the law relating to party funding. [147117]

The current law on party funding is fully in line with the recommendations made by the Neill Committee in 1998. The Electoral Commission is undertaking a review of all aspects of party funding. It is due to conclude its considerations this summer, and we will consider its recommendations carefully.

The Minister may recall the Prime Minister telling "Newsnight" in 2002:

"If I could get shot of ever raising a single penny for the Labour party ever again, would I not do it? Absolutely, of course I would."

There is not yet a consensus on state funding, as we heard from the reaction to the hon. Gentleman—although he usually gets that reaction. Given that the state already funds the Conservative party to the tune of £4.3 million and the Liberal Democrats to the tune of almost £2 million, a considerable amount of public resources already go to the hon. Gentleman's party and others. It is important, however, that we continue to talk about such matters, and consider the recommendations of the Electoral Commission when it reports this summer.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to rule out any consideration of state funding for parties, despite the pleas of Liberal Democrat Members—and does he agree that this is a question of rights? I contribute to the Labour party because I choose to do so; I do not want to pay through my taxes for the campaign of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), or of any other Opposition Member.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course it is good for any party to be a volunteer party—that is, for fund-raising to be by choice. Judging by the amount of expenditure at the last general election, there was no shortage of money available. Additional scope for funding already exists in the form of parliamentary allowances, policy development grants from the Electoral Commission, Short money and so forth. The Electoral Commission is aware of the situation and will report on it.

What the hon. Gentleman says is all very well—we accept that there is a degree of indirect state funding in that regard. Does he accept, however, that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) spoke for many Members on both sides of the House when he urged that it should not be increased? We do not want our ordinary party political activities to be funded by the state, and I hope that the Minister and the Government will turn their face against any such ridiculous suggestion.

The hon. Gentleman reflects the views of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Electoral Commission—the independent expert in this field—will no doubt make its recommendations, which we will consider very carefully. I do not want to have a closed mind on the subject at this stage.

Whether the Government intend to separate membership of the second Chamber from the honours system. [147118]

The Government do not plan at this stage to break the link between the life peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Our Bill will, however, propose ending the link between the hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the royal commission on Lords reform, which the Government established, made a clear and unanimous recommendation that the award of a peerage and membership of the House of the Lords should be "completely distinct"? Whatever else we do on House of Lords reform, will he give an undertaking finally to separate being awarded an honour from service in the second Chamber of Parliament?

What my hon. Friend says about the royal commission is true. Last February, however, there were discussions and a lack of decision on the composition of the second Chamber. That has considerably changed the landscape. We will introduce a Bill to make incremental progress when we can, but our minds are not closed about future changes that may be required. Some issues may need resolving later.

When it comes to separating honours from political power, what is the Under-Secretary's verdict on the people's peers who signed a contract to work in the Lords, yet have never even bothered to turn up? How does he reconcile his party's promise, which was binding in a contract with the people called a manifesto, to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative, with the subsequent contrary policy that it will be all appointed?

To take the hon. Gentleman's first point about the appointments process, the proposals in the Bill to create an independent statutory appointments commission will not only remove patronage from the Prime Minister but allow general election results to be reflected in the process. That is a step towards a more democratic and legitimate system, although I accept that there may be a need for further discussion beyond the Bill. I believe that the Lords do a good job with the work that they contribute. When we consider the Bill we shall discuss a statutory appointments commission, so that appointments can be made on merit in future.

But are we getting value for money from the House of Lords Appointments Commission? It is almost three years since the first batch of people's peers was appointedca—and as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, we do not hear much from them.

I am not sure whether it is fair to generalise in that way. Different Members of both Houses will have different records in Parliament. However, I believe that it is our job—and especially mine—to examine the framework in which appointments are made, and that the Bill will be firm about the way in which we structure a statutory appointments commission to ensure that we have good criteria for appointments in future.

When he next expects to meet representatives of the magistracy from East Anglia to discuss court closures. [147119]

I have no current plans to meet representatives of the magistracy in East Anglia to discuss court closures—not least because there are no planned court closures in East Anglia.

I am pleased to hear that. I am sorry that the other Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) is not answering this question, because we have had previous exchanges on this subject.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that in the last year of the previous Administration, 21 courts were closed. As I said, I do not intend any courts to be closed in East Anglia at the moment, and the magistrates courts committees do not have any plans to do so either. I shall keep his suggestions under review and I am glad that we have already been able to hear a small number of appeals on magistrates courts and to allow some of them, thus preventing more closures than have been prevented in any other year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to secure the future of courthouses in rural parts of East Anglia and elsewhere in the United Kingdom is for him to reassure the magistracy—I declare an interest, as a member of the Magistrates Association—that the decisions will be placed in the hands not of short-sighted accountants who cannot see beyond the next balance sheet, but of people who appreciate the value of local courthouses with local magistrates dispensing justice locally?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that we have sufficient local courthouses to administer local justice. However, we must make sure that we respond flexibly to modern circumstances, and that we have adequate facilities for victims, witnesses and so on. Those are the considerations that we have borne in mind when considering the resources in the magistrates courts estate across the country.

Does the Minister not recognise that far too many courthouses in rural areas have already closed under this Government? About 100 courts have closed since they came to power. It is not acceptable simply to say that there may not be so many closure plans in the future. The real problem is that the Minister's Department boxes in local magistrates courts committees and makes it more or less inevitable that any small courthouse will fail to meet Government criteria. The Government must recognise that local justice is more important than their obsession with the tick-box culture and political correctness.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly seeking some line of attack on the closure of magistrates courts. I remind him that we are not planning any such closures in East Anglia, and that 21 closures took place in the final year of the Conservative Administration. That compares with the 10 courts that closed last year. This year we have allowed more appeals than ever before, which has ensured that fewer courts are closing. We have to look at each case on its own merits. We are also building new courts—for example, in Ipswich and in Cambridgeshire. That is a sensible way to move forward.

What progress he has made since 2 December 2003 regarding lawyers' fees for former miners' claims for compensation and the role of the office for the supervision of solicitors. [147120]

The Law Society's compliance board is urgently investigating the claims made in this House that some solicitors have inappropriately charged additional fees in compensation cases for mining-related diseases. The board is also investigating the basis on which the charges have been made. I am expecting to hear from the Law Society later this week.

I thank the Front-Bench teams both in the Department for Constitutional Affairs and in the Department of Trade and Industry, on behalf of hon. Members of all parties, for their speedy response to the problems faced by former miners and their widows. Those people have been ripped off—to use the technical legal expression—by being charged extra fees over and above those charged by the DTI. Will the Minister also look into the claims-handling companies, which are just as involved in this malpractice? I understand that a company called Vendside has taken millions of pounds in fees from the DTI. My hon. Friend has done a great job helping former miners and their widows, and I hope that he will also look into the claims companies.

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in campaigning on behalf of miners in this matter. I undertake to investigate the matters in respect of claims companies that he has raised, and to write to him about them. The Clementi review, which was set up by my Department, is looking into regulation in this sector, and there will be some proximity to claims companies. This is a serious matter, and I look forward to what the Law Society has to say later this week.

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), it is true that Union of Democratic Mineworkers officials Neil Greatorex and Mick Stevens have paid themselves six-figure salaries through a subsidiary company established—with the Government's active co-operation—to process claims. Will the Minister confirm that the remit of the Law Society's office for the supervision of solicitors includes such companies, which subcontract the legal work and then charge miners and their families up to £500 for the privilege?

Solicitors are required by their rules of conduct to agree with clients the basis for charging from the outset of a case. In the absence of a specific agreement, the Law Society would view as improper any subsequent deduction. That is why the matter, which falls clearly and squarely within the Law Society's remit, is so serious. We must wait to see the outcome of the investigations that are continuing.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in the cases of many miners in my constituency, the Law Society of Scotland has decided already? They were underpaid before 1999, and then received a payment of £1,000. Because of the advice of lawyers, they are now receiving payments in excess of £10,000, £12,000 and £15,000. Will the Minister investigate to determine that the same is not happening in England and Wales?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we keep a close eye on what arrangements take place in Scotland. Those are different from the arrangements in England, but clearly in this case there is a perception of unfairness, and some merit in that perception.

What steps he is taking to ensure that adequate legally aided advice and representation is available to asylum seekers. [147121]

The Government want to ensure that legal aid is targeted properly on those genuine and complex cases that can demonstrate the need for it by passing the merits test. All asylum seekers meeting that test have access to appropriate advice and representation. The Legal Services Commission constantly monitors supply to ensure as far as possible that, as in all areas of law, sufficient quality suppliers exist to meet the needs of asylum seekers.

I thank the Minister for that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—or rather, I thank him for that answer. He will be aware that I have written to him that Darby's, the last city-centre firm in Oxford, has withdrawn from publicly funded legal aid for asylum seekers. The Legal Services Commission wrote to me that

"we did make DCA Ministers aware during the consultation process"—

"that firms are threatening to withdraw if the proposals go ahead and if remuneration rates are not reviewed."

No is the short and simple answer to that question. There were three suppliers in Oxford providing asylum and immigration advice. One of those has withdrawn, but we are presently in a bid round, and three suppliers have expressed an interest. If those three suppliers get the contracts, there will still be three suppliers in Oxford. As Oxford is not a large dispersal area, that provision is adequate.

To ask the Leader of the House what assessment he has made of options for post-legislative scrutiny. [147108]

Some argue that Parliament should do more to monitor the effects of legislation passed. Departmental Select Committees can do that at present if they wish, but I am open to suggestions as to how the matter can be taken forward.

With a Government who churn out legislation, create new offences by the hundred—more than 660 before last summer—and have new Home Office Bills such as antisocial behaviour Bills, asylum and immigration Bills and criminal justice Bills queuing up for attention, we often see measures taken that are considered to be the panacea for a particular ill, but are then repealed or replaced even before they are implemented. Is not there a strong case for Parliament to take a reasoned view of what happens after Acts leave this place and how they work in practice, and to examine the consequences of what we pass for the public whom we are trying to serve?

There are two issues in that question. The first is the list of Bills to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Is he suggesting that we should not be doing something about illegal human trafficking? Is he suggesting that we should not be doing something about antisocial behaviour? Is he suggesting that we should not crack down on criminals who are evading the net of justice? The way in which he and his colleagues have sometimes voted suggests that that is indeed Liberal Democrat policy. On the wider point about procedures in the House, he has a good argument. I am sympathetic to the case for post-legislative scrutiny. It is important that the impact of the Acts that the House passes is evaluated properly. As for how that can be done, several ideas exist, some of which the Modernisation Committee canvassed a few years ago. I do not want to overload departmental Select Committees, which are the obvious vehicles for such post-legislative scrutiny. On the other hand, we need to find a way forward.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that I had the privilege of leading for my party in Committee on the Child Support Act 1991, which was introduced by Baroness Thatcher, and that everyone agreed with those principles, but that because we had not consulted battered wives or Families Need Fathers, we have had to make four or five subsequent efforts to try to get that legislation right? Such considerations apply to all parties. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we listened to such groups earlier in the process we would avoid problems? Progress is no faster if we rush legislation through this place; it is better to have full consultation and get things right—as he may feel that we could have done on foundation hospitals and university fees.

My hon. Friend has advanced a powerful argument in respect of the Child Support Agency. I remember finding, as a constituency Member, that the Act was proving a disaster within weeks of its implementation. He has also made a strong case in respect of post-legislative scrutiny, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) —but the stronger case is for pre-legislative scrutiny, for which he has also been a powerful advocate. As he knows, the Government have been introducing more and more Bills that have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, so that there is proper consultation and we get things right. Sir Humphrey does not always get things right.

The Leader of the House is absolutely right: both pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny are very important, relevant responsibilities of the House. He is also right to stress the importance of Select Committees, especially in the context of post-legislative scrutiny. My own Procedure Committee is currently dealing with the consequences of devolution for the House. If the Leader of the House agrees with me that post-legislative scrutiny is the responsibility of Select Committees, will he ensure that they have the staff and resources that will enable them to perform that function?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have improved resources. His Committee and others play a valuable role, and I am grateful for the work that he does. There are a number of issues associated with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. If we gave departmental Select Committees extra responsibilities for post-legislative scrutiny on a systematic basis—of course, they sometimes do the job voluntarily—we would have to consider not just increasing resources even beyond their present level, but the size of Committees and whether Sub-Committees should be established for particular purposes. I know that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Liaison Committee have strong views on that, but if a solution can be found, I am willing to look for it.

To ask the Leader of the House how many draft Bills have been subject to online consultation. [147109]

Only one draft Bill, the draft Communications Bill in 2002, has so far been the subject of an online forum. However, all draft Bills are subject to online scrutiny to the extent that they are published on the Parliament website, and all Select Committees have published e-mail addresses to which the public may send comments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that online consultation does not mean a choice between Pentiums and Parliament, but is a way of involving the silent majority in the legislative process, and another step in the evolution of Parliament?

Yes, I do agree. I think that online consultation involving online forums is the way forward. These are, of course, matters for the Committees themselves, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has expressed his support for that type of consultation, which benefits the reconnection of Parliament with the voting public in many ways.

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that what made the online forum considering the Communications Bill so effective was the high quality, well organised moderation of the questionnaires that were sent out electronically, and of the replies that came back? What discussions has he or the Leader of the House had about this, and what is being done to make such facilities available to all Select or Joint Committees that want to undertake online scrutiny? Is it not true that there has been no similar forum since then because the arrangements have not been properly established, and should the hon. Gentleman not get a grip?

My right hon. Friend and I have got a grip, and I am pleased to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House will know that my right hon. Friend has written to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee opening discussions on the draft Bills that are to be scrutinised and the methods involved. As from this month, Select Committees and Standing Committees are webcast, so that the public can follow their proceedings, and arrangements for the online forum—a more in-depth and useful form of online consultation than a simple e-mail—will follow discussions with the Chairman on scrutiny of draft Bills.

To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to assess the need for child care facilities for hon. Members if the House were to revert to its former sitting hours. [147111]

My right hon. Friend has no such plans. He is aware, however, that many Members with young children find the new sitting hours beneficial, especially in the evenings.

Is my hon. Friend aware that half of all politically active women of all parties who were interviewed by the Equal Opportunities Commission cited the late sitting hours and the lack of child care as the main deterrents to standing for Parliament? Would not any change back to late night working without the introduction of child care strike a double-blow against the greater participation of women in the House?

Clearly there is that danger, and if press reports are to be believed, several Members, including Ministers, would, if the decision were reversed, have problems because of their own personal circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a statement last week at business questions about the way forward on this matter. We know that strong views are held throughout the House, irrespective of party-political affiliation, and the Modernisation Committee will examine how best to move matters forward.

What criteria are used in making decisions on allocating exhibition space in the House; and whether he will make a statement. [147112]

Dates for exhibitions in the Upper Waiting Hall are allocated by ballot, overseen by the Serjeant. Such exhibitions sponsored by Members must be non-commercial, non-controversial and nonpolitical. They also require the support of the appropriate Department and need to be endorsed by the Chairman of the Administration Committee.

I am grateful for that reply, but would the hon. Gentleman give some consideration to giving priority for exhibitions in the House of work done by local people in Members' constituencies—particularly the work of young people? That would enable them to connect with the House and ensure that Members and the public saw much of the good work that young people do.

That point is well made. I know that the hon. Lady takes an interest in these matters and that she has been unlucky in the ballot. I hope that she will persevere. The Chairman of the Administration Committee has some say over what particular exhibitions can be exempted from the ballot, and that is usually decided with reference to their specific relevance to Parliament. I invite the hon. Lady to make her views further known, and I shall certainly make sure that they are brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Administration Committee. I hope that she will keep trying.