1. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the sale of alcohol on public transport between Scotland and England. [26707]

There are no proposals to amend the provisions with regard to the sale of alcohol on public transport between Scotland and England.

I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification, but he will forgive me for not having been really sure. One thing seems to be happening in Scotland and the Home Secretary seems to be doing another in England. I can forgive the Secretary of State for Transport for not communicating with the Home Secretary, but can he explain why the Secretary of State for Scotland has problems communicating with the Secretary of State for Transport on rail matters, given that it is himself? Can he clarify those matters?

I understand the disappointment when a Member asks a question and receives an answer that he was not expecting. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman and the House is that there are no proposals to change the law.

Does my right hon. Friend have any concerns about the sale or consumption of alcohol on public transport between Scotland and England? As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with having a sensible drink and perhaps a meal while travelling on the train from Scotland to England.

I agree. Many people enjoy a drink on train services between Scotland and England, as they do on aeroplanes. As I said, the Government have absolutely no plans to change the law in that regard, nor have they any plans to change the law with regard to the consumption of alcohol on trains generally in England—in other words, on the non cross-border services. There are no plans to change the law at all.

That was an interesting answer. Did the Secretary of State hear the Home Secretary speaking today at great length about promoting responsible drinking? Does he intend to promote responsible drinking in Scotland, too?

All of us would sign up to the proposition that people should act responsibly at all times whether they are on public transport, in a pub, on the street or wherever. That makes sense north or south of the border.

2. What devolution issues the Advocate-General has considered since 18 October. [26708]

The Advocate-General has had a further 74 devolution issues intimated to her since 18 October.

Is the Minister aware of the serious situation arising from the fact that the permanent regulations on Scottish legal aid have not yet been passed by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Executive, meaning that many counsel have to withdraw from representing clients, especially in appeal cases? Not only are their expenses not being met, but it is costing them money to represent clients in those circumstances. Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Advocate-General, the Lord Advocate and the Executive to ensure that those regulations, which were due to be adopted in September, will be passed at the earliest opportunity?

The hon. Lady asked a question in connection with legal aid at the last Scotland questions and I shall give her the same answer as she received then: issues to do with legal aid are devolved to the Scottish Executive and it is entirely a matter for them.

What advice was sought or given by the Advocate-General on the Government's terrorism legislation? We know that the Home Secretary, in an arrogant and dismissive attitude to Scots law, did not seek the advice of the Lord Advocate and we know that, in a craven way, neither the Lord Advocate nor the First Minister offered advice. The Advocate-General has a role in those matters, so will the Minister tell us whether she was treated in the same dismissive and contemptuous way?

The Advocate-General is a UK Law Officer and as such takes part in a wide range of discussions on all aspects of UK law. Terrorism legislation is entirely a reserved matter. Discussions took place between officials at the Home Office and the Crown Office on how the issues would be implemented, but they are reserved matters and it was for the House to decide.

Surely the Advocate-General should at least have suggested to the Home Secretary that he speak to the Lord Advocate about those matters. Is not the embarrassment now shared by the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate, because of the failure to consult, the responsibility of the Advocate-General?

No, this is clearly a reserved matter and as such the Advocate-General can give advice, as she does on a range of issues as part of being a UK Law Officer. The policy issues were a matter for the House, and the House has decided that policy.

3. What assessment he has made of the possible economic impact of the proposed smoking ban in Scotland. [26709]

6. What assessment he has made of the likely impact of legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces in Scotland from 2006. [26712]

In Scotland, health issues are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. As the House will know, smoking is the greatest single, preventable cause of ill-health and premature death in Scotland.

I note the Secretary of State's response, but can he tell me what evidence there is that smoking is less dangerous in England than in Scotland? If there is no such evidence, why should my constituents who operate pubs and clubs across Dumfriesshire bear the commercial downside of this differential smoking policy, when smokers can simply go a few miles down the road to Carlisle for a night out?

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that smoking damages people's health no matter where they smoke. However, health is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so it is entirely up to it to take a different view from the legislation that applies to England. The experience internationally—for example, in New York and Dublin—is that the ban has not been damaging in the way that its opponents feared. Indeed, many people enjoy the opportunity to go out to a place where they will not breathe in other people's smoke.

I am delighted that, from 26 March 2006, protection will be given against the carcinogenic effects of second-hand smoke to bar workers across Scotland, not least in the constituency of Airdrie and Shotts. Does the Secretary of State agree that next year's comprehensive smoking ban north of the border may result in health inequalities for the expatriate Scottish community in constituencies such as mine, where staff in non-food pubs and members clubs will have no such protection under the Health Bill? Will he discuss that with the Secretaries of State for Health and for Defence?

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have plenty of time to make his proposals when the legislation comes before the House. As I suggested to the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) just a few moments ago, devolution inevitably means that legislation will differ, from time to time, north and south of the border. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, it was always anticipated that that would be the case. Of course, the extent of the ban in England was set out in the manifesto on which he and I both stood.

Given that there are 13,000 deaths each year as a result of smoking and many more thousands of people suffer illnesses as a result of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, does the Secretary of State agree that the smoking ban in public places in Scotland will improve public health and that a healthier work force must therefore be good for the economy?

That is a very difficult question, but I think that the answer is yes.

4. What proportion of Scotland's electricity consumption was generated in Scotland by (a) nuclear, (b) hydro, (c) gas, (d) coal and (e) other sources in 2004–05. [26710]

In 2003, about a sixth of all Scottish generated power was exported to England and Northern Ireland. The energy sources for electricity generated in Scotland are given in "Energy Trends", which is published by the Department of Trade and Industry. The last edition appeared in December 2004.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report in The Scotsman today, which quotes a leaked Government report that Britain is on track to miss its carbon emission targets? Given the size of the nuclear generation industry in Scotland, by when must a decision be made for new nuclear capacity in Scotland if it is to improve its carbon footprint?

On the targets, the hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that the Government are reviewing our policies at the moment, because it is important that the targets that we set ourselves are met. Indeed, we have done many things over the past two or three years. For example, last week, I announced proposals on biofuels that would involve taking about 1 million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere. That is equivalent to taking more than 1 million cars off the roads every year.

On nuclear power, the Prime Minister has made it clear that part of our energy review will include whether we either extend the lives of the present nuclear generating plants or build new plants. The decisions on extending the lives of the existing nuclear plants must be taken in the next few years, first in relation to Hunterston and then Torness. Of course, as part of the review, we will decide whether new nuclear plants will be needed in the future.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to tell the House what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the full potential of wind power in Scotland is exploited to the benefit of energy consumption in Scotland and the UK?

I agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that it is important to do everything that we can to extend the amount of power that is generated by wind and other renewable sources. It is unfortunate, however, that many people who call for an extension of renewable power set about opposing the very means to deliver it—both the generators themselves and the power lines needed to carry the electricity. I agree that it is very important for both Scotland and the UK that we generate as much renewable energy as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable socio-economic development potential afforded by wet renewables, especially in remoter parts of Scotland? There is a possibility of not only developing generating industries, but providing local, cheap, green electricity. What discussions has he had with the Minister for Energy about the application of section 185 of the Energy Act 2004, which was referred to in his Department's response to a recommendation in a report by the Scottish Affairs Committee? Will he ensure that any benefit that accrues from that will go not simply to the islands, but to remoter parts of the mainland?

The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy said on Friday that the Government intended to extend powers under section 185 so that an advantage could be given to the generation of electricity on the islands. It will be well worth examining that.

I assume that the proposal would apply to Thurso. I understand that the hon. Gentleman owns a large amount of water in the north of Scotland, if not all of it—I declare an interest for him since he forgot to do that. I shall have a word with my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy to determine whether anything can be done. The hon. Gentleman is right that electricity can be generated on a small and local basis. Indeed, that is one of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) wants to encourage. My hon. Friend's Bill received its Second Reading on Friday, so I hope that that will encourage such activity.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an advanced development is taking place on carbon capture, through which carbon can be put back into coal seams in the earth? Will he discuss with his colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry the possibility of arranging funding to develop that process, as we are sitting on billions of tonnes of coal—Scotland produces 6 million or 7 million tonnes of coal a year?

I am aware of those developments for not only coal, but gas. The possibility of carbon recycling is being investigated, especially at Peterhead power station. The Government are considering that process; the argument is whether it should be classed as renewable energy and treated similarly to that. We can all agree that it is absolutely essential to do much more to reduce the amount of CO ₂ that is produced. Every bit helps, so we will certainly want to have a look at such energy generation.

With respect, the Secretary of State did not answer the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). If the Secretary of State agrees with the leaked Government report cited in today's edition of The Scotsman, which admits that Britain is set to miss its targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, why is he dithering and being so vague about alternative sources of energy, especially nuclear, wind farms and other renewable sources? He technically gave an answer to my hon. Friend's question, but it was so vague as to be meaningless. Is he going to do nothing at all to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

First, on renewable energy, the hon. Lady would be on much firmer ground if it were not for the fact that her colleagues constantly call for the postponement of planning consent for renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, and constantly complain about erecting the power lines that would be needed to transport such energy. The Conservatives say that we should be doing more, but at every turn they oppose measures that would encourage the development of renewable energy.

I said to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) that we need to consider nuclear power. For a long time successive Governments have shelved the problem. Given the pressing need to reduce CO ₂ emissions,we need to examine that matter because that is a sensible way forward. As I have said, the CO ₂ targets are tough and demanding, but the Government will do everything that they can to meet them. That stands in contrast to the Conservative party—I do not recall that it expressed any enthusiasm for the subject during the 18 years in which it was in office.

We are not here to talk about my colleagues or the Conservative party. We are here to ask the Secretary of State what he is going to do, and he still has not answered the question. We have had an awful lot of fine words—"This is good and this is bad; this party or that party says this or that"—but the Secretary of State still has not told us. There are some serious matters. There is the need not just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, on which we all agree, but to secure supplies of energy, particularly electricity, which we have been warned—my party has warned—is not necessarily secure should there be a particularly cold winter. What, I ask again, will the Secretary of State actually do about it, rather than just saying "We'll review this and we'll look at that" and talk about what happened 18 years ago? We are interested not in 18 years ago but in what he is going to do now for the future.

I can understand why the hon. Lady does not want to talk about the Conservative party. Let us take, for example, renewable electricity generation, and particularly wind farms. We are in favour of that and we support those developments; the hon. Lady's party is against them. It is all very well having an energy policy and an aspiration, but if she is not willing to give effect to it by ensuring that such things happen, it is not a policy at all.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the burgeoning wave power industry in Scotland and he will know that it was very pleased when, after quite some delay, the European Union approved the Department of Trade and Industry scheme to support marine technology such as wave power. However, the industry is concerned that decisions on allocating the funding that has been approved will not be made until January at the earliest. Will my right hon. Friend encourage speedy decision making by the DTI to support that important industry, which has so much potential for Scotland and the entire UK?

My hon. Friend is right that the European Commission has only just cleared that funding for state aid purposes. I am told that the DTI expects to ask for bids in the first quarter of next year. I do not know whether anything can be done to bring that forward, but I shall find out and write to my hon. Friend.

5. What discussions he has had with the First Minister and his ministerial colleagues on the measures required to reduce the availability of class A drugs in Scotland. [26711]

I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will be aware of the by-election held in my constituency in Knightswood Park last week, where Labour received 55 per cent. of the vote. One of the main issues on the doorstep was the effect that drugs are having on the community—[Interruption.] That is obviously not important to Opposition Members. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recent article in the Sunday Mail about the Daniels family, who amassed more than £16 million through drug peddling. Will he continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive to find solutions to prevent the misery and havoc that the drug culture wreaks on our communities, and will he do something about these parasites?

Every hon. Member is aware of the scourge of drug consumption—it ruins the lives of addicts, the lives of their families and the lives of those who have to live among people who deal in drugs. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency has had some considerable success. In the first six months of 2004–05, it seized more class A drugs than during the whole of the preceding 12 months, and so far this year it has seized class A drugs with a potential street value of more than £22 million.

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the work of the Assets Recovery Agency, which takes away the assets of those suspected of drug dealing. We cannot come down too hard on these people because they ruin lives and they ruin communities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to deal with the availability of class A drugs is to deal with demand? Everywhere I have been—Colombia and Afghanistan—the argument has been that if we were not demanding drugs, they would not be supplying them. One problem appears to be that we still use a methadone substitute for those who are addicted, but buprenorphine has been used in other countries—and in an experiment in Bassetlaw—to wean people off substitutes for heroin. Will my hon. Friend discuss that with the Scottish Executive and bring the results of that experiment to their notice, so that they might use a drug that can get people off heroin and its substitutes?

I have heard our hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) speak about that initiative in his constituency. It sounds like a very exciting initiative that is worth studying. If the results are positive, I am sure that the Scottish Executive will wish to take a look at it. As for Afghanistan, the most recent findings from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime show that the production of the opium poppy, which has led to an increase in cheap heroin in the past few years, may be beginning to be reduced. Obviously, that is very welcome news indeed.

9. If he will make a statement on employment levels in Scotland. [26715]

The number of people in employment in Scotland has increased by over 200,000 since 1997, and is currently at its highest level since quarterly records began. This shows the Government's success in bringing opportunity to all and has been achieved because of sound management of the economy working in combination with the enterprise policies of the Scottish Executive.

Unemployment in my constituency is 2.1 per cent., but what further action will my right hon. Friend and the Government take to achieve the socialist utopia of full employment?

I certainly do not regard the concept of full employment as utopian, but when our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that one of his ambitions was to secure full employment, he was criticised by the Conservatives and other parties. The fact that many people are in work, which is bringing them opportunities of which they could only have dreamt years ago, is a tribute to the management of the economy. We intend to continue those policies, because that is the best thing to do for the benefit of Scotland and, indeed, the whole country.

Despite what the Secretary of State said about employment levels, many manufacturers, particularly in my constituency, are seriously worried about the ever-increasing cost of energy. Over the next few months many of them will pay huge costs for their energy, and they are worried that that will impact on their ability to continue. What action has the Secretary of State taken to deal with the rising cost of energy, particularly for manufacturing industry?

The cost of energy is clearly of concern to a number of manufacturers, and we must make sure that we have a competitive supply of energy. The hon. Gentleman is not particularly in favour of that, but it is very important. It is also important, as we discussed a few moments ago, to do everything we can to ensure that we have security of supply, which also helps to bring down the price of energy. We will continue to ensure that those things happen for the benefit of manufacturing in Scotland and elsewhere.

The Secretary of State mentioned that the Chancellor was keen on, and supportive of, full employment in Scotland. I should declare my interest in the oil industry, which appears in the Register of Members' Interests. One of the major contributors to the manufacturing economy of Scotland is investment in North sea exploration and production. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Chancellor that he must not impose on the North sea a windfall tax or other surprise taxation, which will frighten off the vital investment that is doing so much both for jobs in Scotland and for the security of our energy supply?

On full employment, I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) that measures such as the new deal, which the Liberals opposed—to be fair, they were in favour of the concept, but against its funding—mean that hundreds of thousands of people are now in work and doing well in employment. That would never have happened but for the Government's policies.

The North sea oil sector is doing well at the moment. Over the past 20 to 30 years, there have been many changes in the regime governing taxation, but I am confident that the Government will do everything that they can to make sure that the North sea oil industry continues to develop and expand, as that is extremely important, particularly for the economy of north-east Scotland.

10. What estimate he has made of the number of Scottish pensioner households which will receive the £200 payment to help with council tax payments. [26717]

In Scotland, around 400,000 pensioner households with someone aged 65 or over and not in receipt of the guaranteed element of pension credit will receive the £200 age-related payment.

I am glad to hear that. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the Liberal council in Aberdeen has increased council taxes for my constituents more than almost anywhere else in Scotland, so they will welcome that £200. What advice can he give my constituents when faced with high council tax hikes from the Liberal council?

My hon. Friend and I share the terrible burden of living in constituencies controlled by the Liberal Democrats at council level. At least hers does not have the distinction, which Inverclyde council has, of being the worst-performing council in all of Scotland since the Liberal Democrats took control. However, she is right that the £200 payment is part of a package of measures introduced by the Government to improve the lot of pensioners. Since we came to office, millions of pensioners have been taken out of poverty, which stands in stark contrast to the 18 years when the value of the basic state pension rose once and millions of pensioners were plunged into poverty under the Conservatives.

15. What her policy is on the use of national insurance numbers as an identifier in electoral registration. [28118]

Outside of Northern Ireland, we have no plans to require national insurance numbers to be required as a condition of electoral registration.

But if a presiding judge believes that the evidence of electoral fraud that he has seen would disgrace a banana republic, and also accuses the Government of being both complacent and in denial, why will the Government not introduce the tried-and-tested system of individual registration with national insurance numbers, which has worked so effectively to cut electoral fraud in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the comments of Richard Mawrey QC following his electoral court investigation into local government matters in Birmingham. We have gone through that judgment very carefully indeed. The 10 measures to increase security in elections that we have included in primary legislation, in the Electoral Administration Bill that is before the House, and the four measures that will be in secondary legislation arise from that judgment, so we have taken it on board and introduced primary and secondary legislation to address it. We will pilot individual identifiers because we want to test whether the increase in security that can come from stricter requirements as a condition of being on the register are not outweighed by a fall in registration. I have taken the opportunity of looking at the South-West Bedfordshire register. There is not a problem of under-registration there. The hon. Gentleman should be careful before he makes suggestions that would not be a problem on the register of electors in his area, but which might have catastrophic effects in areas where there is a shortage on the electoral register.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that such a requirement would be a bureaucracy too far, would prevent and deter large numbers of electors from registering to cast their vote, and as such would be contrary to our wish for more people to participate in our democratic processes?

My hon. Friend is right. Commensurate with security that is as tight as possible so that we have confidence in the integrity of elections, we must ensure that more people are on the electoral register. The estimate is that about 3.5 million people who are entitled to vote are not on the electoral register and therefore are not able to vote. Those are not people in South-West Bedfordshire, but it should concern all of us that so many people are not registered. We do not want to create hurdles that result in even fewer people on the electoral register. We intend to pilot tougher security measures, but we must go about it on the basis of evidence and deal with it carefully.

Since there is no agreement on national insurance numbers, will the Minister re-examine the transitional arrangements proposed by the Electoral Commission, under which a signature would have to have been lodged at the time of registration or later for anyone who wants to claim a postal vote? The postal vote could therefore be more effectively verified than under the present arrangements.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows because of his long experience and his excellent chairing of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, people who apply for a postal vote must provide their signature. Let me respond to him in a way that I hope other hon. Members will understand. The suggestion is that the collection of a signature should be voluntary when the application to register is made. I raise two questions with the right hon. Gentleman in response to that. First, if the scheme is voluntary, does it provide better security? Secondly, how would it be possible to encourage people to give their signature in such a way that it did not make them think the form was incomplete if they did not provide the signature, and at the same time encourage enough people to do it? My worry is that the proposal is a halfway house: it does not provide enough security; nor does it inhibit access. The House would agree that the way in which we are going about it—piloting in areas that can then be evaluated, so that we can increase security without that having a catastrophic effect on the register—is how we should go about dealing with the issue.

My right hon. and learned Friend does not want to use national insurance numbers, but security is a problem. Hopefully, we are all involved in a campaign to persuade our electoral registration officers to scour all available registers. I have corresponded with electoral registration officers from Lothian and Borders and from Central Scotland, who assure me that they go through all records, including council house tenancies. At that point, however, they send out a form, and there is no way to verify whether the people who fill it in are the people on the register, so security is still a problem.

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is that even where electoral registration officers use data checking to discover whether somebody is actually present at an address in order to fill a gap in the register, they do not have the power to put them on the register and must still obtain a signature. He is right on that point, but it is still helpful when electoral registration officers check whether someone is present at an address. The Electoral Administration Bill requires electoral registration officers to use the available data, which some of them have not been doing. On fraud and data sharing, data matching and data checking mean that electoral registration officers can use existing data not only to ensure that gaps in the register are filled, but to check against fraud.

May I urge the Minister not to rule out the possibility of introducing national insurance numbers as identifiers in Great Britain? The policy has been more than piloted in Northern Ireland, where I believe that it worked—it provides accurate registers, which is an important factor. I do not believe that the Minister is right that it would significantly reduce electoral registration. The main problem in Northern Ireland was annual registration rather than the use of the national insurance identifier.

We listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, given his experience in Northern Ireland. We have not ruled out the use at some future date of national insurance numbers as a condition of registration. Just as I expect him to know that I will listen to him on Northern Ireland—he knows about the electoral situation in Northern Ireland, the fraud, the duplications on the register and over-registration; I do not know about those things—I hope that he accepts that my hon. Friends and I know about our own constituencies, where sometimes up to 30 per cent. of the people who are entitled to vote are not on the register. Northern Ireland had a different set of problems, which was addressed by specific primary legislation, and we must introduce legislation in this country that suits all the different constituencies. We do not want to introduce legislation that works well in South-West Bedfordshire but has the catastrophic effect of disfranchising constituents such as mine.

Under-registration has been a scandal throughout this Government's period in office. Nothing has been done, and Labour councils are responsible for the areas concerned. What will the Minister do about under-registration and, equally importantly, accuracy, which is the point raised by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)? The Electoral Commission and international observers have both said that we must have an urgent national response, not little pilots. Why has she not introduced individual voter registration? And why has she ignored the transitional scheme proposed by the Electoral Commission? She is kicking under-registration into the long grass, rather than tackling an urgent national problem.

I am not kicking it into the long grass—I am proceeding by way of pilots so that we have an evidence-based approach to policymaking. The hon. Gentleman implies that we are doing this too late. I shall not comment on that.

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important that we have an accurate register as proof against fraud; that is why we have introduced 10 measures in primary legislation and four in secondary legislation. We need to have it as proof against inadvertent inaccuracies; that is why we will have a central online record of electors and use data sharing. It is important not to be absolutist and ideological about this.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House must surely agree that measures against fraud should be as tough as possible and that everybody who is eligible should be on the register. I hope that they accept that that is what, in good faith, my Department, my fellow Ministers and I are trying to do.

16. Whether she plans to establish community justice centres in Wales. [28119]

There are currently two community justice projects—the pilot community justice centre in north Liverpool, which was launched last month by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, and the Salford community justice initiative, which will be launched next week. Those will be fully evaluated to determine aspects that can be applied elsewhere. There will be no further community justice centres such as that in north Liverpool until the evaluation has taken place at the end of 2006.

I welcome the approach to evidence-based policy that my hon. Friend is advancing. I urge her to consider the American example, where areas with community justice models were better at holding offenders accountable and had an improved community perception of local justice, a quicker process from arrest to court appearance, and reduced crime. While the evidence is being gathered, may I put in an early claim for community justice models in the Welsh valleys and other urban centres, where they will do a lot to restore faith in community justice?

My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument for a community justice centre in his constituency or thereabouts. We will consider what happens not only in north Liverpool and Salford but in other projects around the country and internationally. There are good projects going forward in Bridgend in Wales, where county court staff give presentations to schools and bring young people into the court system to give them work experience. Those projects are receiving very good feedback. They are also excellent in bringing in people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds and have recently won a national award from Operation Black Vote for encouraging people from black and ethnic minority communities to become magistrates.

Does the Minister accept that the experiment in Vauxhall in north Liverpool and the future one in Salford are enormously to be welcomed? Does she also accept—as I think she does, given what she said about evaluation—that the social and legal environment in the Red Hook area in New York, which was the origin of the experiment, is very different from that in northern Britain, let alone Wales, and that we need to look very carefully at whether the experiments work?

One could say that the old-fashioned term for community justice centres is magistrates courts. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that every community in England and Wales has access to a magistrates court? Will she make it clear that the further proposals for rationalisation or closure of local magistrates courts play no part in providing a community justice system?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We must consider community justice in the round. What is appropriate in north Liverpool may not be appropriate in Somerset, Wales or even central London. It is vital that we take such evaluations seriously.

It is important that people have access to magistrates courts, but it is also important that we ensure that the proper facilities are available in the regions. I am sure that we will continue to ensure that that happens.

The first such pilot centre was established in the England and Wales jurisdiction in December 2004. The Times described the position at launch as follows:

"The court was scheduled to begin at 9.45 am but by 10.15 am no defendants had turned up. Judge . . . Fletcher . . . undeterred by the shaky start, conducted a brief adjournment hearing but was finally forced to retire in the absence of anyone to administer tough justice to."

What lessons from existing centres can the Under-Secretary learn and apply to the new centres in Wales?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman quoted from The Times instead of visiting the north Liverpool centre. We will help to arrange and facilitate that opportunity for him so that he can see the good work that is being done there.

The court began operating from the Liverpool magistrates court in December last year and has already heard more than 1,300 cases. It is a doing a good job and we should appreciate its work. The court is working with the local community because it asked for that facility.

17. What transitional arrangements are being made for tribunals that will join the Tribunals Service in 2006. [28120]

A major programme of work is under way to prepare for the transfers. We are working closely with the tribunals, parent Departments and stakeholders to ensure a smooth handover. A team of about 40 staff is working on that. We are on target to complete the transfers by April.

In my constituency, the efficiency of the asylum and immigration tribunal is vital. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the transitional arrangements will not compromise that efficiency, especially the average time taken for appeals to be heard against an initial decision to refuse asylum?

My hon. Friend can be assured that immigration and asylum tribunals will not be affected by the transition because they are already part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. He makes an important point about delay, which is not good, especially in asylum and immigration cases. The asylum and immigration tribunal, which started its work in April, now logs all cases directly. Those that are logged directly with it are often heard within a month of their being listed.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Arnhem centre last Friday and I saw the efficient work that is being done there. However, I am worried about appointments to the tribunals during the transitional period. Will the Lord Chancellor continue to make them or will responsibility be handed to the Judicial Appointments Commission, which already has a new chairman?

I, too, have visited the Arnhem centre in Loughborough in the past couple of weeks. I put on record my thanks to the staff for their dedication. They work extremely hard and do an excellent job. Discussions are taking place about appointments in the transitional period. Those that are in the pipeline will continue to go through, but further discussions are being held with the different stakeholders to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible.

18. How much state funding has been paid to the Conservative party in the past five years. [28121]

In the past five years, including the current one, the Conservative party will have received approximately £22.5 million in Short money, Cranborne money and policy development grants. That figure does not include free postage and party political broadcasts.

The obvious question to ask is whether, at £100,000 per MP, the taxpayer is getting value for money. Perhaps more seriously, may I ask whether it is reasonable for the money to be concentrated overwhelmingly on one political party—be it the Conservative party or any other—and whether it should not be shared among the political parties represented in the House?

The figures are as follows: the Conservatives received £22.5 million; the Liberal Democrats will have received £9 million over the same period; and the Labour party will have received more than £2 million. The House decided that money should go to the Opposition parties in proportion to their size, and much less to the governing party.

30. If he will bring forward proposals to move private Members' business from Fridays to Wednesday evenings. [28133]

My right hon. Friend stated on 18 October that the Government had no plans to change the present arrangements for considering private Members' Bills.

At the moment, it appears to people outside the House that private Members' Bills have to overcome all sorts of hurdles before they have any chance of becoming law. If we are to engage the public and convince them that there is a chance for individual MPs to change the law, those Bills need a better slot and more protection. In the light of what happened to the Bills introduced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and, last Friday, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), will the Deputy Leader of the House please reconsider bringing private Members' business into the middle of the week, where it would have the chance of a fair hearing and of making some progress?

Earlier this year, the Modernisation Committee considered moving private Members' Bills from Friday to a weekday evening. Its subsequent report concluded that such a move would fundamentally change the character of proceedings here, and the House has recently considered and decided the sitting pattern for the week. It is far too soon to reopen that issue.

Will my hon. Friend carefully consider whether sufficient hours are allowed for private Members' Bills during the parliamentary week? There are ways in which the term could be extended. Members frequently come up with sensible ideas that ought to be allowed on to the statute book, but which are rejected by the Government of the day—sometimes for rather lightweight reasons.

There are 13 sitting Fridays for such Bills to be considered. The whole House will endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments in promoting the right of Members to have their Bills debated. When I have attended on Fridays, I have seen that there appears to be ample opportunity for debate, although, for one reason or another, best advantage is sometimes not taken of it. As I said, the Modernisation Committee considered this matter recently, as did the House in deciding our sitting patterns. I know that the House will want to review that matter from time to time as appropriate.

The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that when Bills that have been fully debated in the House of Lords—often with the benefit of the great professional expertise in that place—come to this House, they often have to go to the back of the queue behind private Members' Bills, where they have little or no chance of being debated. Does he agree that that arrangement is not entirely satisfactory, and that it should be reviewed?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are Bills that are drafted on behalf of Members in this House, which right hon. and hon. Members here would wish to champion. The hon. Gentleman would have difficulty in persuading hon. Members that their Bills should go to the back of the queue behind those from the other place, where there is ample opportunity—as he has pointed out—for the Lords to debate their Bills. Such matters are reviewed by the various Committees of this House and by Joint Committees, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made a case for the change that he advocates.

I support the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). There are huge procedural hurdles to be overcome in getting private Members' Bills on to the statute book—100 Members voting for closure, for example. The whole pack of cards is stacked against private Members' measures. The Modernisation Committee is wrong; we have a slot available on Wednesday evenings, and private Members' Bills should fill it.

My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion, and if he believes that members of the Modernisation Committee got it wrong, that is his view. As with several recent measures and decisions in the House, I respectfully disagree with him.

I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Has the Deputy Leader of the House noticed that on occasions Members find an awful lot to say about private Members' Bills on Second Reading—perhaps rather more than they say on the Second Reading of a Government Bill? Is it time to have some protection, in terms of the length of speeches on Second Reading, to enable private Members' legislation to proceed? Would not it be sensible, in any case, for him to collate information from those Members who have the good fortune to be drawn out of the ballot about their experiences in proceeding with their Bills, so that we can amend the proceedings of the House accordingly?

I welcome that lengthy contribution and question from the hon. Gentleman. The position is clear: Members take as long as they feel is necessary. The way in which the House operates is considered at least annually, and the sitting pattern during the week was considered before the summer recess. All those factors are taken into account. We all read Hansard and draw conclusions about the qualities of speeches that we have and have not heard.

31. If he will agree with the Royal Institute of British Architects the rules for an architecture competition to make the House more secure and more accessible; and if he will make a statement. [28134]

The Commission has no plans to sponsor such a competition. A range of schemes are in progress, however, to enhance access to the House and to improve security, including the new visitor reception building on Cromwell Green that is due to open late next year.

I thank the House of Commons Commission for that typically helpful and radical answer. Will the hon. Gentleman consider putting the idea of arranging a contest to the Commission? Will he consider getting personally involved by sponsoring a prize, perhaps for the best school entrant's redesign of this Chamber? If he does so, I will personally sponsor a prize for the best student architect who comes up with a redesign of the Chamber. It is about time that we tried to inspire people outside to see this place once again as the forum of the nation rather than "behind the goldfish bowl".

I would be happy to sponsor a prize, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, for the best school entrant, but I caution him that he must be careful about raising any expectation that the winning design is likely to be put into practical effect. The Commission made it clear last year that the idea of visitors moving through a gallery to see the Chamber in action is not feasible, particularly in the current security climate. If he wishes to work up a detailed proposal, however, I am sure that the Modernisation Committee will be pleased to consider it.

32. What proportion of products served in the refreshment outlets in the House are fair trade products. [28135]

It is not possible to give a single overall figure in the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question. Eight fair trade products are sold on a permanent basis, and another 10 intermittently. I am pleased to tell the House that all freshly brewed coffee served by the Refreshment Department is fair trade coffee.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Should not we give a lead to the nation over fair trade products, which are very good? Surely the number of fair trade products available in the House is rather paltry, and should not we have a target for the availability of such products?

The fair trade product range is limited, and would therefore prevent us from reaching a high percentage. Many customers of the Refreshment Department exercise their choice, of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would approve, by purchasing other products when fair trade products are available. Twenty-eight per cent. of the department's tea and coffee purchases in 2004–05 were fair trade. As he is aware, hon. Members can choose from a range of teas, and only a minority are currently taking advantage of fair trade products.

33. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reform of the House of Lords. [28136]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House holds regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on all aspects of the Government's programme, including House of Lords reform. The Government remain committed to the manifesto pledges to make further progress in codifying the conventions of the House of Lords and reviewing its functions, as well as placing reasonable limits on the time taken for consideration of Bills in that House. We also plan to remove the remaining hereditary peers, and to hold a free vote on the composition of the House.

Does the Deputy Leader of the House regret the Government's dismantling of the other place without a viable plan to replace it? Does he accept that the natural, logical consequence of that Government action is that the other place will eventually become a wholly, or largely, elected Chamber?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is almost alone in believing that the Government have not made improvements in reform of the other place. Obviously many Members feel that those improvements have not gone far enough, but they are reflected in the manifesto that we put before the electorate, and we intend to follow them through.

BILLS PRESENTED

Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Chris Bryant, Paul Flynn, Jim Cunningham, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, David Taylor, Mr. David Chaytor, Jim Sheridan, Angus Robertson and Ms Katy Clark, presented a Bill to provide the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 2 December, and to be printed. [Bill 87].

Electoral Systems

Mr. David Chaytor, supported by Richard Burden, Mr. John Denham, Patrick Hall, Nick Harvey and Mr. David Heath, presented a Bill to provide for the holding of referendums about methods of election to the House of Commons and to local authorities; to enable a specified number of electors to require the holding of such a referendum; to require the Electoral Commission to establish a Citizen's Assembly to perform functions in relation to referendums; to provide for the adoption by a local authority of a different method of election; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed. [Bill 88].