1. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of the Royal Mail and Post Office in Scotland. [60656]

5. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of the post office network in Scotland. [60660]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues and we discuss a range of issues.

The Government's plan to abolish the Post Office card account in four years time will, according to Post Office management, lead to the closure of 10,000 of the country's 14,000 post offices, which will mean that hardly a rural post office will be left in Scotland. Surely that cannot be allowed to happen. Will the Minister back those Scottish pensioners who have chosen to collect their pension at a post office, and will he urge the Department for Work and Pensions to retain the post office option for pensioners after 2010?

I have completely given up hope that when the Liberal Democrats raise the issue of post offices, they might pause for a moment to reflect on the £2 billion of investment that this Government have put in to help sustain the post office network. Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment will enable people to access universal banking. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the commitment on the Post Office card account runs out in 2010; moreover, more than 70 per cent. of people who have such accounts also have bank accounts. It is this Government's investment in the Post Office that is giving it a fighting chance, and I fail to see how the hon. Gentleman's party's policy of privatising it would help.

Is the Minister not being a little complacent about the future of the Post Office? Does he not know, for example, that Citibank, which runs the Post Office card account, has transferred such accounts to another provider without even telling those who have them? Does he not feel that the Government's card account policy, which is undermining the situation prior to 2010 and also the future of post offices, is in utter confusion? Will he get the Department for Work and Pensions to look again at this ridiculous decision?

As I just said, no decision has been taken on how the situation will work out after 2010. I point out again that it is thanks to this Government putting thousands of millions of pounds into the Post Office—including an additional £300 million into sustaining the rural network—that it has any kind of future at all. The hon. Gentleman's policies would allow the post office network to wither on the vine, but we are not prepared to do that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Post Office decides to sell premises—it decided, for example, to sell the post office in Coatbridge town centre to Spar—it would be appropriate for consultations to take place, but not during the Christmas and new year period? Moreover, when applications for drink licences are part of the project, it might be courteous to inform the Member of Parliament concerned and, indeed, the Member of the Scottish Parliament.

Obviously, the Post Office's commercial arrangements for disposing of its assets are primarily a matter for it, but I would of course hope that it could extend to my right hon. Friend—who is well known in this House as a diligent and hard-working MP who represents his constituents' best interests—the courtesy of informing him of such decisions. Of course, he is talking primarily about the Crown post office network, which represents less than 4 per cent. of the total network and loses more than £70 million a year. The Post Office has some tough commercial decisions to take, but that should not short-circuit the normal planning application process, or the courtesies to which my right hon. Friend refers.

Last week, the Department for Work and Pensions said that the new products and services available from the Post Office from 2010 would be based on customers actual behaviour and requirements. How will the requirements of customers in Scotland, particularly those in rural areas, be factored into those products and services?

This is precisely the point: it is because people's shopping habits are changing that we have to take these difficult decisions. More and more people are choosing to have their benefits paid directly into bank and building society accounts, which is why we invested money to make sure that the Post Office is part of the universal banking network. Had we not done so, it would have had absolutely no chance whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman mentions rural post offices, but he would do well to remember that when his party was in power, 3,500 rural post offices closed, so he is in no position to lecture anyone on this issue.

3. What recent assessment he has made of trends in unemployment in Scotland. [60658]

7. If he will make a statement on the latest rate of employment in Scotland. [60662]

The Scottish labour market is in its strongest position in decades, with more people in work and fewer unemployed than ever before.

My right hon. Friend may be aware of the article in Monday's edition of The Herald, showing that Glasgow's and Edinburgh's economic performance outstripped that of every other city in the United Kingdom, with the exception of London. Does he agree that that represents a success for the employment policies of this Government, who are spending much more time and money on ensuring that more people in Scotland enter the employment market?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good that both Edinburgh and Glasgow are doing extremely well in terms of economic performance. It is good to see so many people in work today, whereas a decade ago many were out of work. There is still more to do, particularly in Glasgow, where there are still many people who could, with appropriate help, get back to work. What has happened shows that those who opposed the new deal almost 10 years ago were wrong to do so.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that when the Conservative party was in power, unemployment in my constituency was in excess of 20 per cent. When I was working in a health centre, I saw doctors prescribe anti-depressants, but if they could have prescribed a job people would not have needed to come to the health centre. Today's figures are only a tenth of what they were. Does my right hon. Friend agree that "caring, compassionate conservatism" is a contradiction in terms?

Anyone who visited West Lothian during the Tory years will have seen exactly what happened to thousands of people who were out of work and left with no prospects whatever. Livingston now has one of the highest employment rates in the country. The constituency is doing well precisely because we have built a strong and stable economy with good job prospects. Scotland is now a place where people want to come and do business.

I am sure that we all welcome the employment figures overall, but there are still 285,000 people in Scotland on incapacity benefit, many of whom would like to find work. Will the Secretary of State explain how the loss of 1,500 staff from the Department for Work and Pensions in Scotland over the next two years—on top of the 1,500 jobs already axed—will help claimants with the support that they need to find work?

First, let me welcome the hon. Lady to her new position as the Liberal Democrat shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. The fact that she welcomes the low levels of unemployment is good, but it is a pity that when we introduced the new deal the Liberals opposed it—[Interruption.] They were in favour of the concept, but against providing the money to pay for it.

As for the hon. Lady's question about the DWP and Jobcentre Plus, at one point the DWP employed more than 100,000 people. However, unlike many banks and insurance companies, which have automated their payment procedures and changed the way they work, the DWP has not done so. What is happening in the DWP and Jobcentre Plus now is the result of having to take account of new IT systems and different ways of working, which will help to provide a better service. If the hon. Lady has visited one of the new Jobcentre Plus offices, she would know that they are a world apart from what they used to be 10 or 15 years ago. They provide effective help, so that people who lose their jobs can have the support that they need to get them back into work as quickly as possible. I suspect that none of the difficult decisions would have been taken by the Liberal Democrats.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Coal, which operates surface mines in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland, is currently consulting on making up to 150 redundancies, largely as a result of consecutive rises in gasoil duty? The straw that broke the camel's back was last week's Budget announcement. Will my right hon. Friend meet me urgently to discuss the problem and will he ask the Chancellor to examine the practical implications of his policy in that regard?

I am aware of the Scottish Coal announcement that was made last week. I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

What does it tell us about employment prospects in the fishing industry when Banff and Buchan colleges have been forced through financial pressure to discontinue all training courses relating to that industry? Does the Secretary of State realise that this is the only such training provision on the mainland of Scotland, which educates through mates and skippers tickets the vast majority of people across the UK? How does that square with what the Chancellor said last Wednesday about a rosy future for further education colleges? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those courses represent training in a strategic industry and should be protected for the future of employment in that industry?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the funding of further education colleges in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. Because we are increasing the amount of money spent on education more generally, Scotland has benefited, but what courses are appropriate is a matter for the Scottish Executive and further education colleges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that one of the longest periods of stability in the economy in our history has resulted in the remarkable reduction of unemployment that we have seen since 1997?

That is right. One of the main reasons for such high unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s was the fact that, under the previous Conservative Government, we saw two of the deepest recessions of the last century. Many individuals and their families suffered in consequence. Now that we have a strong economy, we have had growth in each consecutive quarter since we came to power—and we have had very low levels of unemployment, with record numbers of people going into work. We have also been able, crucially, to increase the amount of money given to families, particularly those with children, in order to help them do well for themselves and to adapt to changing labour market conditions.

Is it not complacent of the Secretary of State to base his view of Scotland's economy on only one set of employment figures? Is he not aware of the growing concern among the business community and economists in Scotland that recent growth was due to expansion of the public not the private sector—an unsustainable trend in the long run?

No, I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, I did not base what I said on one recent set of employment statistics. If he looks at the employment statistics issued over the past few months and the past few years, he will see that unemployment is at an historically low level and that employment is at an historically high level.

The size of the public sector in Scotland has not changed much over the past few years but, yes, there are more doctors, more nurses, more teachers and more police. We are in favour of that, but the Conservatives are pledged to reduce public expenditure, which inevitably would result in less resources being available for it.

The hon. Gentleman referred to surveys. The last few business surveys have actually been extremely optimistic about Scotland's prospects. Indeed, Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, continues to be a very good place to do business, which is why so many people are in work. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make comparisons, why does not he cast his mind back to 10 or 20 years ago when the position was completely different?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, prefers to talk about the past rather than the present and the future, but he cannot dispute the fact that 51 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product is in the public sector, compared with 40 per cent. in the UK as a whole. Does he think that the proportion in Scotland is too high, too low or just about right?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said a few moments ago. The size of the public sector has not changed that much, but I make no apology for the fact that we are employing more teachers, more doctors and more nurses. I would have thought that most people in Scotland would think that that is a good thing. At the same time, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, employment prospects in Scotland are good—as is the number of people in work—but we are not complacent, as there will be changes and constant challenges from different parts of the world.

I am happy to talk not just about the present but the future too, because as long as we maintain our present policies and maintain stability—taking the right decisions about public expenditure, instead of being locked into a wholly dogmatic rule that there must be public expenditure cuts regardless of what is required—and stick to the course we have set, the prospects for Scotland and the United Kingdom are good. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were to get into power, many of the things to which people are becoming accustomed would be lost.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest figures are far from a one-off? In my constituency, there has been an increase of more than 25 per cent. in employment since 1997, although the constituency has still not fully recovered from 18 years of Tory rule, when industry after industry was closed. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent initiative to create an Irvine bay regeneration company to bring investment to my area and create jobs, because our goal of full employment is vital in ensuring that we spread prosperity throughout the whole community?

My hon. Friend is right. She is right, too, to stress the importance of regeneration, not just in her constituency but in certain other parts of Scotland. Most of us can remember what Ayrshire was like 10 or 15 years ago, when thousands of people were not only out of work, but had no prospect of ever getting any work. A second generation of people was growing up with no prospect of getting work. The position is different now, but we cannot be complacent—we must constantly be aware of the fact that there are still people we need to help to get into work, but the strong economy and background created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has benefited my hon. Friend's constituency as well as every other constituency in Scotland.

4. Whether he has made an assessment of how many sub-post offices in Scotland may close when (a) the rural subsidy ends and (b) the Post Office card account is phased out. [60659]

The Government have committed £300 million to rural post offices over the next two years. No decision on the future funding or size of the network beyond that time has yet been made.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is not it the case that phasing out the rural subsidy and ending the Post Office card account—a betrayal if ever there was one—will leave pretty well every post office in rural Scotland non-viable? What will he do to ensure that those post offices have a viable future? Will he co-ordinate with other Government agencies to ensure that they do not face oblivion? Earlier, the Minister criticised the Liberal Democrats, but at least we have a plan for investment in the Post Office. What is his?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman used one "p" word, plan, but did not use another, privatisation. Privatisation is the Liberal Democrat solution, coupled with their plan to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, which is where the subsidy comes from, and spend its budget elsewhere. The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Greaves said that if the plan to privatise the Post Office goes through,

"it moves us to the right of David Cameron."

That is hardly a healthy position for the Liberal Democrats to be in.

6. What assessment he has made of progress in Scotland towards the Government's target of reducing the proportion of children living in low-income families by a quarter by 2004–05.

In 1998–99, there were an estimated 290,000 Scottish children in relative low-income families. By 2005, that number fell to 190,000, a reduction of 34 per cent., which exceeds the Government's child poverty target for the period.

I thank the Minister for that reply and I hope that Members from both side of the House welcome that progress. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still low-income families in the east end and south side of Glasgow? Does he further agree that the increased minimum wage and better jobs are the best ways to help disadvantaged children?

Absolutely; I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a moment ago, there are more people in work in Scotland today than at any time in the nation's history. With measures such as the minimum wage, the working tax credit and the child tax credit, we are making work pay for those families. Spending per head in Glasgow is higher than in any other part of Scotland, which is quite right because of the deprivation and poverty that still exist there. An enormous amount of progress has been made. We are making tremendous inroads into reducing poverty, with a view to eradicating it altogether, but all of that would be put at risk if we stopped the funding going into areas such as Glasgow, which would be the inevitable consequence of the election of the Conservatives.

8. What devolution issues the Advocate-General has considered since 28 February. [60663]

I should declare an interest: I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.

As the House will know, Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of Neil Davidson, QC, as Advocate-General from 21 March. I am told that since 1 March, 59 devolution issues have been intimated to the Advocate-General.

May I declare a similar interest? I am also a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar. I think that it is rather longer since I ceased to practise.

I add my congratulations, as I have already done in writing, to the new Advocate-General and welcome him to his position. I regret that this is the first time ever that we have had a Law Officer who is not a Member of either House and so cannot be exposed to the full scrutiny of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity to ask the new Advocate-General his views on why, increasingly, the public are being excluded from criminal trials before the High Court in Scotland? Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern at that and will he look closely at the reasons for it?

I can correct the hon. Lady on one point: Neil Davidson is a Member of the House of Lords. Unless I am very much mistaken, he was introduced about 20 minutes ago. If I am wrong and a message comes from the other place, I will happily stand corrected—and I will want to know why, as well. In relation to her other point, I am not aware of people being excluded. Clearly, the conduct of affairs in the Scottish courts is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Lord Advocate. If there is a problem, I will certainly look into it, but I am not aware of one.

I, too, add my words of congratulation to Neil Davidson, QC, who was a very good Solicitor-General in his day. One of the functions of the Advocate-General is to ensure that legislation coming before the House is Human Rights Act compliant. How on earth did the previous Advocate-General manage to make that judgment in relation to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and will that now be considered again?

I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's good wishes. I think that I am right in saying that the new Advocate-General specialised in human rights legislation when he was in private practice, so I am sure that he will be only too happy to consider the issue from the other side of the fence.

In relation to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, I am aware of the general concern in the House and outside it. The objective was to try to introduce legislation that would make it easier to get rid of what might loosely be called red tape. It is also important, though, to make sure that we have a correct balance between doing that and having proper safeguards. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office is reflecting on that at the moment.

9. What assessment he has made of the most recent labour market statistics for Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [60664]

I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to Questions 3 and 7.

Has the Secretary of State seen the recent Royal Bank of Scotland report that indicates that private sector employment in Scotland has risen in each of the past 12 months? Given that situation, will he take up the challenge that the Chancellor set out in his Budget last week so that we plan for long-term challenges, ensure that the globalisation agenda, with the increasing drive from China and India, is taken on in Scotland, and ensure that Scotland's private sector is indeed the engine of growth for the country?

I did see that recent report. It was encouraging that the bank said that Scottish manufacturing appeared to be in better shape than that in many other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend is also right that at a time when there is huge expansion of the Chinese and Indian economies, as well as in other parts of the world, we must ensure that we can adapt and capitalise on our strengths, such as education, so that we can continue to generate jobs and see our economy grow.

What specific measures are the Government taking to make Scotland an even more attractive place for doing business to the private sector and, especially, to encourage high-skill industry in Europe to locate to Scotland?

The single most important thing is to ensure that we have a stable economy with low interest rates so that firms coming into Scotland can plan ahead for the future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the help that the Scottish Executive give on training and supporting companies, when that is necessary. They generally help firms and encourage them to come and invest, and that policy has been hugely successful. As I said a moment ago, we must be mindful of the fact that there are challenges from all over the world, but I am confident that Scotland will continue to do well, and many recent surveys recognise that.

10. What assessment he has made of progress in Scotland towards the Government's target of reducing the proportion of children living in low income families by a quarter by 2004–05. [60665]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar).

While it was slightly disappointing that the Government did not hit their target on reducing child poverty, that was partly because the target was very ambitious, and it does not detract from the fact that a large number of children in Scotland have been taken out of poverty. In the next stage, the Government will obviously have to work with the Scottish Executive. There were welcome measures in the Budget, especially regarding the child trust fund, and money was also made available to the Scottish Executive for education. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Scottish Executive how we can ensure that that money is targeted on helping to lift more of Scotland's children out of poverty.

May I just correct my hon. Friend on one point? Although it is true that the Government just failed to meet their target on the reduction of poverty throughout the UK, we actually exceeded the target in Scotland—we met and went beyond it. Of course, that was due to the excellent close partnership that exists between the Government and the Scottish Executive. The measures that we are putting in here, such as the child tax credit, the working tax credit and a 26 per cent. increase in child benefit, together with the measures that the Scottish Executive have put in place have, as a package, meant that we have made great progress on reducing poverty. That shows that the partnership works, and that Opposition parties that want to break that partnership—or mess about with it, as the Liberal Democrats want to do—are playing with fire.

Is not the fact that many of the lowest income families face benefit withdrawal rates of 70, 80, or even 90 per cent. one of the major reasons why many children still find themselves living in poverty? Is not tackling that problem, which means that many people are paying effectively higher rates of tax than the top rate of tax, vital for improving incentives to work and thus helping more children out of poverty?

If that were the case, there would have been no reduction in child poverty, but instead there has been a 34 per cent. reduction, which is way ahead of target. That proves that the hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong and that the child tax credit is helping the poorest families and those on average incomes. The child tax credit, together with all the other measures that we have put in place—the working tax credit and big increases in child benefit—is the reason why we are seeing remarkable and dramatic reductions to poverty in Scotland, so I simply cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman.

11. Whether the introduction of identity cards in Scotland will differ from the process in the rest of the United Kingdom. [60666]

The introduction of identity cards is a reserved matter. The procedure for issuing them will be exactly the same in Scotland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Is the Secretary of State happy that the people of Scotland will have a compulsory identity card imposed on them when the Labour manifesto promised a voluntary scheme?

I believe that people will support the idea that people have to identify themselves, especially for the purposes of social security payments and in relation to employment and nationality and immigration matters. The whole point of the legislation is to enable us to set up a database. Hon. Members should remember that most people are required to prove their identity now, not just to open bank accounts, but to get passports and so on. It makes sense to put that on a proper basis. When the surveys are carried out, some people are surprised to learn that most people in Scotland do not think that there is anything wrong in principle with having to say who they are when accessing a public service.

12. What assessment he has made of the impact of pension credit on pensioner poverty in Scotland. [60667]

Tackling pensioner poverty is one of this Government's priorities and the pension credit is helping to achieve that. In Scotland, there are currently 338,000 individuals in receipt of pension credit.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that 6,000 of his constituents and 5,500 families in my constituency are in receipt of pension credit. However, there are two worrying things. During the election, it was the one issue that pensioners came to me to shake my hand on—although they do not do such things publicly in a gathering—and say that it had changed their lives and lifted them from poverty. First, is it not concerning that 1.2 million pensioners are not claiming their pension credit, the value of which is £1.6 billion? Secondly—

Order. One question will do in view of the hour.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the pension credit is making a big difference, with an average award of an additional £40 for pensioners, and more for the poorest pensioners, which makes a big difference to poor pensioners in his constituency and in mine. Obviously, we want 100 per cent. take-up of the pension credit. I hope that every Member of Parliament will lead the campaign, as I know he is doing in his constituency, to ensure that every pensioner claims what they are entitled to, because it can make a very big difference to their lives.

16. What assessment she has made of the implications for the work of her Department of the recommendations of the Power commission. [61520]

The Power inquiry made many recommendations about parliamentary and democratic processes and it is a welcome addition to the debate on democratic engagement in Britain.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that three issues need to be included in any effective response to the way in which the Power inquiry dealt with the problem of the public's disconnection from the political process? Does she agree that the first thing to address is the need for transparency in party funding, something that should apply equally to Opposition parties and to Government parties? Secondly, does she agree that election, not appointment, should be the cornerstone of any House of Parliament that plays a role in framing the laws of this country? Thirdly, as the Government are—

Order. That is a long supplementary question. Two points are good enough.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know what the third point is on another occasion.

My hon. Friend is right about transparency in party funding. We have set up the Phillips review to look at that. We are also in positive talks across parties about that transparency. On reform of the House of Lords, he knows that there will be a free vote in this House on the subject.

Do Ministers in the Department agree with the first proposal of the Power report, namely, that there should be a rebalancing of power from the Executive and quangos to Parliament and local Government? If so, is she willing to commit her Department to talks with the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats on how we achieve that sooner rather than later?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post at this Question Time and look forward to engaging with him on these questions in future.

The Department will make a structured response to the Power inquiry. We will identify a number of solutions before we provide that. I know that the inquiry is looking forward to meeting people at the beginning of May to make further progress on some of the debates that it had. It has raised a number of key issues and we will want to respond to them as positively as possible.

One recommendation of the Power inquiry concerns how Parliament might have greater powers to initiate legislation, launch public inquiries and take action on public petitions as methods of communicating better with the public. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity of the forthcoming Joint Committee on the powers of the House of Lords to look at those aspects of the way in which this House works?

Many of those issues will be taken into account in the debates on the reform of the House of Lords. At the end of the day, it is for the Commons to make a decision in a free vote about the composition and structure of the House of Lords. As my hon. Friend will be aware, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has already met the political parties, and is holding discussions with them about the way in which we can take that discussion forward.

I welcome the hon. Lady to her enhanced responsibilities. She will be aware that the Power commission recommended a substantially elected second Chamber, and the Lord Chancellor has begun discussions in the hope of bringing that about. Does she not agree with the commission that the main purpose of doing so is to try to establish a second Chamber that has greater legitimacy in holding the Government to account? If so, how does she reconcile that with the Labour manifesto commitment to legislate to weaken the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise the legislation, as the two do not add up?

I do not agree that the two do not add up. When we look at reform it is important that we decide what the relevant processes are and what the House of Lords should do. Most Members of Parliament agree that that is how we should proceed before we decide the composition. I hope that in discussions now and in the near future we can come as close as possible to consensus. There is a wide variety of opinion in the House, as was clear the last time that the issue was debated, when not one of eight options was finally agreed. There is therefore much to discuss and I am sure that we all look forward to doing so.

17. What changes she plans to make to the jurisdiction of small claims courts. [61521]

The Better Regulation Task Force in its report, "Better Routes to Redress", recommended that research should be carried out into the potential impact of raising the current small claims limit for personal injury cases of £1,000. Work is currently under way to renew all case claim limits.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her reply. On the point of principle, does she accept the distinction between most other cases and housing disrepair and personal injuries? Does she agree with a wide range of organisations, including the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Law Society, Irwin Mitchell—a big law firm—and the TUC that those special cases require much lower jurisdiction so that people can claim their costs if they win their case?

The point of principle is to make sure that there is as much access as possible to justice for people who suffer a wrong and require redress. That is the overarching principle, and we will hold discussions with the legal profession, trade unions, insurers, consumer groups and advice agencies. We will look at the work of Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Civil Justice Council when considering the issue, and we will take people's views into account, including those of hon. Members.

Would not the most valuable improvement in the small claims court be to ensure that its judgments are more effectively enforced? On personal injuries, would it not be a little odd if we allowed a long set limit entirely to erode the opportunity for any small personal injury cases ever to go to the small claims court?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we will bear it in mind.

May I amend Question 21, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Order. I think that the hon. Lady should ask Question 18.

May I amend Question 18, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Order. The hon. Lady must await a ministerial answer to Question 18 before asking a supplementary question.

18. If she will reverse the decision to end funding for specialist support services. [61522]

On 22 March, the Legal Services Commission announced that it had reviewed its earlier decision to terminate those contracts and had informed providers that the contracts will continue.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I tabled the question before the decision was announced, which is why I wished to amend it. Can the Minister confirm that she will ensure that there is full consultation with all the relevant bodies, including the Welsh Assembly Government in the case of the Welsh specialist support service, and that she will announce the responses on the Floor of the House?

The Legal Services Commission will have learned lessons from what happened and understood the points made by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend and her colleague from Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and the Select Committee. The aim is to ensure that people have as much expert high quality advice as early as possible to resolve legal disputes.

We welcome with some relief the announcement by the Legal Services Commission of its intention to postpone its earlier decision. The Minister did not mention that the Government supported the Legal Services Commission in the ending of funding for specialist support services. However, with reference to the proposed review, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of affected lawyers do not want the cuts and believe that they will not save money but will create an even larger shortfall in provision, affecting primarily the poorer and most vulnerable in our society?

I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the Legal Services Commission makes its own decisions about how it disburses money for the not-for-profit sector. It was a matter for the commission, which has revoked its earlier decision. We welcome that. Secondly, on support for the not-for-profit sector, before 1997, £11 million per year was spent in support for legal services in that sector. Now that figure is £78 million, so the hon. Gentleman is not right to try and give the impression that funding for that sector's provision of legal services has been cut. Quite the reverse is true.

19. If she will make a statement on levels of pay in her Department. [61523]

The pay offered by the Department for Constitutional Affairs is generally competitive and enables us to employ staff with the skills that we need to provide good quality public services, while making the best use we can of the resources available.

I hear what the Minister says, but she will know that levels of pay for the third and fourth pay scales in her Department lag behind 6 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively, compared with average pay in the civil service. What discussions has she had with the Treasury about harmonising pay with other Departments?

We would all agree that pay discrepancies are undesirable. We inherited a variety of pay levels as a result of the creation of Her Majesty's Courts Service. We are holding a review of pay and structures throughout the Department, which I hope will address the issue.

21. What further steps she plans to take to assist the courts in dealing with people who do not pay fines and who jump bail. [61525]

Implementation of the new enforcement framework under the Courts Act 2003 was completed yesterday. It includes measures to elicit prompt payment and severe sanctions for defaulters. From April 2007 the national enforcement service will build on current initiatives to strengthen enforcement of all court orders across the criminal justice system.

I am sure the Minister will agree that her constituents and mine want a society with rules, and expect those rules to be enforced. How is it envisaged that the announcement about cracking down on those who evade paying fines will be implemented? Will she consider asking the courts to request more community service penalties where people do not have the financial ability to pay fines?

It is important that there is a wider range of penalties for those who default. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that if a court makes an order, it is enforced. If people come to court as a victim or a witness and give evidence, and see a fine or a compensation order imposed which is never paid, that adds insult to injury. We must make sure that non-custodial orders are properly enforced. Then people will feel that justice is being done, without every offender having to be sent to prison.

22. When she last met the Law Society to discuss fees for solicitors involved in coal health claims; and if she will make a statement. [61526]

The Government share my hon. Friend's concerns about solicitors double-charging successful claimants. I had a useful meeting with the chairs of the Law Society's regulation board and consumer complaints board on Thursday 23 March—last Thursday—to discuss the matter. The Law Society assured me that it views the matter very seriously and is doing all it can to take disciplinary action and to process claims for redress. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to monitor progress on the issue with the Law Society.

Claimants, backed by their MPs, are working with the Law Society to take up individual cases of redress. Rather than pursuing cases individually, will the Minister pursue the Law Society to take a more comprehensive approach so that we can learn lessons, so that firms can be audited and so that all claimants, rather than just individuals, can be compensated?

My hon. Friend has made a good point. The Law Society has assured me that it, too, takes the matter very seriously. It is planning an advertising campaign using local media to alert those consumers who are entitled to the repayment of fees by their solicitors. I have discussed the issue of taking a more generic approach with the Law Society, which is examining the matter. I can also tell my hon. Friend that the Law Society has already referred 45 solicitors to the tribunal, although no cases have yet been heard.

23. What role her Department played in the process which led to the decision by the Legal Services Commission to end the provision of specialist support services under the community legal service. [61527]

The Legal Services Commission is the public body charged with the planning and delivery of legal aid, and it is for it to enter into or terminate community legal service contracts and to decide how the money is spent.

In my constituency, there is woeful under-provision of expert legal advice, particularly for asylum seekers and people who are going through the immigration service, which means that many people are actually pursuing hopeless claims or have been left without any legal advice. I am concerned that the acting chief executive of the LSC seems to think that that need can be met by the Community Legal Service Direct, and I wonder whether the Minister agrees with his take on the matter.

CLS Direct, which allows people to phone up and get early legal advice, is an important service that is doing an important job, and it is going to expand. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem, which particularly applies to poorer people in socially excluded areas, with getting access to family and civil legal aid. The truth of the matter is that we have greatly increased the legal aid budget since we entered government in 1997. Despite the fact that there have been fewer criminal cases in the courts, most of the increase—in fact, nearly all of it—has gone on criminal legal aid, and civil and family legal aid has experienced a cut of £200 million, or about 24 per cent. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in trying to make sure that we get a fairer balance within the increased legal aid budget between family and civil legal aid on the one hand and criminal legal aid on the other.

24. Whether the Government plan to change the way nominations to the House of Lords are made. [61528]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week, our plans include bringing forward the last stage of House of Lords reform over the coming months, which will include membership and the systems of appointment. As promised in our manifesto, we will allow a free vote on the composition of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister has also made it clear that any reforms will be consistent with the primacy of this House.

Given the recent publicity about loans to political parties, which in my view was not so much about the fact that loans were made or who made them, but the implication that those loans were being used to buy privilege, surely the solution is to allow voters to decide who sits in the other place—it would take a very rich person to make a loan to every voter.

As I have said, there will be a free vote on the issue when it comes before the House. On loans, we intend to amend the Electoral Administration Bill to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans that they receive, which will obviously affect all political parties. I am sure that we will work together constructively to find a solution that allows for transparency and fairness.

What role does the Minister envisage the Prime Minister retaining in nominating people to the House of Lords?

My apologies for my slow response, but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question at first. The Prime Minister has already said that he is relinquishing his role in the honours system. We will examine House of Lords reform in the round, and there will be a debate on both the composition and processes of the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) has a view on whether the House of Lords should be entirely elected, and the matter will come to this House as a free vote. The Government have set up the Appointments Commission, and we want to ensure that representation in the House of Lords fairly reflects the wishes of this House.

Should we not all congratulate the Prime Minister on changing his views on the House of Lords? He was resolutely against election and in favour of appointment, but events have so conspired that he has very publicly changed his mind.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been able to ask a question on this issue which I know has worried him for many a long day. The Prime Minister, along with the rest of the House, will be able to participate in the free vote. He will be able to express whatever opinion he wishes then.

Does the Minister agree that any inducement offered to secure an honour or peerage is an act of criminality? Is the Minister prepared to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

The matter of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 is for the prosecuting authorities to deal with.

30. If he will bring forward proposals for a Select Committee to be established to make recommendations on the awarding of honours. [61512]

The system for making recommendations for honours has only recently been reformed and the Public Administration Committee can, of course, re-examine the working of it whenever it sees fit.

Public confidence in the honours system is draining away and it is not only because of concerns about party funding. Honours go disproportionately to the establishment, the rich and famous, and civil servants, and women still receive far fewer honours than men. Few people have heard of the Appointments Commission, but they have heard of Parliament. Can we have a statutory Committee of both Houses of Parliament to oversee the honours system in a transparent and accountable way?

While I am a strong supporter of such statutory Committees, they require the full co-operation of all the parties. They cannot work if one party alone comes clean while the main Opposition parties hide their sources of support.

I do not think that my party is hiding anything, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will consider that comment. It is not only the future system that needs addressing, but the shabby events of recent months and years. In that light, does he agree—and will he use his personal authority to ensure—that the Public Administration Committee and the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, which are looking into the issue, should have all the access to all the information that they need and all the people they need to see as witnesses, be they civil servants, party apparatchiks, donors, Ministers who knew and Ministers who did not know, consistent with self-incrimination and—

Order. That is quite long enough.

What this House wants is full disclosure of the donations by Michael Brown and others to the Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that even today the Liberal Democrats cannot commit themselves to revealing the names of their donors and loaners. It is important that there is full co-operation—[Interruption.] There will be full co-operation from this side and we want full co-operation from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he has always regretted it when he has not taken the most radical course of action available. May I remind my hon. Friend that two years ago a Committee of this House recommended a radical and comprehensive reform of the honours system? Does he think that my right hon. Friend now regrets that he did not embrace that more wholeheartedly?

My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically uncharitable about the steps that have been taken since that distinguished Committee reported in 2004 and the actions in 2005 that set up eight committees that look across the range of areas. Independent appointments are made to those committees, which make recommendations to the Prime Minister. That system seems to have worked rather well. Of course, if improvements can be made, the House waits to hear them.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will accept that if confidence is going to be restored in the system, political rants in answer to serious questions in this House will not help that process. During Constitutional Affairs questions, the Minister said that the breaches of the 1925 Act were a matter for the prosecuting authorities. That is indeed the case, which is why Scotland Yard has been called in to investigate whether the Labour party has been selling peerages. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that any system that is put in place to restore public confidence needs to be independent of Members of Parliament, and particularly of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister has already made it very clear that he wishes to stand aside from taking such decisions on nominations, which will require legislation in this House and full co-operation. I think that the hon. Member—[Hon. Members: "Right hon."] I am sorry. I think that the right hon. Member should perhaps have declared her close interest in this. I understand that the tax exile, Lord Ashcroft, made a contribution of some £25,000 to her election campaign. She would have done well to tell the House that, and also to tell the House that she will now disclose all the lenders to the Conservative party.

31. How many parking places for disabled drivers there are on the House of Commons estate. [61513]

There are four marked parking spaces for disabled drivers in Star Chamber Court and two in Norman Shaw car park. The roadway markings in Star Chamber Court will be redrawn over the Whitsun recess, with some minor remarking done over the Easter recess to clarify that the two bays affected by the new bollards remain available for use.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those reassurances. However, the disabled parking bays in Star Chamber Court have for many months been eaten into by alterations. As they need to be longer and wider to allow for disabled access, could the hon. Gentleman reassure me that four, not three, disabled parking bays will be put back into full use?

I can offer the hon. Lady that assurance. We will make certain that four are available for use, and if those do not appear to meet the necessary demand we can always consider other possibilities as well.

32. What further steps the Commission plans to take to improve the environmental performance of the House. [61514]

New energy and water policies were adopted by both Houses in late 2005, bringing the parliamentary estate closely into line with efficiency targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for Government Departments. Work with the Carbon Trust since April 2004 is also helping to identify a range of measures that can improve our environmental performance.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the debate on 3 November, serious concern was expressed on both sides of the Chamber about the lamentable environmental performance of this House. Can he confirm that the comments that Members made on that occasion, including those in my report, "How Green is Your Parliament?", will be taken forward and that we will have a full debate later this year when we can consider whether the House has made significant progress on that matter or is still spending almost half a million pounds on useless canopies?

My hon. Friend's dedication on this issue is known across the House, and he did indeed produce a helpful report late last year. I have already indicated to him that many of the suggestions that he made are being taken up by the House authorities. Later this year, the Commission will produce a further annual report, and I very much hope that time will be made available for a debate on it in the autumn so that my hon. Friend has the chance to satisfy himself that progress is being made.

Further to the question by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the unwanted environmental protection screen cost £422,000. Would not it have been cheaper to supply each of the 646 Members of Parliament with a £20 umbrella from the Commons Shop, costing £12,920 and saving £409,080 that could have been invested in energy-saving measures?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the principal reason for the walkway was environmental—many users of the parliamentary estate had slipped there because of the wet surface. It is also the principal access to the House for disabled people, and the need for a walkway had been identified in that regard. The cost of the walkway has been addressed previously during questions in this House.

33. On how many occasions since 10 October the brass fittings in the lift to the Special Gallery West have been polished. [61515]

The brass fittings in the lift to the Special Gallery West have not been polished for many years. Following professional conservation advice, the policy has been that, to prevent damage, such metalwork should not be polished but regularly cleaned with a dry chamois leather or duster.

I thought that we would hear something about conservation. Could we please have some consistency? One has only to visit the Ways and Means Corridor or the Library Corridor to see fittings treated differently. Tourists now visit parts of the Palace that look shabby because of lack of cleaning. It is a disgrace.

As I explained, we are following advice in adopting our policy. Given the mixture of heritage and modern brass in the Commons, it would be difficult to begin distinguishing between them. It is therefore considered safer to avoid polishing and let a protective patina build up.

34. If he will bring forward a motion to establish a House of Commons business committee. [61516]

We have no plans to alter the current arrangements for setting House of Commons business.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that non-reply, which was courteously delivered. Does not he accept—as the Leader of the House will accept, as he attended a Hansard Society seminar this morning—that most other legislatures in the world have a business committee? The devolved institutions—the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and the Parliament in Scotland—have Business Committees. Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that it would help the House to have a business committee and thus bring the business closer to the people who comprise the House, not only Ministers?

No. Is that direct enough?