asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to expedite progress on the construction of the East Fife regional road; and if he will make a statement.

Every effort is being made to complete the East Fife regional road as quickly as possible. A contract for phase 2 has just been awarded and, provided funds are available, the remaining two phases will start as soon as the necessary statutory procedures are completed.

"Provided funds are available" is an ominous phrase. Will stages 3 and 4 be combined in one contract? How many objections are outstanding? What efforts is the Department making to satisfy those objections to avoid the possibility of holding a public inquiry, which will delay the project?

Whether the two phases can go together depends partly on the availability of resources and partly on the statutory procedures being completed in both cases. There are seven unresolved objections to the draft road orders which were published last April. We are preparing draft compulsory purchase orders, which we hope will be published in the summer. If objections to those orders are lodged and not withdrawn, a public inquiry will obviously be required. As usual, my Department is making every effort to ensure that if the objections are resolvable without an inquiry, that will be done.

Does my hon. Friend find it a curious contradiction that the Labour party in Fife should be in favour of a road which relieves local communities of traffic, whereas the labour party in Edinburgh is blindly and dogmatically opposed to the western relief road, which would bring considerable benefit to the whole of the western sector in Edinburgh?

Obviously I cannot comment on the Edinburgh relief road. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is aware that there has been a great deal of expenditure on roads in Fife. In the five years up to March 1984, £16·4 million was spent on trunk roads and £21 million was spent on local roads.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that regional grants are a major attraction for industries corning to Fife? In view of the abolition of regional development grant assistance to Fife, will the hon. Gentleman do everything possible to expedite the construction of the East Fife regional road? Assuming that there are no objections to and no public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Department will take every opportunity to expedite the construction of the road?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware from what I have said that my Department and I regard this as an important road. Subject to the procedures being completed and to the availability of resources, the road will be completed as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the Glenochil young offenders centre.

I have no plans at present to change the regimes of the young offenders institution and detention centre at Glenochil. However, the best use of all penal establishments is kept under regular review.

Has the Under-Secretary of State noticed that during the 12 years before 1981 there were no deaths at the Glenochil complex, but that since then there have been six deaths? Does that not suggest that, under this Government, shocks may be not only sharp and short, but terminal?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comment, because I believe that he was a member of the Labour Administration between 1974 and 1979. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not know already, that the regime at the Glenochil detention centre has not changed since 1960. It was acceptable then and, in our view, it is still acceptable. Of course, I am concerned about any deaths at penal establishments, and especially the six deaths at Glenochil since 1976. As we know, they are the subject of inquiry and cannot be commented upon. None of the first five deaths was attributed to the management or regime at Glenochil by the fatal accident inquiry.

What is the percentage success rate of those who come out of Glenochil and do not return to the recesses of the Scottish penal system? Does my hon. Friend envisage an improvement in those figures in the future?

For obvious reasons, the success figures are not recorded centrally. The whole House must understand that young offenders' institutions and detention centres exist to provide an opportunity for a change of attitude in the persons who are there. Whether they are changed depends on the company that they keep afterwards and their character.

Does the Minister agree that the statement that was made yesterday by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland is helpful, in so far as it goes, in changing sentencing policy? Many of us have asked for that, because the change that has taken place in the public's attitude as a result of the inquiries shows that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the regime. The problem is that in many instances the wrong people are being sent to the institution. Secondly, the information that the Minister gave me yesterday and his response to the last question show that he is completely incapable of justifying the efficacy of the short, sharp shock treatment on any statistical evidence. If he cannot provide that evidence, he should take steps to end that form of treatment.

On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons described the regime as "positive and purposeful." I endorse that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the regime.

The announcement made yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland was, I believe, logical. If we are to have a system that relies on the short, sharp, shock, plainly the shock element is diminished by someone returning for a second time. That can have a disruptive influence on the good work of the institution. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the decision that we announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause a survey to be conducted about the problems of elderly mentally confused people in Scotland and thereafter publish his findings.

The needs of this group have not substantially changed since the Timbury report on services for the elderly with mental disability was published, and I see no need at present for a further survey.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the problem of senile dementia in Scotland is growing, and that all those old people and their families are in "a Catch 22 situation"? They cannot be taken into old folks' homes because they are too confused, and they cannot go into hospitals because there are insufficient beds. Will he ensure that more beds are made available for people in that condition, and will he provide them as fast as he can?

I well appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this matter, which worries every Member of Parliament. We have made considerable progress recently towards implementing the recommendations of the Timbury report. It recommended that by 1991 we should have 7,200 hospital beds for that group of patients. We have 5,000 now, and by 1987 there should be 6,000. We are well on the way to implementing the recommendations. I shall do what I can to ensure that the health boards maintain their priorities in this important matter.

Will my right hon. Friend encourage the development of private nursing home accommodation for the frail, the confused and the elderly? Will he also ensure that the nursing home regulations, which are in some doubt at the moment, are tightened up?

I well appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I, of course, encourage private provision, provided that it is up to acceptable standards, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that it is. As I have said, we continually impress on the health boards the need to put Health Service provision at the top of their priority lists.

Does the Secretary of State welcome the setting up of Scottish Action on Dementia? Will he take up with the chairman of the Ayrshire and Arran health board the shortfall in places to deal with dementia so that we see some action towards the aims and objectives of the Timbury report in the area which he and I represent?

Yes, Sir. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. We have had a long-standing shortage of this accommodation in the part of the country that we represent. The health board has the matter at the top of its priorities, and I hope that it will be able to take good action soon.

Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to maintain capital expenditure on improving hospitals for the mentally ill, especially for the young mentally ill, so that they can be treated as near to their homes as possible?

I agree with the aims that my hon. Friend has outlined. I am glad to say that the programme for capital building in hospitals has been kept at a steady, high level during the past few years. I hope that we can keep it that way.

Will the Secretary of State reject the poor house mentality of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley)? Will he tell the House how many of the 5,000 beds that are now available for the treatment of senile dementia were planned by this Conservative Administration, and how many were planned by the Labour Government? When will the Government be in a position to tell us about some new building programme to relieve this serious problem?

If the hon. Gentleman wants figures for the dates when the various parts if the programme were put into effect, I shall gladly answer a question if he tables one.

The hon. Gentleman did not strengthen his case by his wholly unwarranted interpretation of the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), which bore no resemblance to what she asked. My hon. Friend expressed the hope that the private sector could also help to deal with these people who need help. If the hon. Gentleman cannot welcome that, he is not worthy of the Front Bench.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the STUC from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues. My right hon. Friend last met the STUC on 25 January, when the coal dispute was discussed. The general secretary was not present on that occasion. I met representatives of the STUC most recently on 1 February to discuss education and training matters.

Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend again seek a meeting with the general secretary of the STUC to discuss the intolerable unemployment situation? Will they also discuss the rating revaluation that is taking place, which will have an adverse effect on businesses and further aggravate unemployment? Will they also discuss—

Order. Two questions are enough.

Will they also discuss the teachers' pay claim—

Order. That is being a bit greedy.

I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will have a meeting with such a prolonged agenda. My right hon. Friend is always willing to meet the general secretary of the STUC, when it is appropriate. I must point out that manufacturing industry benefits from the revaluation in Scotland. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about unemployment, I hope that the STUC will compare Britain's performance with that of the United States. During the past decade, employment in the United States increased by 18·5 million and real weekly earnings fell. During the same period the United Kingdom lost more than 1 million jobs and real weekly earnings rose by 19 per cent. There is a lesson for trade unions in that.

When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the STUC, will he remind them of the productivity deal that was entered into about a year ago at British Shipbuilders, which has resulted in efficiency in some Scottish yards being increased by 25 to 30 per cent.? Will he encourage the STUC to adopt similar practices in other industries, because that is the real way to protect jobs?

My hon. Friend is right. The real way to protect jobs is to improve productivity and to meet customers' needs. The recent orders, such as the outstanding order won by Govan Shipbuilders, are a tribute to the responsiveness of many trade unionists to the needs of a competitive economy.

If the Minister does not propose to meet the STUC early to discuss the mining dispute, and especially the behaviour of Mr. Wheeler of the NCB, will he meet instead the two chief constables who have called for an end to this action? Is it not disgraceful that they find the upholding of law and order on the beat infinitely more progressive than do their masters at the Scottish Office?

There were 900 convictions during the coal strike and fewer than 200 dismissals. The board has considered each case on its merits. I deplore the personal attacks on Mr. Wheeler by Opposition Members. It is about the only thing that unites them on the coal strike.

When my hon. Friend next meets the general secretary of the STUC, will he bring to his attention the lessons that came out of the coal strike, especially with regard to trade union and non-trade union workers who worked together to protect their jobs in their industries? Will he especially draw attention to the fact that at Ravenscraig and elsewhere productivity increased?

Yes, Sir. The country owes an enormous debt to the miners who continued to work, despite violence and intimidation, throughout the strike. I join my hon. Friend in praising the efforts of the management and work force at Ravenscraig to keep it going, despite the coal strike and what the STUC said about it on several occasions.

Has the Minister seen representations that have been made by the STUC about the provocative and vindictive attitude of the National Coal Board's management in Scotland? Is he aware that 17 of my constituents were tried for what even the police described as minor picket line offences, but they have now been sacked by my constituent, Mr. Albert Wheeler? Is that in accordance with Government policy?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a wide variety of constituents. I simply point out that any miner who has been sacked and who feels aggrieved can have recourse to an industrial tribunal.

Will my hon. Friend comment upon the TUC in Scotland mitigating the damage caused to the Scottish coal industry by the NUM, and also condemn the recent violence to the president of the Scottish NUM?

I join my hon. Friend in condemning the recent violent attack on Mr. McGahey, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). I hope that the STUC and everyone else will now concentrate on rebuilding the coal industry, to create a competitive industry for the future.

Is the Minister aware that his view of Mr. Wheeler's attitude is very different from what has been widely reported in the press in recent weeks? Will he, as a matter of urgency, meet the STUC and Church leaders in Scotland, who are seeking an amnesty for those miners who have lost their jobs?

The National Coal Board and the Government have made it clear that a total amnesty is out of the question. We must bear in mind the violence and intimidation that went on during the coal strike. That is what Opposition Members too quickly tend to forget.

Does my hon. Friend agree that miners, whether they work in Scotland, England or Wales, should be afforded the protection of the law and that those who break it should suffer the consequences?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat that the board has made it clear in Scotland, as in the rest of the country, that each case was considered on its merits.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reconsider what he said about the National Coal Board examining each case in Scotland on its merits? Mr. Wheeler is on record as saying that he will do no such thing. In his discussions with the STUC and the NUM in Scotland, will the Minister persuade the NCB to examine each case on its merits and to enter as expeditiously as possible into discussions with the NUM so that there may be a return to good industrial relations in Scotland, for the benefit of the mining industry and the Scottish economy?

I have already said that the NCB has examined each case on its merits. I point out to the hon. Member that, although there were 900 convictions during the strike, there have been fewer than 200 dismissals.

When my hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he put to it the view that strikes never do anybody any good? That was particularly marked during the recent coal strike, which has had disastrous consequences for the formerly economic Frances and Seafield collieries in Fife.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that the Opposition are seeking to divert attention from the real issues that must be faced—the damage that has been done to the coal industry and the need for it to become efficient and competitive. If the industry can achieve those aims, it will have a very good future.

The Minister will no doubt know that the STUC is very concerned about the future of the British Rail works at Springburn, where about 1,500 men and women are employed. The proposal is that the work force should be reduced to 500. That means that no longer will there be any railway workshop capacity in Scotland, let alone at Springburn. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will fight for the retention of that workshop?

The House knows of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has expressed on a number of occasions, about BREL at Springburn. However, that is a matter for British Rail. Because of changed circumstances, it has had to make this announcement.

Will my hon. Friend talk to the STUC about employment and confirm that last month there were 342,000 more people in work in the United Kingdom than there were 12 months ago? Is that increase reflected in Scotland?

The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. Total employment up to September 1984 was rising in Scotland, as it was rising in the United Kingdom. There are a number of particularly encouraging signs in the service, oil-related, electronics and manufacturing industries. The last CBI survey was much more encouraging about employment trends than has been the case for a number of years.

Does the Minister accept that justice has to be seen to be done in the miners' dispute? It is no good the Minister saying that there has been an individual review, when many of us know that miners who were involved in very minor incidents, which sometimes resulted only in admonitions, have lost their jobs and been thrown out of the industry after many years of blameless service. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Wheeler has said that all those who have been dismissed are guilty of serious crimes against fellow workers or NCB property? Will he have discussions with the Solicitor-General for Scotland and confirm from his Department's prosecution records that that is just not true? In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman tell the NCB that it would be quite monstrous if there were not to be individual reviews based upon the circumstances of cases of the kind that have taken place in many other parts of the country? Will the Minister at least redeem himself by joining the Churches and the chief constables in making that point forcefully and removing what is rapidly becoming a public scandal about justice in Scotland?

The reasons for the dismissals were set out very fully by Mr. Wheeler in his letter to The Scotsman of 12 March. The NCB completely repudiates the charges of petty vindictiveness that have been put to it. I repeat, if an individual feels that he has a grievance, he has, as has any other employee who has been dismissed, the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received over the projected level of policing by the Northern Constabulary within the Highlands and Islands; and if he will make a statement.

I have had representations from hon. Members whose constituencies are in the northern police area and from many local organisations and individuals. I have also corresponded with the chairman of the joint police committee. The decision to reduce the police budget for 1985–86 was made by the joint police committee, and flowed from limitations placed by Highland regional council on its contribution to policing costs.

When will the Minister live up to his responsibility and stop trying to mislead the House on this issue? The limitations on the budget are a direct result of Scottish Office guidelines, and Highland regional council has budgeted within those guidelines. Is the Minister aware that the outcome is the proposed closure of 33 police stations in the Highlands and Islands, including 17 in my constituency? In view of that, does the Minister think that his is the party of law and order in the Highlands any more?

Only one guideline has been given to the Highland regional council, and that requires it to make an overall reduction of 1 per cent. in its expenditure in real terms. I find its decision to reduce the contribution to policing costs by 6·5 per cent. surprising, but it is one that it is entitled to take. In view of the strictures that the hon. Gentleman made against me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I point out that were we to tell local authorities what to spend on individual services, we would rightly be accused of destroying the fundamental principle of local government, which is that councils are entitled to decide their own priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effects of the proposed rating revaluation on commercial ratepayers in the Borders region.

I have received several representations to the effect that the values fixed for commercial property in the Borders are too high. Aggrieved ratepayers may appeal to the local valuation appeal committee or to the courts. In Scotland as a whole, I understand that the average multiplier for commercial property is slightly below that for all property. It follows that commercial subjects overall should, in the coming year, be paying a smaller proportion than in the past of the rate bill.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that commercial ratepayers in the Borders region are finding it difficult to reconcile what the Secretary of State for Scotland said to me only last Thursday—that across the country commercial rates had fallen by 3·2 per cent.—with the fact that the regional assessor in the Borders claims that the increase has been 41 per cent., and that some of the increases are coming through at 160 per cent.? The hon. Gentleman knows the area as well as I do, and knows that commercial increases of that magnitude would require a far bigger upturn in economic activity than has taken place in the Borders area. Why has this happened? Can the Minister give us a promise of some relief for commercial ratepayers in the Borders area?

The hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation why this has taken place, and until we see the full effects of revaluation it will not be possible to judge. It may be that in previous revaluations the valuations were set lower than the average. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already told the hon. Gentleman that revaluations are about gainers and losers, because they balance the rating burden. Within his area, it is worth noting that there are concerns that will benefit from revaluation.

I have not found any.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to the Edinburgh Wool Mill in Jedburgh, which will have a rate reduction of 20 per cent., or Moffat Woollens in Jedburgh, which will have a rate reduction of 25 per cent., or the Kelso ice rink, which he knows well, which will have a reduction of 10 per cent.

In view of the widespread concern expressed about commercial rates and—

Order. The question is about commercial rates in the Borders area.

In view of the widespread concern expressed about commercial rates in the Borders, and the concern about domestic rates, as expressed by my father in Glasgow recently, will my hon. Friend take the lead in rating—[Interruption.]—

Order. English Members have some rights as well.

Will my hon. Friend now take the lead in encouraging a thorough reform of the rating system in Scotland, to set a model for the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am involved, as I think hon. Members know, in a Government review, with my English colleagues, of the system of local government finance. At this stage, obviously, I would not want to pre-empt the considerations within that review. I am concerned about the levels of valuation increases for commercial enterprises. If those who have received them think that they are unfair, they must realise that they have a right of appeal.

As to domestic ratepayers, of course we have given a large measure of relief to the domestic ratepayers. That was announced the other day.

Will the Minister take a little trip to Inchinnan and speak to the former Conservative group leader of Paisley town council, one Mr. James Neal.—[Interruption.]

Order. Is that in the Borders? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Borders.

Will my hon. Friend now take the lead in encouraging a thorough reform of the rating system in Scotland, to set a model for the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am involved, as I think hon. Members know, in a Government review, with my English colleagues, of the system of local government finance. At this stage, obviously, I would not want to pre-empt the considerations within that review. I am concerned about the levels of valuation increases for commercial enterprises. If those who have received them think that they are unfair, they must realise that they have a right of appeal.

As to domestic ratepayers, of course we have given a large measure of relief to the domestic ratepayers. That was announced the other day.

Will the Minister take a little trip to Inchinnan and speak to the former Conservative group leader of Paisley town council, one Mr. James Neal—[Interruption.]

Order. Is that in the Borders? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that the hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Borders.

It is wholly relevant to rating and to revaluation.

The question concerns rating in the Borders.

Is the Minister aware that commercial ratepayers in the Borders are more sharply aware than anybody else in Scotland of the unfairness of the revaluation going ahead on the Scottish side of the Borders, while nothing is being done in England?

I am sure that ratepayers in the Borders, commercial or otherwise, are as aware as anybody else that in Scotland, by statute, we have always had regular revaluations and, indeed, both sides of the House, if I may say so, have taken some pride in those revaluations, because we believe that over a period of time they ensure that there is fairness in the way that the rate burden is apportioned. I think that it is a matter for some surprise that the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government who presided over a revaluation in Scotland in 1978 when none occurred in England, should take the line that he does now.

Can the hard-pressed commercial ratepayers in the Borders give any credence to the rumour that the Prime Minister is well disposed to taking commercial and industrial rating out of the system altogether?

The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said about the review that is taking place. I am sure he will understand that I do not want to pre-empt the consideration of that review.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland to discuss teachers' pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in settling the teachers' pay dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to find a fair solution to the teachers' dispute.

The general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland was present when I met representatives of the Scottish joint negotiating committee for teaching staff in school education, at their request, on 28 January and 15 February 1985. I have not been approached by him for a separate meeting.

Despite these meetings with me and clarification of my position in writing, the teachers' side of the Scottish joint negotiating committee for teaching staff in school education continues to oppose a review of pay and conditions of service within that committee. I wrote to the teachers' side on 28 February noting its decision with regret. I, of course, remain willing to meet it again if it wishes to revive the idea of such a review. Meanwhile, I am keeping in close touch with the Scottish Examination Board and with the education authorities in order to ensure that as much as possible is done to safeguard the interests of pupils affected by the present industrial action, especially those in examination years.

Will the Secretary of State accept that at a meeting of over 100 teachers in my constituency I was informed of a teacher who now qualifies for a rate rebate, of another who now moonlights driving a taxi and of a qualified science teacher who has left to go to work in a bank? Is he prepared to defend the level of professional pay that gives rise to those cases? Can he tell the House how he hopes to get the CSE assessments this year without the co-operation of teachers, or what he expects fourth year pupils to do next year when there are no standard grade materials for them? Does he not appreciate that all these problems would vanish overnight if he stopped running away from an outside opinion and accepted the reasonable, moderate, demand of teachers for an independent review of their pay?

Like many of us, the hon. Gentleman will have attended meetings at which people will have put statistics before him. He raises matters which are strongly felt, but they are best put in the normal negotiating process which was set up precisely to look at pay and conditions of service. Even at this stage I urge teachers to accept that that is the way to deal with what they see as great grievances which they want sorted out. I am in close consultation with the education authorities and the Scottish Examination Board to ensure that every possible step is taken to see that examinations go ahead and that pupils receive proper recognition for their work. I understand that some education authorities are now prepared to take action against teachers who refuse to carry out instructions on the preparation of pupils for external examinations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the refusal of teachers to negotiate means that they might be missing out on the kind of financial redistribution that has happened recently, which has helped the hard-pressed ratepayer?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I have confined myself in the teachers' dispute to encouraging teachers to use the machinery that was set up precisely for the purpose of looking into the sort of grievances that they have. I hope that they will do that.

How can the Secretary of State possibly justify a situation in which a young person can spend three or four years studying hard at university, followed by another year at a college of education, only to find that a teacher is paid £138 a week less than a policeman? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept full responsibility for the current crisis in Scottish education and the chaos that exists in many Scottish schools? Does he appreciate that it is up to him to help find a solution by agreeing to the legitimate demand for an independent pay review?

The hon. Gentleman might find, if he really looks into the matter, that it is extraordinarily difficult to compare the totally different jobs of teachers and policemen. Everything to do with their conditions, times and type of work is utterly different. The crisis in the schools to which the hon. Gentleman refers is due to the fact that teachers have decided to use this sort of guerrilla action, to the great deterioration of the chances of their pupils, instead of using the machinery that was set up exactly for the purpose of trying to sort out their grievances.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that teachers seldom go on strike on Mondays and Fridays? Apparently they get paid for two days' work on Mondays and Fridays, so that teachers who work only two days a week get paid for four days. Will he look into the matter because, if that is the case, it is a disgraceful state of affairs?

I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. I understand that all sorts of variations on the tune can be played, including allowing for holidays and the like. However, none of that should blind us to the fact that the extreme action of taking labour away from the schools when children are facing examinations—perhaps their only chance of taking those examinations—is a most serious step to take and is quite unjustified by any grievances when machinery exists for dealing with such matters.

Is it not a fact that the teachers do not believe that the Secretary of State has, or is prepared to find, the necessary resources to meet their claim under the negotiating procedure to which he has referred, particularly as he has turned down the request for an independent pay review? Is the right hon. Gentleman cramped by the effects of the Barnett formula? If so, will he ask the Treasury for more money so that the matter may be settled swiftly, in view of the harm that is being done to the education of many children?

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes in the last part of that supplementary question, and I am sure that he will use all his influence, at least in his area, to persuade teachers that this is not the right way to pursue their concerns. I have made it clear in my offer to the teachers that if they will go into negotiations and produce a package which includes pay and conditions of service, I shall be prepared to receive and consider constructively such a package and, if it is attractive enough, do my best to find some resources to help. I have given that undertaking and I repeat it today.

When my right hon. Friend meets the general secretary of the EIS, will he tell him that many people in my constituency find the tactics of the EIS in victimising pupils who happen to be represented in Parliament by Conservative Members absolutely unfair and disgraceful and very much at odds which the professional standing of teachers?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have found that even people who are sympathetic to the teachers' cause and who think that the Government should have taken various steps to avoid the present state of affairs are incensed that they should be picked on because of the constituency in which they happen to live. What is happening is quite unjustified at a time when I have made a perfectly reasonable offer to the teachers, and, as every day passes, it is becoming more difficult to implement it.

Does the Secretary of State know, as I do, senior teachers who live in Conservative-controlled district council areas, who are at the top of their salary scale in promoted posts and who will require a 3·5 per cent. increase in salary simply to pay the increase that is being demanded in rates? Does that not illustrate clearly the rightness and justice of the teachers' claim and also the absolute mess into which the Secretary of State has got on the rating system?

Neither of those things is indicated by what the hon. Gentleman has said. The issue we are concerned with here is that teachers feel that they have been badly treated and have grievances they want sorted out. There is no doubt about that. They have decided to take industrial action in the schools instead of using the machinery set up for the purpose of sorting out the problem. That is not justifiable and I hope it will stop.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his suggestion that he is prepared to make an offer to the teachers would have more credibility if he had not proposed a £64 million cash cut in next year's education budget? Will he now admit that that was a mistake and restore it? In those circumstances he might reasonably expect the teachers to respond. Will he further admit that finding £38 million for the ratepayers when there was so much protest but not being able to find money for the teachers was a rather cynical choice on his part?

Both those points are extremely poor. The first one—sorry, I have forgotten what the first one was—

The first one was that the Secretary of State has cut next year's education budget by £64 million.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I am sorry that it slipped my mind. The reduction in the education budget for several years was not as large as the reduction in the number of pupils. Therefore, the amount of money allocated per pupil is at its highest level ever. That should not be overlooked. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's general point, may I repeat that the teachers have a perfectly good way of dealing with their problem. It is getting more and more difficult every day to carry it out, if they come to it, but they have to produce a package of pay and conditions of service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that between 1983 and 1984 in Scotland there was an 8 per cent. increase in funding for education per head of population? If that is compared with the figure for England, current spending per head in Scotland is 35 per cent. ahead of spending in England. Is that not a sign that my right hon. Friend is working very hard for education in Scotland?

I welcome my hon. Friend's efforts to put a bit more realism into the debate on education. The talk about cuts in education cannot be seen except against a background of large reductions in the number of pupils. The fact is that the Government have managed to find enough money to ensure that the amount per pupil has been increasing all the time. There is no excuse, therefore, for standards of education falling.

When the Secretary of State gives thought to the important matter of pay, will he bear in mind the widespread discontent among teachers, parents and pupils about the childminder exercise, whereby teachers are being asked to teach subjects about which they know very little and to deal with disciplines which do not relate to their background? Given the serious problem, will the Secretary of State discourage his hon. Friends from making the kind of negative and unhelpful comments that they have made in the House this afternoon?

I have not heard any negative and unhelpful comments from the Government side of the House. I appreciate that the teachers have strong views, which vary very much between different teachers, about the sort of duties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is not for me to make pronouncements about them in the House of Commons. It is for the teachers to negotiate with their employers in the joint negotiating committee. That is the place where they should be sorted out.

The Secretary of State will be aware, of course, that the EIS national council is meeting on Monday. Does he agree that it is very important that everything should be done to persuade the EIS that negotiations would be worth while and would be approached in a reasonably flexible spirit by the Government? In view of that, can he confirm that on Channel 4 news, I think last night, in an interview the right hon. Gentleman said that the negotiations should be not just about pay but also about improved conditions of service? It is important to establish exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that, because the inclusion of conditions has always been taken as meaning that there should be a deterioration in conditions in order to buy some increase on the pay side. If he genuinely means that he is prepared to look at improvements in conditions of service, will he underline that before Monday so that the EIS and other teachers are aware of it?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has raised an important point. I certainly join him in hoping that if the EIS has a council meeting on Monday it will think very long and hard about the industrial action and about the suggestion that it should settle its problems in the joint negotiating committee.

On the deterioration in conditions, what I said during the Channel 4 programme was what I have been saying all along, namely that the package which I hope will come out of the negotiating committee should cover pay and conditions of service. Teachers have several times questioned whether that means a deterioration or an improvement in conditions. I do not put it as strongly as that. I put it in an extremely neutral sense. They must address themselves to conditions of service, and I do not want to pre-empt which way that goes. I would need to have a package which included both pay and conditions of service to justify any attempt to find money from other parts of my programme to fund the package.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people have been (a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) prosecuted and (d) convicted in Scotland as a result of incidents related to the miners' strike.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people in Scotland have been successfully prosecuted for offences arising from the miners' strike.

As at 6 March 1985, 1,504 persons had been arrested, 1,483 persons had been charged by the police and proceedings have been instituted against 1,046 persons. Five hundred and eighty-three persons had been convicted as a result of incidents related to the miners' strike, but there are a number of cases still to come to trial.

If the Crown Office is unwilling to drop all pending charges as a gesture of reconciliation, will the Solicitor-General at least instruct the procurators fiscal that there is no need to report to the National Coal Board every case involving a miner—otherwise, they are liable to be punished twice for the same alleged offence? Does the Solicitor-General agree with the chief constables of Central region and Fife that tension in the coalfields would be greatly reduced if Albert Wheeler was seen to be more willing to reinstate sacked miners?

The basis on which people have been charged in connection with offences arising out of the miners' strike is exactly the same basis on which charges are brought against other people in the courts for the whole range of criminal activities, quite regardless of the miners' strike. As far as I can ascertain, about 251 cases still have to be brought to the courts in Scotland. I hope that they will be dealt with during the next two or three months.

I must emphasise that the traditional role of the prosecutor in Scotland ends once a conviction or an aquittal is secured. It would be a wholly unacceptable departure from that role if I were to become involved in other matters subsequent to that, or, indeed, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate were to do so.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that his answer confirms the highly disagreeable nature of the violence and intimidation that sustained the miners' strike in Scotland? Does he agree that the National Coal Board is right to refuse to grant an amnesty to those convicted properly in the courts of crimes of violence and destruction of property?

The matter of dismissal by the NCB is entirely a matter for the NCB. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has already said, if the dismissed miners take exception to that, they have another remedy available to them. From what I heard earlier, it would be quite wrong to trivialise some of the offences committed during the miners' strike or to pretend in any way that they were not serious. Rather surprisingly, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, some Scottish Members of Parliament seem to be under the misapprehension that there has been no violence and no serious offences arising out of the miners' strike.

Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland not realise that it is not so much what is happening in the courts that is causing widespread anxiety, as the action of the NCB in Scotland? Why do Ministers not stop being apologists for the NCB and make it clear that it would be in everyone's interest to reduce the tension, bitterness and resentment in the Scottish coalfields and the surrounding areas, and try to encourage people to live together again in a civilised manner at the end of this difficult dispute? Ministers have a responsibility, and we are asking them to exercise it.

As the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates, it has never been the role of the public prosecutor in Scotland to become involved beyond the stage of conviction or acquittal. The right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should appreciate that if the Government were to say at this stage that the 200-odd cases that are still to come to court should be withdrawn, we would be adopting a political stance as unacceptable as would have been an initial approach to the cases on a political basis.

When we consider the cases that have come before the courts and been decided, and those that have still to come to court, must we not bear in mind the public's attitude to the many policemen who were badly injured in carrying out their duties? The public expect such matters to be dealt with properly.

Yes, indeed. A considerable number of police officers in Scotland were injured during the course of that unhappy industrial action. The offences have not been trivial. For instance, an iron bar was thrown through the window of a three-year-old child's bedroom and landed on the bed. Such matters are not to be swept aside and forgotten. [Interruption.] The courts should consider such cases and should consider the question of innocence or guilt, and it is for the courts—not for hon. Members—to impose the necessary fines or terms of imprisonment.

Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland recall the representations that he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and the meeting that he had with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and myself, about the position of Mr. David Hamilton, the chairman of the Lothian strike committee, who languished for nine weeks in jail and was then found not guilty? Will the Government recognise that the truth is that the NCB management in Scotland wishes to sack people because they were active in the strike and not because of anything else that they have done? That is why the Government and the NCB are isolated on this matter. When will there be some change in the situation?

I recall that meeting, at which I gave the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the matter would be brought to court as quickly as possible, as indeed it was. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman takes exception to that. Mr. Hamilton had the opportunity to be tried before a jury. He was acquitted. So far as I am concerned, the matter ends there.

Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland accept that, sadly, he is misrepresenting the Opposition's case? Our case is that there are undoubtedly a number of people who, by any yardstick, have not been involved in serious crime, assaults on fellow workers or destruction of property, but who have been convicted on charges that have attracted only admonitions or small fines; and have been dismissed. Unless there is a proper review procedure based upon justice in individual cases, as there seems to be in other NCB areas, people in Scotland will retain the unpalatable and unacceptable impression that men have been sacked for who they are and not for what they have done.

If anyone is seeking to misrepresent the situation, it is the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that I have neither responsibility for, nor any involvement with, the chairman of the NCB either on a national or a Scottish basis. My concern is the prosecution of crime in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman has any complaint to make about any particular case, he should make it to me. So far as I am aware, no one has yet made such a complaint. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we have been involved politically in the prosecution of those people, he has made an extremely serious allegation.

That is not the point.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is not the point, but he has raised it with me this Question Time.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he can give an estimate as to the length of time on average it takes for cases, reported to him, the Lord Advocate, or to procurators fiscal (a) to be brought to the High Court and (b) to be conducted during 1984–85; and whether it is his policy to ensure that cases are heard as quickly as possible.

The Crown is required by statute to serve an indictment on accused persons who have been refused bail within 80 days of full committal, and to commence the trial within 110 days. There is limited provision for extension, but in 1983, which is the latest year for which figures are available, only six cases did not come to trial within 110 days.

The Crown endeavours to serve an indictment as early as possible, and in custody cases this is generally done within 70 days. In High Court cases where the accused is released on bail, the trial must be commenced within 12 months of first appearance of the accused on petition. No figures are available to indicate the length of time taken to conclude cases once the trial has commenced.

In view of the great increase in the number of drugs cases, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that reported cases are brought to trial as quickly as possible?

Yes, there is a tight statutory timetable to be adhered to. Possibly of greater importance and interest to my hon. Friend is the fact that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate has decided that cases involving the supply of hard drugs in Scotland should generally be brought in the High Court to ensure that the full range of penalties is available to the court.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that an English hon. Member comes into Scottish questions with some trepidation. You will also know that I have tabled Question No. 12 on forestry policy—

Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's question was not reached. I cannot deal with that matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not ask his question now.

The point is whether forestry questions should be down for answer by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as they apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. That is unfortunate for hon. Members with English constituencies. Is it possible for the matter to be reviewed?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will have noticed the increasing number of English Members who have come to Scottish questions recently — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] — thus making it difficult for Scottish Members to monitor the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which covers some eight or nine Ministries. Taking forestry questions, which is a United Kingdom function, during Scottish questions is attracting even more English Members to Scottish questions. They are caught up in the magnificence of our proceedings and join in, thus making it more difficult for us to get a word in edgeways. If Scottish questions are to include other matters such as forestry, is it not desirable to have Scottish questions every three weeks, as used to be the case, rather than every four?

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. This takes up a lot of time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that hon. Members who represent English constituencies are as entitled to attend Scottish questions as are Scottish Members to attend and participate in other Question Times?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that Scottish questions overran the allotted time to 3.20 pm by a couple of minutes? I am not complaining about that—

One minute.

One minute. Had the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) not immediately jumped up on a point of order, my question, No. 45, might have been called in injury time. As it has not been reached, may I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand and sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). Leaving out questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Scottish Office Ministers answered 10 questions today.

When previously I raised with you the question about which hon. Members you allowed to catch your eye, you rightly told me that you attempted to call hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper and said that if the Opposition Front Bench did not take up so much time, more Back Benchers would be called. I thought that. I should point out that, while at our previous Scottish Question Time, my Front Bench colleagues and myself rose on only three occasions and today on only four occasions, that did not help progress during Scottish questions. You chose to call five Conservative Members—four English and one Scot—who did not even have questions on the Order Paper. What is the position? Will hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper be called, or given that there is a serious shortage of Scottish Tories, are the Government packing the Conservative Benches with English Tories to try to achieve a balance?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This raises a point of some substance. It is an observable fact that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members expect to catch your eye with greater facility on matters affecting their parts of the United Kingdom. However, they expect to catch your eye with equal facility when Ministers from the English part of the United Kingdom are answering questions. This is a serious rather than a trivial or passing matter, and the only way to resolve it is to declare that, apart from the hon. Member who has tabled a question, we are all Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and have an equal aspiration to good fortune in catching your eye.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree with me that all these complaints and time-wasting tactics strengthen the case for setting up a Scottish Parliament?

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is correct. This is the United Kingdom Parliament, and everyone has an opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair. I make a judgment every day—I think I have said this before—about matters of interest to Members. Today I judged that the miners' strike, rating and teachers' pay were matters of considerable interest. It would have been possible to race down the Order Paper, but I managed to called 28 hon. Members, 16 of whom had later questions on the Order Paper on those very topics. I do not think that we should ever exclude English Members just because it is Scottish Question Time.