What discussions he has had with the (a) First Minister and (b) Energy Minister on the Government's policies for renewable energy. [187626]

I have discussed renewable energy over recent months with both the First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Promotion of renewables is, of course, a devolved responsibility in Scotland.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He will be aware that renewable energy is unreliable and in most instances requires back-up from other sources, so the Government have asked the oil companies to take a special lead in that regard. Against that background, how can he justify parts of Scotland, such as the west of Scotland and the Isle of Skye, being blighted?

It is the case that it is best for energy to come from several different sources, but if we are to meet our environmental obligations, it is important to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewable sources. There are parts of Scotland in which the development of renewable energy has been welcomed for such reasons as job creation. I accept the hon. Lady's general point that if electricity is generated and transmission lines then have to be built or upgraded, it can be controversial. However, there is no getting away from the fact that in an economy such as ours, in which every single one of us depends on electricity, we need to generate the stuff as efficiently and effectively as possible, and that means having the right mix of supply.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is already aware that a week last Thursday at an anniversary celebration for 10 years of Talisman in the North sea, both the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and the First Minister made announcements. The First Minister made an announcement on the development of the Beatrice platform, which has huge wind turbines and has received investment from the Government, and the Energy Minister announced new developments for the Tweedsmuir field. Does the Secretary of State agree that that shows how Scotland and the UK working together will ensure that the energy needs of the north-east of Scotland and the rest of the country will come from a mix of oil and gas developments and renewable sources?

That is a very good point. Both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government—as well as industry—are working together so that we may increase the amount of energy generated from renewable sources. It is also worth bearing it in mind that over the summer the Conservatives came out against a lot of renewable energy generation. Most people who want to ensure that we have supply in the future will want us to have the right mix and, especially, to increase the amount of renewable-generated electricity because that must be good for the environment. As I said earlier, all such applications can be controversial, but most people, especially those in the north-east of Scotland who listened to last week's announcement, would have been pleased that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government were working closely together.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the recommended transmission charge by National Grid Company of some £22 per kilowatt for electricity generated in my constituency, which Scottish Renewables estimates will create a burden of some £75 million above that on similar producers in England? What can the Government do to ensure that that unfair burden is not levied on the nascent Scottish renewables industry?

I am aware of the proposals. There is provision in the Energy Act 2004 to provide relief from charges, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome. On electricity generation and the new scheme, it is important to bear it in mind that, as a result of the changes, the interconnnector charges that Scottish generators would otherwise have to pay when selling electricity to England and Wales will be removed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is important to ensure that there is a level playing field for generators throughout the country, although account must be taken of the inevitable costs incurred when electricity is transmitted. I am aware of his point and anxious to ensure that Scottish renewable energy generation is encouraged.

What factors are taken into account when assessing the quality of life in Scotland's communities. [187627]

There is no single indicator that can be used to measure quality of life. Indicators covering economic, social and environmental issues taken together can, however, reflect important factors affecting quality of life.

I thank my hon. Friend for her response, but does she agree that good quality, accessible health services are equally important to the quality of life of all our constituents? Will she use her good offices to remind local health boards such as Argyll and Clyde, which is reducing health services in Inverclyde, that the money that the Government are investing in health services is meant to serve all our communities?

My hon. Friend is right that the Government regard health as a priority for investment. I am aware that Argyll and Clyde health board is undertaking a major consultation on proposals on the future configuration of health services in the area, and I am sure that he will welcome its decision to extend the consultation period to 15 October, although, as he will understand, the provision of NHS services in Scotland is a devolved issue for the Scottish Executive.

Does the Minister accept that the indices of deprivation recently produced by Oxford university are being increasingly used to assess the quality of life in Scottish communities? Those indices are an improvement on what was used before, but from her constituency experience she will know that rural districts include areas of bad deprivation and severe poverty, with fragile economies and low wages. While I acknowledge the difficulties on the west coast of Scotland, can she give the House an assurance that rural areas will not suffer from the mindless application of indices of deprivation in future?

The new indices are an improvement on what was used before and take into account current income, employment, health, education, housing and access to services. The geographical areas studied each cover 500 to 1,000 people, and that approach is helpful to rural communities. The hon. Gentleman and I have met to discuss the subject, and if he would find it helpful I should be delighted to meet him again to see whether more refinement is needed to reflect the issues affecting rural communities.

While health policy is devolved, many drivers for change in the health services in Scotland apply across the United Kingdom, and include the European working time directive, the reduction in junior doctors' hours, the operation of the royal colleges, GPs' and consultants' contracts, and so on. Does she therefore agree first, that the House has a locus in the debate on the future of the health service in Scotland, and secondly, that we cannot solve the problems in the Scottish health service one hospital at a time? These are national problems affecting the national health service in Scotland and they need a national solution.

The reconfiguration of health services, particularly the acute services review in Scotland, has attracted a great deal of energetic and robust debate. However, it is a matter for the Scottish Executive, and it would be utterly inappropriate for me to comment on the way in which health boards carry out their functions.

What conclusions he has drawn in relation to Government policies for industry from his visit to Sun Microsystems at Linlithgow on Tuesday 31 August. [187628]

I was very pleased that my hon. Friend was able to join me to visit Sun Microsystems last week. Sun's investment in the Linlithgow plant demonstrates that the Government's policies and our management of the economy, allied to the Scottish Executive's enterprise strategy, are making Scotland the right place for such companies to do business.

How about expeditious freight links?

My hon. Friend makes a very good—and very short—point. He is right, and that is why the development at Edinburgh airport, which is now a major freight airport in the UK, is important. Companies such as Sun are anxious, however, to have further freight connections, perhaps at Prestwick or in other countries, where heavier goods could be transported to different parts of the world. However, we want to do everything that we possibly can to encourage companies such as Sun, which makes goods that are exported throughout the world, to thrive in Scotland, and we shall continue to do so.

If he will make a statement on manufacturing industry in Scotland. [187629]

The Government fully recognise the substantial role that manufacturing continues to play in Scotland's economy. We will continue to work with the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scotland's manufacturing industry benefits from the macro-economic stability delivered by the Government.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sure that she will admit that manufacturing growth in Scotland is lower than in England, but that is not the purpose of my question. Does she not agree that manufacturing industry is one of the few sources of non-inflationary sustainable economic growth, and if so will she ensure that the Government and the Scottish Executive do not impose further additional costs on manufacturing industry that will undermine its competitive position?

I know from the hon. Gentleman's continued attendance at Scottish questions that he takes a great interest in matters Scottish, and I hope that he will also recognise that the Government have done a great deal for manufacturing industry. Working with the Scottish Executive, we are determined to recognise that Scotland has world-class companies and a world-class reputation. Yes, we have very good traditional industries such as shipbuilding and aerospace, but we are determined to build on the new industries—chemicals, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. A great deal of work is being done to support the Scottish Executive in macro-economic developments to ensure that Scotland's manufacturing base continues to deliver in the years to come.

My hon. Friend is aware of the threatened closure of the VA Tech engineering plant in my constituency, a state-of-the-art modern plant, with the possible loss of 250 jobs. Now that that company, which was owned by an Austrian multinational, has itself been taken over by a larger multinational, will she urge the new owners to back the work of the task group set up by local management, trade unions and the local enterprise company to try to keep this important manufacturing facility in Edinburgh and in Scotland, and will she ask her office to do what it can to back the work of the task group?

I know that my hon. Friend has been active in the campaign to save the VA Tech transformers plant in Leith, and I am also aware that there is a great deal of involvement on the part of local agencies, including Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, in that. We will continue to keep an eye on the situation as it develops and work with colleagues as appropriate.

:Is the Minister aware that the success or failure of Government policy in the manufacturing sector will be judged over the longer term by its failure to improve competitiveness levels in Scotland? With our international competitiveness ranking slipping to 36th out of 60, some nine places behind the UK as a whole and behind China, Colombia, India and Slovakia, what is she doing to arrest that decline?

Sometimes I think that the hon. Gentleman and his party suffer from political amnesia when it comes to manufacturing industry in Scotland. I remember a time through the 1980s and 1990s when there was decimation of manufacturing industry in Scotland. Some of my colleagues on the Government Back Benches have very bitter personal memories of what happened to manufacturing industry. Let me be clear: the Government, with the Scottish Executive, are determined to develop our manufacturing base. To ensure that we are not competing with low-wage economies, our manufacturing base will be developed on the basis of high productivity, high skills, high quality, innovation and high technology—something to which the Conservative party in government never even aspired.

If existing manufacturing businesses are becoming less competitive on her Government's watch, would the hon. Lady agree that it is particularly vital that we see a growing number of new businesses in that sector? If so, is she content to see the report this week from the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, showing new business start-ups falling by 10 per cent.? When will that trend by reversed?

The hon. Gentleman forgets that we are introducing research and development credits, we have cut corporation tax and we have introduced measures to support the commercialisation of academic research. He is very selective in his use of statistics. He is using one aspect of the report, which was published yesterday, but he has failed to advise the House that the number of business start-ups has increased by 15 per cent. since last year. Let us be clear about the summaries of business surveys in Scotland. The Conservatives look at a glass and see it half empty. We look at a glass and see the reality. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen would stop laughing, they would find out what the reality is.

"Manufacturing remains positive as order growth rate slows".

The Minister clearly needs a longer summer recess. Scotland's manufacturing exports have decreased by more than 12 per cent. during the past year, and Scotland's manufacturing and business sector continues to suffer from more talk, more tax, more tape and more complacency from both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive. When will the Minister and her colleagues take their eyes off the ministerial reshuffle and focus on delivering an economy that works?

The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that the Scottish manufacturing sector is more optimistic than it has been for some time and that we have cut some of the burdens. [Interruption.] To be frank, I will not take what the Member for Mid Scotland and Fife in the Scottish Parliament, Brian Monteith, says as gospel—he has interpreted a set of statistics.

:My hon. Friend may know that Alexander and Dennis, which builds buses in my constituency, has announced £40 million of orders today. Will she visit the plant in my constituency, which is an excellent example of a successful Scottish manufacturing venture?

As the Member of Parliament for Stirling, I am always delighted to visit Falkirk. I cannot promise that I will visit in my ministerial capacity, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may visit in the near future, in which case my hon. Friend can personally apprise him of the situation with regard to Alexander and Dennis.

:When he last met the head of Scottish Enterprise; and what issues were discussed. [187630]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in being elected leader of his party for the second time. It is good to see him leading from London, and we look forward to his doing that for many months.

I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes—I am full-time and elected as opposed to part-time and appointed, like him. I also thank Labour Back Benchers for their enthusiastic support—although it is also worrying.

Labour Members are enthusiastic about the hon. Gentleman's election because he did not win a single general election as leader last time. On the matter of substance, I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who speaks for the Liberals, that it is important to make sure that the transmission charge regime is fair in order to encourage the development of renewable energy. One of the new scheme's advantages is that the Scottish interconnector charges will go, but the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is right that we must ensure that the regime is fair, so that we can generate renewable energy and other types of energy for sale in England, which is important for the industry's future.

When my right hon. Friend met Scottish Enterprise, did he raise the Lyons review, in which, as it stands, Ayrshire is not included? What can be done about that and when will a report on the implications of the dispersal of public service jobs be produced?

My hon. Friend has met me to make the case for development in Ayr. As I told him, the object of the Lyons review is to encourage more dispersal of jobs away from Whitehall to other parts of the country. In relation to Scotland, while there are obviously advantages in putting jobs where centres already exist, it is also important that we consider other sites around the country, particularly those where jobs and development are needed. I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's point about Ayrshire, and I shall certainly bear it in mind.

:What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about transferring further responsibility for railways in Scotland to the Scottish Executive. [187631]

In July, I published my proposals in relation to railways in the White Paper "The Future of Rail". It sets out proposals for transferring further responsibility for rail in Scotland to the Scottish Executive.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that his advocacy skills help in all his discussions. However, now that more power has been transferred to the Scottish Executive, I hope that he will ask them not to be too convinced by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) arguing for more money to be put into Waverley station, especially if that is at the expense of a more frequent and reliable rail service to Prestwick, which is Scotland's fastest-growing airport.

I found my discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport to be the most fruitful that I had during the entire consultation process; certainly, we were both absolutely agreed on the outcome.

:What devolution issues she has considered since 29 June. [187623]

What human rights issues she has considered since 29 June. [187624]

:What devolution issues she has considered since 29 June. [187625]

Since 29 June, 83 devolution issues have been intimated to me, with all but six relating to human rights. Forty-nine devolution issues related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination, the use of temporary judges and regulatory fisheries offences. In the civil sphere, 34 issues were intimated, almost all of which concerned personal injury actions in respect of prison conditions.

Having had such a busy summer, can the hon. and learned Lady share with the House her advice on the legality of the situation raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on the variations with regard to subsidies and grants for renewable forms of energy in Scotland, as opposed to England and Wales?

Nobody has intimated to me—formally—any illegality. If anyone thinks that any illegality connects to my ministerial office by way of a devolution issue, there is a simple procedure to deal with that. However, it seems to me that this is not a devolution issue.

Has the Advocate-General had the opportunity to consider the provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill relating to survivor pension provision? Is she aware that the survivor in a civil partnership will receive a pension based on a calculation taken from the date of enactment, whereas the survivor in a marriage will receive a pension based on their entire length of service? Does she agree that that is an inequitable situation that will leave the Bill vulnerable to a human rights challenge? Will she consider that point and offer the appropriate advice to her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry?

I am aware of the policy intentions that have been publicised, but any advice that I give will not be public.

As a signatory to the European charter for regional and minority languages, the Government are obliged to provide a Gaelic language TV channel. Broadcasting is a reserved power, but in 1999 secondary legislation transferred the funding of Gaelic language programmes to Scottish Ministers. There appear to be endless discussions between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers on the subject, with no progress being made. Will the Advocate-General inform the House where responsibility lies for ensuring that the UK meets its treaty obligations to provide a Gaelic language TV channel?

The obligations will always technically be on the state, which is, of course, the United Kingdom, but implementation can be tackled in various ways, as has been done through orders. In the case of any challenge, and if the matter were raised formally in court, for example, the European Court of Justice, the state would have to answer it.

:Will my hon. and learned Friend use her considerable legal skills to look into the especially difficult problem of leading a Scottish-based party from London and consider whether a Sewel motion might help?

Order. I do not think that the Advocate-General needs to answer that.

:What assessment the Department has made of the operation of means-testing for criminal legal aid. [187656]

On 17 May, the Department published the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill, which will permit means-testing for those charged with criminal offences. It has been a longstanding policy of this Government and previous Governments that those who can afford to pay their legal costs and are found guilty should do that.

Clearly, when those proposals come into effect, overall access to legal aid for criminal cases will be reduced. What assurance can my hon. Friend give that the access that is provided is targeted where it is needed most?

The community legal service is helping 925,000 people every year in a range of cases, from problems with debt to housing problems, domestic violence and contact with children. That work must continue. However, it is right to give ever greater scrutiny to our criminal legal aid spend when we have experienced a rising budget. Against that backdrop, we spend more on legal aid than any other developed nation in the world.

:Apropos of what the Under-Secretary has just said, will he confirm that the current legal aid budget is £2 billion a year? That represents an increase of at least one third in the past seven years. Two years ago, the budget was overspent by more than —250,0000. Given those facts, does he agree that there will be an economic madhouse unless a Government, of whatever hue, restrict the scope, range and amount of legal aid? If he presents sensible programmes, I for one will support a further restriction.

We are all proud of the great Attlee invention of legal aid. At the same time, there has been an increase throughout the developed world in legal aid spend. Like previous Ministers, I have presented proposals to deal with that. We have asked for a fundamental legal aid review to examine the issues, root and branch. I hope that we can put forward proposals in due course. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the previous Conservative Administration, costs increased by 131 per cent. between 1989 and 1993. The issue of legal aid spend is not unique to this Government.

:How will the Government's new proposals square with any expansion of the salaried defender system?

We have been keen to examine where a public defender system can add value. Indeed, the fundamental legal aid review will want to consider that and bear it in mind. It is extremely unlikely that the Government will move to a wholesale public defender system but there is a role to play where shortages exist. I am keen to observe the way in which the new public defender system will work in the context of asylum and immigration legal aid as it is set up in Birmingham.

:Can the Minister remind the House about how few years ago it was that the present Government abolished the means-testing of criminal legal aid? Does he accept that this cut may lead to more cases going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission? Can he assure us that there will be no cut in the budget for that commission?

The hon. Gentleman will know that at about the time that we changed from means-testing, the concern on both sides of the House was about the lack of speed with which cases went through the system because of the bureaucracy previously attached to means-testing. That is why we have come forward, in the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill, with a range of options. However, it cannot be right that all of us in the House would be entitled to legal aid should we be charged with a criminal offence. That is why we are looking at the issue and are coming forward with a range of models. Of course, I cannot predetermine the outcome of the consultation.

:What measures are being taken to encourage witnesses and victims to come forward to give evidence in court. [187657]

Removing obstacles and anxiety for victims and witnesses, who can sometimes be reluctant to give evidence in court, is a priority for my Department. Measures include the creation of separate waiting facilities at court, so that defendants and witnesses are not forced to wait together. The new witness care units, which provide tailored assistance to guide witnesses through the criminal justice process from beginning to end, are now being piloted in five areas to be rolled out everywhere from the end of next year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply. My concern is that if witnesses have a bad experience when they go to court, not only are they less likely to come forward again but, particularly in small communities, word spreads and others are discouraged from coming forward and becoming witnesses. How widespread is the provision of the witness waiting areas and what more can be done to make sure that when witnesses go to court, they are looked after properly?

A great deal of improvement is still needed to the magistrates and Crown court estate, but about 90 per cent. of magistrates courts now have separate waiting facilities for victims and witnesses. That is good, but we have still got a lot further to go. That is necessary not just to make the experience for witnesses more comfortable, but to minimise the risks of intimidation if witnesses are sitting with defendants.

Would it not be a great disincentive to victims and witnesses if they believed that their evidence was going to be televised and used as entertainment? The Lord Chancellor's recent announcement applies only to the Appeal Court, but can the Minister tell me by what means and on what basis section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 has been set aside? Will he assure me that, at least in the criminal court and the family court, there will never be a circumstance in which witnesses, victims, defendants or members of the jury will have their interests overridden by importunate demands by the media or, indeed, a prurient interest by the general public?

I understand much of the hon. Gentleman's concern. A debate has been going on about the pros and cons of televised court proceedings and the Lord Chancellor and I have been looking at the issue and are considering the consultation on it. I shall certainly examine whether we can share the details of the legal advice on the current pilot for the Court of Appeal with the hon. Gentleman. The issue merits wider public debate.

What measures have been taken to ensure that victims of sexual abuse are protected and encouraged to come to court to give their evidence?

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which has been progressing through Parliament recently, contains a number of measures, including those for a new commissioner for victims and for a statutory victims advisory panel, which I hope to attend again this month and at which we discuss in detail with those who represent, for example, the witness service and Victim Support the experience of people who have fallen victim to the sort of crimes that my hon. Friend describes. Funding for Victim Support has doubled since we took office, but I think that we can do more for victims, particularly those in vulnerable and sensitive circumstances. We are always interested in continuing a dialogue with them to see how we can improve services.

What recent representations the Department has received on the report of the Electoral Commission on all-postal ballots. [187658]

The Electoral Commission's report on the June all-postal voting pilots was published on 27 August, since when there has been some media comment but no formal representations made to my Department.

Given that the report found all-postal voting to be hopelessly flawed, unsafe and lacking in public confidence and support, will the Minister encourage the House to reconsider its decision for all-postal voting in the north-east and to go back to the tried and tested ballot box, which would be much more secure? He might find that the Electoral Commission would support such a decision.

I do not see the hon. Gentleman quoting verbatim from the Electoral Commission report, and that is not quite the understanding of that report as I read it. In fact, some interesting aspects of the report have not been aired, reported or commented on. For example, turnout was significantly higher, the majority of the public were satisfied, the majority—69 per cent.—found all-postal voting more convenient and there was no evidence of increased fraud perpetrated in postal ballots.

Does my hon. Friend accept that millions of people want to continue to use the polling station, not to vote by post? Leaving aside for a moment the potential for abuse—which has been highlighted by the Electoral Commission not just recently, but in a succession of reports and comments from that body—can he guarantee that polling stations will be available in all elections, and if not, why not?

I certainly think that there are lessons to be learned from the all-postal pilots, one of which is that the public prefer to have convenience, but they also like a variety of options for how they cast their ballot. That is the direction in which the Government will be developing policy for the future.

Does the Minister realise that many of us in the north-east feel that we are being treated like second-class citizens? If an all-postal ballot is wrong for the north-west and wrong for Yorkshire and the Humber, why is it right for the north-east? May I give him a piece of advice? He should take the advice of his colleague, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), and make ballot boxes available in polling stations.

Of course, there will be assistance and delivery points—effectively the ballot box scenario—in that particular referendum. The Electoral Commission considered that very question and concluded that there should continue to be an all-postal ballot in that referendum. That is the judgment of the Electoral Commission and I commend its report to the hon. Gentleman.

Over the past few months, Ministers have been utterly complacent about their policy on all-postal ballots and they have derided us whenever we expressed well-founded concerns about the scope that exists for malpractice. My hon. Friends have been proved right: elections through the ballot box are trusted; elections through the post box are not. The Electoral Commission has totally disowned the all-postal ballot that the Government are foisting on the north-east in its regional referendum, and it is deeply perverse of the Government to insist on proceeding under a system that is both loathed and discredited.

I answered the question about the north-east referendum a few moments ago, in response to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). In respect of the other spin that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is engaging in trying—to denigrate the all-postal pilot, which was, after all, worth a try, as the Electoral Commission said in its report—the commission concluded in its ICM survey of public opinion in those pilot regions that the majority of the public were satisfied and found it more convenient, and even that the majority of the public wanted all-postal voting for future elections. We must consider that when looking at the report. My feeling is that the public like to have a variety of different options when they cast their ballot. That will be the direction of policy development for the Government.

What plans the Department has to support small magistrates courts in rural areas. [187659]

Section 30 of the Courts Act 2003 places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the need for accessible courthouses for all people in each local justice area, whether rural or urban. As such, my Department has supported local magistrates courts committees as they enhance their facilities, with funding of almost £400 million in this financial year.

I am pleased to hear that, but is the Minister aware that until recently, every small Norfolk town, and a number of villages, had their own magistrates courts? Many of those have now closed—under both Governments, to be fair—and justice has been removed from the local communities. Is he aware that morale among magistrates has now fallen substantially, and what will he do to try to reverse the situation?

Since 1997, the Government have opened 18 new magistrates courts. We have given to the hon. Gentleman's magistrates courts committee in Norfolk an extra £1 million to support local magistrates courts services. There is a balance to be struck in making sure that there is good, strong, efficient administration of justice and that everybody has the opportunity to have good access. We will continue to strike that balance.

I declare an interest as a member of the Magistrates Association. Is the Minister happy that in counties such as Leicestershire, where the magistrates courts committee has just held its last ever meeting, the interests of rural courthouses will be protected, because decisions about their future will now be taken by civil servants and others with much less local input? Are we to be confident that the future of courthouses such as that in Coalville in north-west Leicestershire is assured for the medium term?

The new courts boards, which will open as a unified administration, comes on stream in April and will, for the first time, help to ensure that there is a strong local voice, as local representatives go on those boards to scrutinise and investigate area directors' plans for magistrates, county and Crown courts facilities in an area, and not just to consider magistrates' facilities. That is the best way forward.

Will the Minister also consider in particular the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to the supply of court services? I am pleased to see him nodding. I have a constituent who has a severe latex allergy and who is unable to attend court in normal circumstances because of her inability to go anywhere near rubber substances. That is a difficulty, whether in a rural or urban setting. Equally, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there are obligations on the Court Service under the Act that comes into force in respect of premises next month. Will he confirm to the House that he will take that issue seriously in general?

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Government take seriously the disability discrimination obligations on us. We have quite an old stock of court estates, some of which are fine listed buildings, which we would like to continue to use. We must also recognise, however, that a modern Court Service, focusing on justice for all the community, must make sure that everyone can get in and out of the building and use the facilities. Certainly, I will consider any individual cases that he draws to my attention.

If he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Better Regulation Task Force concerning compensation culture. [187660]

Careful consideration is being given to the recommendations made by the Better Regulation Task Force, and the Government will respond shortly. We oppose strongly anything that contributes to a culture in which people believe that if there is an injury, there must be someone else to blame, and to pay.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the conclusion of the Better Regulation Task Force was that there was no compensation culture, which was confirmed by the statistics from the compensation recovery unit last year, which showed a fall of 9 per cent. in the total number of claims? Is it not appropriate that the Government should promote knowledge of the law in this area rather than talk about compensation culture, and perhaps also promote safety culture rather than compensation culture?

My hon. Friend is right that it is important that people with genuine claims are able to enforce their rights. The Better Regulation Task Force made a number of recommendations and was keen to encourage the media and others not to talk up a compensation culture, because it did not believe that we had one. It is also right that we consider in detail its report and come forward with our recommendations and proposals shortly.

The compensation culture seems to mean that whenever something goes wrong, someone else must take the blame. I wanted to quantify that, so I wrote to the Secretary of State asking for a list of the total damages awarded for clinical negligence claims in each year since 1997. On 23 August, I received this response from the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs:

"Owing to a fault on its computer system the Legal Services Commission is unable to provide information on the total value of damages awarded each year as requested."

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read the recommendation of the Better Regulation Task Force, which suggests that those of us in positions of responsibility should not talk up a compensation culture. It is right for those who are genuinely injured to be able to seek recompense in the courts, but of course none of us wants a have-a-go culture or a blame culture. That is why we are looking at the recommendations carefully and will produce our response shortly.

To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to make proposals to help schools outside London and the south-east of England with costs of visits to Parliament. [187671]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his interest in the subject.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Has he seen an article in The House magazine, headed "Parliament's past for pupils"? It says:

"Every schoolboy and girl is supposed to know that Parliament has been a central institution of the English, then British state for over 700 years."

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take firm action. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House's attention. Unfortunately, that magazine is still in the in-tray, not yet in the out-tray, but I will certainly read the article.

Given that Parliament has legislated for school pupils to learn about citizenship, is it not important for our wonderful education unit to work with the curriculum coordinators in schools to deliver a citizenship curriculum? Should not we in Parliament ensure that such assistance is given?

That is an excellent suggestion, and I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend has played in the road show by encouraging greater interest among, and the education of, our young people. The Modernisation Committee report examined how we can ensure that the work of the Department for Education and Skills—which recommended that we re-examine the balance of a citizenship curriculum—of the education unit and of Parliament is co-ordinated to ensure that such information is passed on to our young people.

I very much welcome the Deputy Leader of the House's balanced response—as he says, this is not an either/or situation—but does he accept that in terms of cost benefit, easy access through the internet to this House and what happens here is surely our prime priority? Does he also accept that it is preferable, if we can, to take Parliament to the people, rather than expecting them to come to us?

My geography is not perfect, but my guess is that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is even further away from here than mine, so he speaks with some authority. [Laughter.] I am certain that it is further away—I was being polite, as hon. Members know. The website is being examined—it is a very good one, but it is now acknowledged that it needs improving—and, of course, the webcasting of Parliament's proceedings, which also improves access, is up and running. This issue is a priority—and as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged it is not an either/or situation. Taking Parliament to the people, encouraging greater awareness of it and encouraging young people to vote are very much a part of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House's strategy for reconnecting Parliament with the public.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: online services are mission critical to the development of modern educational methods and they should be welcomed. They have radically improved services and the ability of people in remote areas to access this place. However, in considering this important question, will my hon. Friend examine the impact that the changed sitting hours have had on the ability of young people who have to travel long distances to access this House—for example, those who have to travel from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased to note that the House is debating how we can improve such education and access, rather than whether we should do so—an argument that we had 10 years ago. I can reassure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had meetings with the visitors' manager, and that the central tours office has made changes to improve access for people from remote areas and for those who live in constituencies far away from the south-east. This is a gradual process, but things are moving in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.

Websites are obviously an excellent thing and some of the other associated ideas are important, but there is something special about visiting this place, particularly for school students. I invite the Deputy Leader of the House to do a little work, to look at the scheme used in Australia and to provide the House, through the Modernisation and Procedure Committees, with a range of options and costings, so that we know what it would cost to give young people a little extra help and let them see what a living democracy is.

That is a very good suggestion, particularly the idea that I should study the Australian method; perhaps that could be arranged. But seriously, the shadow Leader of the House's suggestion is very good and my right hon. Friend will want to look at it.

To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to assess the September sittings of the House. [187673]

The Modernisation Committee is considering September sittings as part of its inquiry into the sitting hours of the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we really must consider whether it is a good idea for us to sit in September? Here we are—during good weather, when we could be doing work in our constituencies—in the middle of a building site because the building work has not been finished. The work that we will be doing in the next couple of weeks is just a sop to the press and not really part of the parliamentary process. We could be doing far more useful work in our constituencies during this fine September weather, compared with the rain of August. Is it not time that we looked at this issue again and went back to the old pattern of sitting weeks?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. Many representations have been made to me, as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, by right hon. and hon. Members objecting to September sittings, for which the House voted almost two years ago. It is a matter that the Modernisation Committee is looking into and I am aware of the difficulties that the House authorities face in not being able to take advantage of this time. On the other hand, Parliament has been recalled during September at the request of Members in three of the last five years. The fact that we are back at this time is probably the reason why there was no demand for a recall during this summer.

Does the Leader of the House accept that many of us believe that the September return is a good idea? It is absolutely essential for the Government to be held to account, but if the recess is too long that becomes impractical. Notwithstanding the building chaos around us, it is right that we are here for these two weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive point against the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) quite properly made. We have to balance that argument, and that is precisely what we will be doing in the Modernisation Committee inquiry, which is due to be concluded within a few months. The House will then have an opportunity to vote and the different arguments will be balanced.