1. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on future economic strategy in Scotland. [213400]

I have regular discussions on a range of matters with Scottish Executive Ministers.

Has the Secretary of State seen the "Index of Success", published by the Federation of Small Businesses and prepared by Mr. John McLaren, the Labour party's former economic adviser? It shows Scotland as 10th out of 10 of the small countries in the survey, behind Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Austria, Denmark and Ireland. With the Tories saying that Scotland is unattractive and the Labour party's former economic adviser saying that we are bottom of the league, what is it about those other countries that makes them so successful—except that they are independent and Scotland is not?

As ever, the hon. Gentleman might do better to look at the detail of the report instead of making the usual wide-ranging assertions that do not bear close examination. That survey showed that Scotland has many good and attractive aspects, which is why, with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is enjoying a long period of sustained economic growth and low unemployment.

One point that the FSB report highlights, and the main factor that is holding Scotland back, is its poor health record. That is why the Scottish Executive is putting substantial sums into health and making the necessary reforms to improve our health. That is important.

Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman claimed that he could set up some sort of fund to support Scotland from North sea oil.

Like Norway.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Like Norway," but I am wondering what sort of fund it would be when it would have an annual shortfall of more than £4 billion, even if every single penny of North sea oil revenue were allocated to Scotland, which would be unlikely. [Interruption.] The fact is that the hon. Gentleman's economics do not add up. They did not add up when he was leader previously, and they do not add up now.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that those who purport to speak for Scotland spend their time talking it down? Rather, they should recognise the extent to which men and women in both the public and the private sector have succeeded in building a Scotland that can look forward to the future with confidence. Those who talk down Scotland talk down Scotland's people.

My right hon. Friend is right. The fact is that nationalist policies failed and were rejected by the electorate on each and every occasion when the hon. Gentleman led his party previously, and they will be rejected when he next leads it into an election. When people look around Scotland they see economic success, more people in work, more businesses, and expansion across the board because of the economic policies that are good not just for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State implores us to look at the detail, but that shows Scotland's relegation to 36th in the world league for competitiveness. Is he proud of that record in government?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at all the recent economic surveys of Scotland and the United Kingdom, he will see that they universally recognise Scotland as a good place in which to do business. When he comes to the Dispatch Box and looks over his shoulder to see all of two Conservative Members sitting in the Chamber today, he may want to reflect that part of his problem is the Conservatives' attitude to Scotland. Yesterday morning, his prominent Front-Bench colleague said on the radio:

"The problem in Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with immigration levels, I'm afraid it has to do with the fact that Scotland is not a very attractive place for people to come and settle."

Does that not speak volumes about just how out of touch the Conservative party is with Scotland?

The simple fact is that Scotland's economy is not attracting or retaining the very best. The figures are indisputable, with gross domestic product growth consistently lagging behind the rest of the UK, at some 7 per cent. since 1995, business start-ups at only three quarters of the UK level, and manufacturing export levels continuing their seeming decline. What more will the Government do to redress that decline, and when will they sit up and take notice?

Rather like the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the nationalists, the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Conservatives is selective in the statistics that he quotes. I notice that he did not actually repudiate what his Front-Bench colleague said yesterday—that the Tories believe that Scotland is not a very attractive place for people to go and live in. What about the fact that we are home to one of the biggest banks in the world? The Royal Bank of Scotland is building brand-new headquarters just outside Edinburgh, and we are home to numerous other financial institutions that are doing well, such as the Halifax Bank of Scotland. Even in manufacturing, where, yes, there have been difficulties because of the difficulties that face the electronics industry worldwide, there are successes to which we can point. The fact is that Scotland is now a very different place from the Scotland of the 1980s and 1990s, when there was record unemployment and a second generation of people were growing up with no work. The other thing that the hon. Gentleman should focus on is that the policies he advocates—£35 billion-worth of public spending cuts, with all the economic instability that would result—would take Scotland back to the past. No wonder the Conservatives are completely out of touch with modern Scotland. On present form, they are likely to remain that way for years to come.

2. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs in Scotland which are dependent upon the defence industry. [213401]

The UK defence industry is very significant to the Scottish economy. The most recent figures suggest that an estimated 7,000 jobs in Scotland are directly related to Ministry of Defence equipment contracts, with a further 7,200 civilian personnel employed by the MOD and its agencies. Additionally, significant employment will be created indirectly by MOD activities in certain parts of Scotland.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive response. Does he accept that defence industry jobs are mostly high-skilled and high-tech, and give wonderful opportunities for apprenticeships for young men and women in Scotland? Has he made any assessment of the number of jobs that would be lost in Scotland if we decided to withdraw from NATO and our peacekeeping facilities around the world?

Withdrawing from NATO would not just be bad in terms of the UK's international obligations but—my hon. Friend is right—it would be devastating for the defence industry in Scotland. We know that the nationalists stand for the break-up of the British Army and the Royal Navy.

To take just one example, as was made clear yesterday, the Government want to proceed with the programme to build two large aircraft carriers. That will create jobs for more than 10,000 people in the United Kingdom—many of them at Govan and Rosyth, the MOD anticipates, provided that those yards come in with good bids. We expect that to be extremely important for Scotland. Withdrawing from NATO would be disastrous. So, too, would be the commitment by the Conservative party to cut £35 billion of public expenditure. That would be bound to cut defence procurement. We do not even have to speculate about that, as it is precisely what happened in the past when the Tories were last around, and allowed the resources available to the MOD to be run down because of their irresponsible economic attitude.

Does the Secretary of State accept that defence jobs are as important for the highlands as they are for the south of Scotland? Recently, there has been much press speculation that the announcement yesterday of a physical integrator contract for the future carrier vessel would be accompanied by announcement of the physical integration site. As that was not the case, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to assure the House, and my constituents in Nigg, that the criterion used for the selection of that site will be best value, and not, as the press suggested, a fix by the Treasury?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will, I understand, be issuing a written statement in about 20 minutes' time. He will say that we anticipate that, subject to value for money, the carriers could be built at four sites in the UK—Govan, Portsmouth, Tyneside and Rosyth. That will have to be subject to value for money, as the hon. Gentleman will accept. I fully accept that defence jobs are important wherever they are, but the general point is that if we are to safeguard the defence jobs that we need, first, we should remain part of the United Kingdom, because there is no way that such jobs would go to Scotland if the Royal Navy were broken up, as the nationalists advocate. Secondly, it is essential to maintain levels of public investment, yet the Conservatives are on record saying that they want to cut public investment to the tune of £35 billion. If that happens there are bound to be casualties. Among them would be the Army and the Navy—and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has done nothing to refute that this morning.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the announcement of tranche 2 for the Eurofighter Typhoon just before Christmas was a hugely important boost to BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, a provider of high quality jobs? Against that background, it was disappointing that the company announced 190 redundancies. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Secretary of State for Defence, in his discussions with BAE Systems, to ask the company to minimise those redundancies and ensure that they are voluntary?

I share my right hon. Friend's concern about the job losses announced in relation to some restructuring at BAE Systems, and I hope that the company will do everything it can to try to ensure the future employment of everyone concerned. He will also be aware of the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has asked the Office of Fair Trading to look at the proposed sale of some of that business to an Italian company, but I very much hope that we can do everything possible to maintain those jobs, because they are very high-skilled, and the people who work in the industry have served Scotland and the industry very well.

3. What plans he has to support the Gaelic language. [213402]

Action to support the Gaelic language is primarily the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. However, during his visit to Stornoway yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to announce the Government's decision to include for the first time Gaelic headings in the new e-passport, which is to be introduced later this year.

I welcome the Scottish Parliament's Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which will require Scottish public bodies to prepare development plans about how they plan to use the Gaelic language in carrying out their functions. However, Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament have no say over how UK public bodies operate in Scotland. Will the Government ensure that when UK public bodies such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence are operating in Scotland, they prepare and implement Gaelic language development plans?

The Secretary of State and I are keen to ensure that the Gaelic language is supported by Whitehall and Westminster, and I can advise the House that my right hon. Friend has written to all Departments to highlight the importance of the new Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Bill does not extend statutory responsibilities or obligations for UK public bodies, but the Scotland Office has hosted a constructive meeting between the Scottish Executive and Bord na Gàidhlig, with wide representation from Whitehall Departments, as a preliminary exchange on exactly how the voluntary arrangements might work in the spirit of the new Bill.

Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the parts of Scotland where the Gaelic language is spoken are some of the most attractive in the whole of the United Kingdom?

The Secretary of State and I can give any hon. Member every assurance that the areas where the Gaelic language is spoken are definitely some of the most beautiful parts of Scotland, and when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) next visits Scotland, perhaps he might want to come further than the nearest grouse moor.

4. What discussions he has had with the First Minister on development of wind farms in Scotland. [213403]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister. The development of wind farms in Scotland is a devolved responsibility.

However, energy policy is a national and UK responsibility, and how can the Government have a energy policy whose sole commitment to renewable energy seems to be its obsession with wind farms? Does the hon. Lady think that with masses of onshore wind farms, Scotland will be a more attractive or a less attractive place to live?

I hate to correct the hon. Lady—no, I love to correct her: her interpretation of the development of renewable energy in Scotland is misleading. Everyone recognises the fact that wind farms are intermediate technology, but they are commercially viable and they are available at the moment. We have a renewables obligation, and until such time as other technologies, such as those that relate to wind, tides and energy crops, come on stream, we must consider how we reduce our emissions and provide clean renewable energy for Scotland. If the hon. Lady needs any reassurance that the greatest creative minds are looking at different ways of doing that, I assure her that—today, in fact—the Environment and Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament is taking evidence from NFU Scotland, which wants dung power to become part of the energy mix in Scotland. In case anyone thinks that that issue is peculiar to Scotland, let me point out that there is already a dung power station in Devon.

My hon. Friend is aware from discussions that we have had in the past that the development of wind farms in the areas of most scenic beauty is extremely contentious. Does she agree that we need to consider the development of more wave and tidal power, and that much more needs to be spent on research? I honestly think that we have failed, over 20 or 30 years, by being so dependent on gas and oil for far too long.

My hon. Friend is correct. There is already significant investment in wave and tidal demonstration projects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited the demonstration project in Islay, and as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will verify, a great deal of work is being put into such pilot projects. The Department of Trade and Industry is providing almost £500 million of funding for such research and development demonstrations. We are aware that we must have an energy mix, and we are doing as much as possible to ensure that when the time comes, we will have a renewable energy policy worthy of the name.

Clearly, the Minister knows that it is important to get the energy mix right. So, too, does the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament, who said:

"does it make sense, at the very time when climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases have shot up the political agenda, to be planning the elimination of nuclear power?"

Does the Minister agree with that comment?

I think that the Deputy Minister said that there needed to be a mature debate. Most of us in the House—[Interruption.] Perhaps apart from the Conservatives, who want to try to politicise the issue, most of us realise that we must have a mature debate on the energy mix that will take us through the 21st century.

One renewable energy project that has received welcome funding from the Department of Trade and Industry is the innovative Pelamis wave project developed by Ocean Power Delivery, which is based in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend examine ways of building on the success of that project to establish a focus for renewable energy in Leith docks, which would allow us to tap into the immense potential for manufacturing jobs in such a growing sector of the economy?

I am well aware of the project about which my hon. Friend speaks—perhaps I will discuss the issues with him later. His question encourages us to appreciate not only that we must have renewable energy sources, but that creating such sources will be of benefit to economic development and job numbers in Scotland.

5. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive and Cabinet colleagues on the future of energy policy for Scotland. [213404]

Ministers and officials keep in regular contact with Scottish Executive and UK Government Departments on a range of developments affecting energy policy.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Following on from the last question, the Prime Minister himself has described climate change as perhaps the world's greatest environmental challenge, yet Talisman, the company behind the 1,000 MW Beatrice offshore wind farm planned for the Moray firth, has described transmission charges as the biggest threat to such projects going ahead. Will the Secretary of State explain how transmission charges that are £20 per kW higher in remote areas will help to address the matter, and how they could possibly encourage such developments, which we dramatically require?

As ever with the nationalists, one cannot take what they say at face value. I, too, have held discussions with the company behind that proposal, and it has to look into a range of issues, one of which is transmission charges. We are mindful of that, and we made necessary changes to the Energy Act 2004 to ensure that we could help generation in the north of Scotland. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said many times when we have discussed these matters in the House, that it is important for us to have a transmission regime that is reasonable not only for the north of Scotland, but for offshore generation. Although it is by no means certain that such sources will provide a lot of energy in the future, we certainly need to examine the situation if we are to get a proper balance between renewable energy and other forms of energy generation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the energy policy for Scotland there is a place for all forms of energy, including nuclear power? Security of supply and safety are absolutely fundamental to the provision of energy in Scotland.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need a sensible mix of energy generation to ensure continuity of supply. She will know that Torness power station has many years ahead of it and that decisions must be taken in due course about whether it should be refurbished so that it can continue generating. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) was somewhat critical about this matter a few moments ago, but it was right for the Deputy Minister in the Scottish Executive to draw attention to the fact that we needed a mature debate on how to guarantee our energy supply in the future. That means having a proper mix of energy, which will no doubt include Torness.

7. If he will seek to promote the interests of areas in Scotland likely to lose access to EU structural funds when public sector relocations are being planned. [213406]

No decisions about the relocation of Government Departments away from Whitehall have yet been made. They will be based on Departments' operational needs and individual business cases rather than the particular needs of specific areas, or geography. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear to other Departments the advantages of Scotland as a location, and has encouraged them to consider Scotland when reviewing relocation plans.

I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister accept that Scotland is a bona fide locus for the relocation of public sector jobs and that Whitehall Departments should be actively encouraged by the Scotland Office to consider such relocation? In that context, will she bear in mind giving priority in that consideration to areas that might be about to lose European structural funds?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Scotland is a suitable relocation site for jobs from Whitehall. Obviously, all the issues that he has raised will be taken into consideration. It is worth mentioning, though, that it would help people to see Scotland as a suitable site for relocation if members of the Conservative party stopped saying that Scotland was an unacceptable place to live.

16. What devolution issues have been raised with her since 11 January. [213396]

17. What devolution issues she has considered since 11 January. [213397]

18. What devolution issues she has dealt with since 11 January. [213398]

19. What human rights issues she has considered since 11 January. [213399]

Since 11 January 2005, 55 devolution cases have been intimated to me, all of which have raised human rights issues. All of the 45 civil cases intimated to me concern prison conditions. Of the 10 cases relating to criminal law, eight related to pre-trial delay, one to delay in hearing an appeal and one to the detention and questioning of a 14-year-old boy.

I thank the Advocate-General for her answer. Is Lord Fraser correct when he says that the Inquiries Bill will allow him to secure the release of tapes of "The Gathering Place", and will that be enthusiastically supported by all Labour Members, from the First Minister upwards?

I have every respect for Lord Fraser; he is of course entitled to his interpretation. His inquiry predates the Bill to which the hon. Lady refers. Therefore, I do not think that I can further assist her.

The hon. and learned Lady has had cause to consider a number of cases in relation to pre-trial delay. What is the current delay, and is the 110-day rule still applicable?

As the hon. Lady knows, the 110-day rule has been altered by statute to some extent, to change the way in which the dates run. Generally, the person concerned is not in custody in pre-trial delay cases. The 110-day rule relates to people who are in custody. People who are charged with summary offences or who have been released on bail are not covered by the rule. In some cases intimated to me as devolution issues the delay between the charge and the trial, when the person has not been in custody, has been substantial. Those are some of the cases on which challenges have been made.

In response to my question at the last Advocate-General's Question Time, the hon. and learned Lady told the House that she had intervened in only one or two of the cases notified to her. As she is soon to depart voluntarily, will she advise the House whether there is enough work in her office to justify a full-time ministerial salary?

There is some slight confusion; I was talking about one or two of the types of case raised. I have intervened and appeared in a number of cases. I do not have the figures to hand, but I have appeared personally in the highest courts in at least 10 different cases. I have also intervened through counsel in a number of other cases; I can give the hon. Gentleman the specific numbers. Devolution issues are only a very small part of my work. My work is advisory. For example, as I tried to explain to the Scottish Affairs Committee, most of my time is spent dealing with advisory matters that—unfortunately, from the point of view of Members—are regarded as confidential. Nevertheless, such work is a very important part of the role of Advocate-General. I hope and think that it will remain a very important role. Of course I have a range of other roles, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Select Committee evidence.

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. and learned Friend for much of the unsung work that we know she has done behind the scenes? Also, may I take what is probably my last parliamentary opportunity to register the belief that languishing in Barlinnie is a man who may have been a sanctions buster, but who almost certainly was not a mass murderer? Before she leaves office, will the Advocate-General reflect on the extremely unsatisfactory division between Foreign Office responsibilities, on which I had a recent Adjournment debate, and the responsibilities of the Crown Office, where, to be frank, Westminster MPs are told to keep out?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for singing my praise. I am sure that his will be sung in many quarters for having made such an enormous contribution to the work of Parliament.

I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned about the division of responsibilities. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body charged with reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland. It might be able to examine some of the issues that cause him concern.

20. What measures he is taking to retain magistrates. [214423]

The implementation stage of the magistrates national recruitment strategy will be launched shortly, building on an extensive programme of research and the testing of advertising approaches in the first year. My Department is analysing the healthy 1,949 returns that we received from the recent magistrates questionnaire to see which factors best influence both recruitment and retention. We hope to announce further measures in due course.

Yet after eight years of Labour Government, we still have a problem. A national recruitment strategy, Operation Black Vote, and hotlines have all been tried, yet we have a shortage of magistrates. The Minister has rejected allowances—wrongly, in my view. Magistrates deal with 90 per cent. of the crime in this country. Does he recognise that he will have to do more if he is to turn the problem around and provide a proper strategy for an important part of our community?

I agree to some extent. We do need to encourage employers to adopt a more supportive attitude to having magistrates in their employ. We should also consider sitting patterns, to see whether they are flexible enough to allow people to become magistrates. As for paying magistrates, a broad estimate is that that would involve about £100 million of expenditure. Given that the shadow Cabinet is proposing to cut £155 million from the Court Service, the prospects for proper recognition of magistrates by a Conservative Administration are pretty woeful.

The Minister will have been told by our right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who visited the Brighton and Hove area a couple of weeks ago, of the desire of magistrates on the bench there to be able to retain some of the older magistrates who, despite having reached the upper age limit, still have valuable service to offer. Will he comment on that, and on what steps can be taken to help the Brighton and Hove bench to recruit younger magistrates as well, as it already has done to some extent?

We need to recruit magistrates from all age groups, so long as they can demonstrate that they have the necessary maturity, judgment and strength of character to undertake that judicial function. We are considering various ideas—my hon. Friend mentioned a couple—that have emerged from the mass questionnaire. That has galvanised quite a lot of support in the magistrates community, and we are analysing the returns now. I hope that some of the suggestions made will result in innovative approaches.

Given that the number of magistrates rose substantially under the Conservatives, has fallen substantially under Labour and is now described by the Lord Chancellor as a sore issue, what has been the single most important measure that the Lord Chancellor has taken to retain magistrates, and why has it failed?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should exaggerate; the figures are not quite as bad as he suggests. [Interruption.] As I hear said from the Benches behind me, crime doubled when the Conservatives were in power, and we are working hard to reduce crime and continue the good record that we have. We have made changes, such as beginning to advertise in different ways to potential magistrates the benefits of their applying to join the bench, which has been a major step forward, and other changes are coming. Asking magistrates themselves what helps to keep them on the bench and what would recruit others is probably the best approach. That is what we have done, and we will learn lessons from talking to them directly.

21. If he will make a statement on the availability of legal aid in domestic violence cases. [214424]

Domestic violence proceedings are a priority area for legal aid funding. That is reflected in the Legal Services Commission's funding code criteria, which now allow domestic violence cases to be funded very widely.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Cardiff three years ago more than 50 per cent. of known victims of domestic violence refused to make a complaint? Last year, the figure was down to 14 per cent. Does he agree that that shows an increased confidence in the judicial system, and that it is also the result of good inter-agency working? With that big increase in women taking cases to court, can he reassure me that enough legal aid will be provided?

I know that my hon. Friend has continued to take up these issues not only in her constituency, but nationally. I am pleased that we have been able to put victims of domestic violence at the heart of the criminal justice system with the new Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. We have seen a steady increase from 2001, when we were spending about £44 million in this area of law, to the last financial year, in which the amount was £56 million.

According to the Law Society, managing legal aid expenditure as a single budget has meant that overspends on criminal legal aid have been met by cutting civil legal aid, while poor forecasting of demands on the criminal legal aid budget has led to erosion of the civil legal aid budget. That is an ongoing problem. Do the Government now intend to get a grip on this failure of management?

What the Government are not doing is what the Opposition propose in the James review—scrapping community legal service partnerships and the money going to our citizens advice bureaux and law centres. We are not doing that, but we are sitting down with the professions in a fundamental legal aid review. We are sitting down with the Crown Prosecution Service and looking at processes in our criminal justice system to ensure that they are not driving up costs. As we are proud on this side of the House of the advice that people get in our local communities, and particularly our civil legal aid, we are going to protect it.

22. If he will bring forward proposals to improve the contact between magistrates and the police and communities they serve; and if he will make a statement. [214425]

It is the Government's view that the criminal justice system can be better connected with the wider community without adversely jeopardising the integrity of law enforcement or judicial independence. Early returns of the recent questionnaire sent to all magistrates suggest that they, too, are keen to see a greater dialogue with neighbourhood groups, local schools and the local media in order to broaden the understanding of key community concerns.

What on earth is the National Criminal Justice Board doing about all this? People tell me—I do not believe them—that it is a bunch of lawyers talking about esoteric points of law. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the board understands that the criminal justice system belongs to the people whom it is meant to serve, not to a few professionals? Will he ensure that, rather than the odd public meeting here and there, there is a systematic effort by the board to ensure that every tenants association, neighbourhood watch scheme and community is intimately involved in the development of the criminal justice system and understands it?

My hon. Friend is right that the law does not belong to lawyers. Occasionally, we need to bring together officials from the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts administration, including the judiciary, the police, the probation service and the Prison Service to allow them to iron out the differences between their departments and work smoothly together as a team. I hope that those partnerships will mean better local engagement with neighbourhood organisations and tenants associations such as neighbourhood watch, and I know that local criminal justice boards intend to do that as soon as possible.

The proximity of courts to police stations, custody suites and the community is important. I have just received a draft business plan from Her Majesty's Court Service Avon and Somerset, which, unsurprisingly, has a purpose, a vision and an aim. Part of its purpose is to focus on the public; part of its vision is an empowered local service; and part of its aim is being local and accountable. Rather disappointingly, however, it proposes to resurrect the dreary plans to close courthouses in Frome and Wells. When will local accountability mean keeping local courts open?

Far fewer courthouses have closed in the past year than under previous Administrations. Given that there are so many courthouses, however, from time to time local magistrates committees recommend amalgamations, or consolidation of buildings. From this April, the new unification of the courts administration will provide opportunities to set up new magistrates facilities, perhaps in towns that have a civil court only—there are swings and roundabouts. I will re-examine the programme in Somerset highlighted by the hon. Gentleman and form a view.

Does the Minister agree that civil action is sometimes an effective way in which to deal with antisocial behaviour? Are county courts encouraged to help local crime prevention partnerships in the same way as magistrates courts by, for instance, fast-tracking cases to evict antisocial tenants who allow people to deal drugs on their premises? Such civil action is often more effective than criminal proceedings in promptly removing a problem from a problem estate.

We must ensure that our civil and criminal courts work together more closely, particularly on antisocial behaviour. Local residents find it baffling if technical obstacles in the courts system make them feel that proceedings are moving too slowly. We have set up a series of new antisocial behaviour response courts, which include properly trained legal advisers and better specialist prosecutors to allow us to proceed more speedily with antisocial behaviour cases.

23. On what date he expects a full planning application to be made for a new courthouse in Colchester; when he expects construction to commence; and what the scheduled opening date is. [214426]

Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific construction schedule, because my Department is still finalising our investment plans for the Essex courts scheme.

The Minister knows that I have raised the question of Colchester courthouse on numerous occasions. As I have pointed out previously, we have waited for a decision for longer than the duration of the second world war. May I put a deal to the Minister? If he will promise to announce a commencement date within six months, I will promise not to ask any more questions for six months.

I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's questions so much that it is tempting not to give him a date so that we can continue this dialogue. I understand his tenacious attempt to secure early completion, but lots of other schemes across the rest of the country are also priorities. The pot of money is finite, and I am trying my best to ensure that we get a good spread of new build and refurbished magistrates courts as soon as possible.

24. How many magistrates courts there are in the west midlands region. [214428]

There are currently 12 magistrates courts within the west midlands magistrates courts committee area.

What training is given to magistrates to deal with cases such as domestic violence and child abuse?

The independent judicial studies board is responsible for training the judiciary. It also helps magistrate courts committees to give extra training sessions to local magistrates through the local bench. From April, that system will change, but the judicial studies board will undertake some of the training, funded by the taxpayer. I will try to give my hon. Friend some more information about the specifics of domestic violence case training, which is obviously a priority for all hon. Members.

25. What mechanism is in place to review the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [214430]

Comprehensive arrangements are in place across central Government to monitor the operation of the Act. The Department for Constitutional Affairs will receive quarterly returns from Departments on a range of information, including numbers of requests and the timeliness of responses. The first set of data will be published in June.

Does the Minister agree that Departments seem to be significantly ill prepared to deal with the volume of requests coming in, despite the fact that they have had five years to prepare for the implementation of the Act? Has he seen the front page of The Independent and other newspaper stories that suggest that very few of the requests submitted are resulting in any information being released at all? Would he think about renaming the Act the "Creative Excuses for not Releasing Information Act"?

I have answered a number of questions on freedom of information at this Dispatch Box. There have been questions about shredding, but that was not happening, and questions about a lack of training and workshops, but that was not the case, because the Minister was going around all Departments, and around the country, informing people about freedom of information. This is about the public getting access to important information about the public services that they use. There have been more than 4,500 requests, many of which have led to that information being given within 20 days. The Act is working, and working well.

26. What changes he plans to make to legal aid as a result of his fundamental review of legal aid. [214431]

The fundamental legal aid review will report to Ministers in the first part of this year on reforms to place legal aid on a sustainable footing in the longer term and to target resources better to deliver the right outcomes for the right people. Ministers will then consider its recommendations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he give an assurance that as he attempts to design a modern system of legal aid that guarantees access to justice for all who need it, whether for criminal or civil cases, he will maintain a consistent and substantial budget for legal aid, and will not embark on a Tory model of cuts in budgets?

Since the publication of the James review, there has been a huge dividing line on legal aid. The Government are committed to legal aid and are spending more on it than any other developed country in the world, but we want to ensure that that money is going to the people who need it, that we have frank and honest discussions, particularly with the professions, about how we spend those funds, and that processes, particularly criminal justice processes, are not driving up costs. The Conservatives are committed to taking money away from citizens advice bureaux and law centres; that is something that the Government stand against.

30. What assessment he has made of the implications of the Access to Justice Act 1999 for civil justice in England and Wales. [214435]

The 1999 Act covered a number of areas of civil and criminal justice. Its main provisions established the community legal service and the criminal defence service, and extended conditional fee agreements. The Department conducted an independent review from September 2003 on the operation of the CLS to assess the impact of the delivery of an efficient and effective service on those who most need it.

Last year's Government figures showed that the number of people who have had civil legal aid has dropped by more than half over the past 15 years. Has the Minister's Department now decided on the value of equity in a person's home that should preclude their getting legal aid? The Department said last autumn that it would announce that. Has it decided? It matters to huge numbers of people around the country.

We will publish the results of that consultation shortly. I have been engaged in a range of meetings, particularly with the legal aid community, the Bar Council and the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Access to Justice Act 1999 took out of scope personal injury litigation, which means that there has been some reduction. We are committed to ensuring the appropriate levels of funding for civil legal aid, but we must also ensure that the money is being well spent against a budget that is now £2 billion, beyond which we cannot go. However, I shall publish the results of the consultation shortly.

31. If he will make a statement on the regulation of the legal profession. [214436]

The current regulatory framework for the legal profession is largely based on self-regulation, with the professional bodies—the largest are the Law Society and the Bar Council—combining regulatory and representative functions. The Government commissioned the Sir David Clementi review and are considering his proposals in detail.

I am a member of the Magistrates Association and when the Lord Chancellor gave an excellent address to our annual conference last autumn, he said that magistrates should be considered as part of the legal profession, and that they should be effective in their operations, connected to their communities and respected for their decisions. If that is so, why was my first-rate former bench colleague, Councillor Mrs. Adoline Smith, who frankly expressed her views on the sentencing options for burglary, asked to stand down from the bench? Is not that over-regulation which has deprived the people of Leicestershire of an excellent magistrate?

It would be quite wrong of me to comment on an individual case. We have conducted the Sir David Clementi review so that we can have that frank and open discussion and ensure that we have the legal community that the country needs and deserves in the 21st century. I held a meeting with stakeholders about the issue last week and I will ensure that magistrates are part of those discussions as we go forward.

33. What plans the Commission has to provide child care facilities in the House. [214438]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, a study was conducted in 2002 on the feasibility of providing child care facilities for staff of the House, Members and Members' staff. Following the review of the report's recommendations, the value of the child care voucher was raised, the scheme was extended to cover all qualifying children in families, and eligibility was extended to cover Members' staff. I am sure that the hon. Lady also knows that we are providing babycare room facilities in the main building and baby changing facilities in the Palace and Portcullis House.

I agree that some progress has been made in recognising the child care needs of Members and staff in the House, especially through the expansion of the child care vouchers and the Westminster holiday play scheme, which staff and Members use. However, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time we had a nursery here to serve both Houses and enable Members and staff to do their work more effectively? Will he reconsider the matter?

The hon. Lady has ploughed an assiduous furrow on the matter and I welcome her interest. My fellow Commissioners will always be alive to the need to make this place a more family-friendly workplace. However, the evidence has not changed since the review was undertaken in 2002: the vast majority of people would like to provide care for their children at home rather than bring them to this place. It is right to bear the aspiration in mind—we want to set an example for other workplaces. The balance of advantage is currently in favour of extending the voucher scheme, but we will continue to keep the matter under review and if the next Parliament has a new intake of lady Members who are as assiduous as the hon. Lady, we might reconsider it early in that Parliament.

Surely a proper nursery or crêche facility in the House is more than an aspiration to bear in mind. Is it not absurd in this day and age that the House of Commons takes pride in the existence of the Shooting Gallery but is unwilling to contemplate providing a facility that would be widely used and enjoyed? The matter will be raised over and over again, eloquently by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and others, and with monotonous regularity, to the point when the House of Commons Commission will probably decide that it is best to give up the unequal struggle and simply provide the facility.

I understand that point perfectly, but it might interest the House to learn that up to 150 members of staff take advantage of the voucher scheme. That is a much bigger number of people. They are getting more modest benefits, but those benefits are appropriate to their needs. Some Members' staff in their constituencies are also taking advantage of the scheme, which is something that we shall want to promote in future. This is not simply an either/or; there will always be a tension between offering provision for the few and offering provision for the many, and we must keep the issue in mind while trying to develop the voucher scheme, which provides greater benefit for more people.

34. What input he has had to the Procedure Committee inquiry into the operation of the House's sub judice resolution. [214439]

Following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) last July, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Procedure Committee whether it would look at the application of the sub judice resolution in respect of coroners' courts and advise on whether there should be some extension of the discretion allowed to the Chair. He welcomes the Committee's inquiry, and looks forward to its findings with interest.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he be prepared to give evidence to the Committee himself, particularly in regard to coroners' courts, where no one is on trial and there is usually no jury? It would be quite wrong, when no one's right to a fair trial is being infringed, for the sub judice rule to prevent MPs from asking questions about matters of acute general public concern.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign on this issue, which is important to her constituents and to those of other Members. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will look carefully at her request regarding the Procedure Committee's inquiry. It is true that coroners' courts do not determine the guilt or innocence of individuals, but they do reach important findings, and there is perhaps a risk of prejudicing their proceedings through statements being made in the House. I am sure that the Procedure Committee will note what my hon. Friend has said, and that it will pay careful heed to the evidence that she has given.

Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that the Procedure Committee, which I chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into the sub judice rule and into matters relating to coroners' courts? The Committee plans to make its report to the House before Easter. May I also say to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that there is still time for right hon. and hon. Members to submit evidence directly to me or to the Committee Clerk and, if necessary, to request to give oral evidence in person?

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Committee Chairman for those remarks and for the inquiry that his Committee is undertaking. These are important matters because, when a coroner's inquest is adjourned, members of the public— and Members of Parliament, through the House's resolutions on sub judice—are debarred from commenting on its proceedings. That is the difficult situation on which the Committee is being asked to make recommendations.

I welcome the current review, but is the Minister aware that much of this discussion took place in the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege back in 1999? Its report made a number of recommendations, including one that the two Houses of Parliament should bring the same rules into force, because there is an anomaly in regard to the way in which the sub judice rule is dealt with in each House. Does the Minister also recall the Committee's strong recommendation that

"No action should be taken to limit freedom of speech in Parliament in respect of

(a) matters subject to a court injunction imposing confidentiality; or

(b) breaches of the Official Secrets Acts."?

Is he satisfied that the current review will be able to take those recommendations forward?

I am aware of that report by the Joint Committee. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North to the Procedure Committee, along with a request from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that request was copied to the Procedure Committee in the House of Lords, because of the important questions that it raises. For the two Houses not to act in tandem would create further complications and, perhaps, further injustice.

35. What plans he has for the Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons Chamber. [214440]

In its report on connecting Parliament with the public, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons suggested that the United Kingdom Youth Parliament should be able to meet and debate occasionally in the Chamber when Parliament is not sitting. However, my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—will be aware that there is a long-standing convention in the House that Mr. Speaker shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the use of the Chamber.

Has the hon. Gentleman read the poll in today's edition of The Herald, which shows that 80 per cent. of young people aged between 16 and 20 surveyed are very interested in the politics of crime and punishment? Does he not think that that would be an excellent debate for the Youth Parliament to have in this very Chamber?

I am aware, as is the Commission, of the need to try to engage greater interest among that age group in particular, and we are also aware of the valuable work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. The hon. Gentleman might not know that Committee Room 10 is already used very effectively by the education unit, and it is on a much more sensible scale for the number of youngsters often involved. I say to him in the spirit of compromise—although we have to be careful about the practicalities and precedents—that if the representatives of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament want to get in touch with the Commission and the education unit, I am sure that we will be able to promote their interests in a way that is beneficial to both parties.

BILL PRESENTED

Children's Food

Ms Debra Shipley, supported by Vera Baird, Alan Howarth, Geraint Davies, Mr. Andy Reed, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Paul Tyler, Angela Eagle and Mr. Robert Walter, presented a Bill to make provision regarding the marketing, promotion and sale of food and drink to and for children; to make provision for education and the dissemination of information about children's diet, nutrition and health; to place certain duties on the Food Standards Agency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Small Shops (Protection)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to develop plans to support small shops; to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose additional planning requirements in relation to large shops and shopping centres; to make provision about retail purchasing by local authorities and other public authorities; to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in relation to non-domestic rates for small shops and related business; and for connected purposes.

Small shops are at the very heart of our local communities, providing vital services to local residents and a wide choice of goods and services. A study produced by the Council for the Protection of Rural England in 1997 highlighted some of the most important functions provided by small shops, which can apply equally to small retailers in urban and rural environments.

The survey showed that small shops provide a lifeline for those in need, such as the elderly, the young and those without transport, and provide valuable opportunities for human contact. For some people on their own, particularly the elderly, the only conversation they may have all day is with the shop assistant in their local store, so the friendly and intimate experience of shopping in a small outlet is one that they particularly value. Just last week, I met a lady who sees that as a particularly important and satisfying part of her job, as do many such people.

Small retailers provide a market for local produce and suppliers, thus providing consumers with more choice and recycling money back into the local community, and they also provide important job opportunities in such communities. A report published by the Department of Health at the end of 1999 as part of the Government's neighbourhood renewal strategy summarises the important role that small shops play in poorer or isolated locations:

"Thriving local shops can provide employment for local residents and a pathway into new schools and training opportunities, can reduce crime and can improve health by providing a range of quality goods including food, at affordable prices."

The important role that small shops play in our local communities is therefore clear, so it is worrying that recent years have seen a rise in the number of small retailers shutting up shop for good.

In a 2002 report, "Ghost Town Britain: Death on the High Street", the New Economics Foundation revealed that between 1997 and 2002, specialist stores such as butchers, bakers and fishmongers shut at the rate of 50 per week. Assuming closures have continued at that rate, I would maintain that more than 20,000 specialist shops have closed since Labour came to power.

An increase in the number of local bank branches and post offices closing has also accelerated the decline of local shopping parades as consumers look elsewhere to access the financial and shopping facilities that they need, often in out-of-town shopping centres. In August, the New Economics Foundation launched its "Clone Town Britain" survey amid fears that Britain was becoming a nation of clone towns, suggesting that "identikit urban environments" and chain stores are squeezing out local identity and individuality.

To some extent, those changes reflect developments in lifestyles and consumer tastes. Many of us, including me, appreciate the convenience of shopping at a supermarket or shopping centre and of meeting all our needs under one roof. Supermarkets in particular can provide shoppers with access to cheap food and goods, and competition between the major players is therefore of benefit to the consumer in helping to keep prices down. Currently, however, there are concerns about the consolidation of the grocery market by the larger supermarkets and about the operation of the supermarket code of practice, particularly in relation to the treatment of suppliers. That has led the Association of Convenience Stores, Friends of the Earth and others to call for a full market review by the Office of Fair Trading.

Research conducted on just over 1,000 consumers for the Association of Convenience Stores in October 2004 showed that 63 per cent. thought that the growth of supermarket-owned convenience stores gave consumers less choice about where to shop. Therefore, it seems that while people want the convenience and cheap goods that supermarkets provide, they also want the diversity and friendly service that small local retailers provide. That is why we must act to prevent a further decline in the sector.

My Bill seeks to address that by requiring local authorities to develop retail plans for their area, as proposed by the New Economics Foundation, building on proposals outlined under the Local Communities Sustainability Bill. That was highlighted in a report on small shops published by the Better Regulation Task Force in July 2001, which said that

"small retailers continue to have concerns that planning decisions that allow out of town stores to be built do not fully cost and assess the impact on local retailers and employment in the surrounding area."

Recently, in my constituency, I was approached by small retailers in one parade of shops who were extremely concerned about a planning application that had been submitted to site a supermarket express store in the area. Although those plans were subsequently rejected, it is imperative to ensure that local authorities take sufficient account of concerns raised by small retailers and consumers in reaching their decisions. Without the Bill, that cannot always happen. It is therefore imperative that we encourage local authorities to take a sustainable approach to economic planning and require them to consider both small retailers and consumers in their plans, including the need to ensure social inclusion and diversity in the retail sector. Such plans could be implemented in several ways, but it would ultimately be up to each local area to decide what worked best for it.

My Bill would also call for local competition policy, again as proposed by the New Economics Foundation. Normally, competition policy is addressed nationally, but it would be applied locally under my Bill. The national predominance of a chain is meaningless in deciding whether a supermarket will drive local shops out of business. Such an application of the law would also empower local communities to make decisions about the future of their areas.

Under the proposals, local communities would also have the final word in any decision on whether to allow the construction of a large shopping centre exceeding a certain size. My Bill would also implement the recommendation made by the New Economics Foundation to require local authorities to use tools such as those developed by the foundation to track local spending and then favour local retailers whose businesses ultimately leave more money recirculating in the local economy, especially in poor areas.

Finally, my Bill would also provide rate relief for shops and businesses with a rateable value of less than £25,000. The proposal would be revenue-neutral, with larger businesses required to cover the cost in accordance with an upward scale. Research published by the Department of the Environment in 1995 showed that business rates represented 30 per cent. of the profits on businesses with turnovers of less than £100,000—more than twice the proportion for large businesses. The Government have acknowledged that that is a problem for retailers, and stated in their response to the Better Regulation Task Force report on small shops that

"small high street shops are sometimes valued at a higher rate per square metre than supermarkets."

While the Government themselves have recognised the problem, their proposed rate relief scheme, which would provide relief for small firms with a rateable value of less than £10,000, will not do a great deal to address the problem. The Federation of Small Businesses has argued that the threshold is too low. Following the recent revaluation of commercial properties, it warns that many small shopkeepers may experience a considerable increase in their rates. It goes on to say that a shop in the south of England faces an average 29 per cent. increase in its rateable value, which could mean an increase of about £1,800 in the final rates bill.

My Bill seeks to address the effect of the recent revaluation and the disproportionate burden that business rates place on small shops by increasing the threshold at which rate relief is available for smaller retailers. The measures that I have proposed are essential if we are to ensure that there is no further erosion of Britain's independent retail sector, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Brian Cotter, Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Annette Brooke, Sue Doughty, Andrew George, Mr. Parmjit Singh Gill, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. David Heath, Dr. John Pugh and Sarah Teather.

Small Shops (Protection)

Brian Cotter accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to develop plans to support small shops; to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose additional planning requirements in relation to large shops and shopping centres; to make provision about retail purchasing by local authorities and other public authorities; to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in relation to non-domestic rates for small shops and related business; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 May, and to be printed [Bill 57].