asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received expressing concern about the present method of allocation of the needs element of the rate support grant among district councils; and if he will make a statement.

Representations have been made that greater needs of some districts compared with others should be taken into account in the distribution formula. There is no easy solution to this problem, but I have undertaken to have it fully examined before the grant settlement next year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that district councils in the Strathclyde Region think that the total amount allocated to them is too small and that the distribution between districts is wrongly based on straight per capita grants instead of on needs? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will look again at the formula so that the needs element once more becomes what it should be—namely, a part of the rate support grant that is given to areas because of need? Will he take into account the feelings expressed in the report prepared by the Strathclyde District Councils' Association?

I think that that was the implication of what I said. I realise that there are considerable feelings about this matter. One of the difficulties is that even within districts of virtually the same make-up one gets variations of expenditure. What we have to be able to do in respect of the needs formula is to isolate needs that are national, that are countrywide. The problem has so far defied the working party and the local authority officials concerned—there is no agreement amongst them—but I have made a pledge that we shall deal with it with vigour during the coming year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the ratepayers who have been hammered most this year are those who lived in the former county districts but who now find themselves in city districts, where rates have risen by more than 300 per cent.? In discussing the distribution formula, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the problem of these people, who do not necessarily have all the advantages of the services that are available in the cities and yet have to pay these high rates? The transitional arrangements have not so far fully taken into account the heavy financial burdens that they have to face.

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that one of the basic philosophies behind local government reorganisation, for which his Government and not the Labour Government were responsible, was the assimilation of town and country, and that whereas they had previously paid different rates they were in future to be subject to a single rate. The hon. Gentleman should know from his experience the considerable difficulty of finding a formula that meets all the requirements and defines needs and meets them. It is very much easier to do this on a regional basis where one is dealing with services such as education, social work, and so on, and some of these services carry over into districts, too.

To the Tory areas.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many councils will be delighted to hear that he is finally getting round to considering the needs allowance of the various districts? Will he bear in mind the varying responsibilities of district authorities and the services that they provide? Will he accept that if he does not come up with a formula, the ratepayers of Scotland will find it as outrageous as the fact that they are denied the rate support grant given to England and Wales?

It is typical of the hon. Lady that she allows her prejudices to take wing and is never disturbed by the facts. She fails to mention that provision was made for that. [Interruption.] We do not see much of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) nowadays. I would be grateful if, on the occasions when she is here, she would listen rather than interrupt. The fact is that this is not an easy problem. As I said in my original reply, there are districts which are virtually the same but in which the expenditures are very different. The expenditure may not be related to needs. It may be related to decisions taken by and in the discretion of the authority concerned, and it would not be right always to support it to the extent of 74 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry.

A meeting was held with representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry on 23rd October and further discussions took place on 5th December with the Scottish fishing industry. There are no plans at present for another meeting.

I am grateful for the close watch that the hon. Gentleman keeps on the industry. Did he take away from that last meeting an understanding of the deep concern that the industry now feels on two matters in particular? The first is that nothing whatsoever appears to be happening with regard to the common fisheries policy. Will he urge the Secretary of State to go to Brussels himself to start to get some action on this subject at last? Secondly, did the fishermen put to him their deep concern about the fuel oil costs, which could add another £800,000 a year to the Scottish Trawlers' Federation's burden when it is already losing a lot of money? If some subsidy is not continued, we shall see 25 per cent. of the fleet tied up again next year.

I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's final point at this stage. Yes, I share the deep concern. On Friday the representatives submitted facts and figures to me as they saw them. We are examining them and we shall obviously consider the implications of their case. It is not true that nothing has been done about the CFP. We expect to begin further discussions shortly on the basis of proposals being produced by the Commission and initiated, I might add, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, action is proceeding and I should have thought that, within the next few weeks or months, there would be visible evidence of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about proposals for the use of the former Killearn Hospital.

Killearn Hospital is no longer required for Health Service purposes. Negotiations are proceeding with the Central Regional Council, which wishes to purchase the site, and at a meeting on 25th November agreement was reached on the form of a revised offer which has now to be considered by the council.

I thank my hon. Friend for getting some action on this matter. Is he aware that I recently visited the site of the former hospital in Killearn, which has now been lying derelict for about three years? Does he agree with me that it is a disgrace that such valuable public property, including houses and other expensive residential accommodation, should be lying vacant for such a prolonged period? Will he investigate the possibility of using the property for some educational or recreational purpose?

My hon. Friend has been most assiduous in pressing this matter, as he is in all matters concerning his constituency. I can give him the assurance that I shall try to bring the matter to an early conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average rates paid per household, expressed as a sum per calendar month, in the current rating year; and what were the comparable figures per month in each of the previous three years.

For 1975–76 the average monthly rate bill per household in Scotland is estimated at just over £10, compared with £6·90 in 1974–75, £5·90 in 1973–74 and £5·50 in 1972–73.

Is not the Secretary of State ashamed to report figures which show that the rates burden per household per month has increased by about half in 12 months, particularly when part of the reason is his abysmal failure to negotiate and obtain from the Treasury an interim relief scheme for Scottish ratepayers? Does he not agree that next year will be another serious rating year for Scotland because of his reduction of the percentage rates of grant, unless this is accompanied by a comparable reduction in expenditure by local councils? Will he therefore consider fixing a maximum percentage increase for rates by each local authority?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is impossible—

That is the counsel of despair.

It is not the counsel of despair: it is facing the facts of the statutory obligations placed on me and on local authorities. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Government at the time, but it was his Government that introduced the reorganisation Act and he was one of those who, during the General Election in October 1974, raced around in a car labelled "Freedom" campaigning for freedom to local authorities. Now he is asking me to take over the whole task of controlling—

In an emergency.

That is nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it—

No, it is not.

Order. It is intolerable, when a Minister is answering, to have constant sedentary interruptions.

The hon. Gentleman knows that that point is just outwith practicability.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept as a fact that the shift in the balance of the rate support grant from rural to urban areas, combined, as it happened, with the cost of reorganisation, has led to rates increases well above the forecast 25 per cent. in certain areas of Scotland? Will he take these factors into account when calculating this next year?

Yes, but I do not think that it was that factor which led to the increase above the 25 per cent. I have said before that there has been over-budgeting by Scottish local authorities. I have constantly tried to bring that over-budgeting to their attention and have said that, because they are gathering in this money, that does not mean that they should spend it. By reasonable prudence, they should be able to build up a considerable cushion for next year. As for the transitional payment, we made provision to some extent last year and 50 per cent. of that is carrying on into this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a serious injustice is done to some people in rural areas who do not get sewerage and garbage disposal services and who have to pay for them privately? Is there any action that he can take, short of new legislation, at least to eradicate that injustice to a fair number of people?

My hon. Friend must appreciate that this is a matter which was dealt with in the legislation itself. These things were covered in the old days with the designation of "special districts", but those are now out. One must consider the services provided by local authorities all over the country. For instance, many people who have no children pay for education. There is a complex sort of cross-subsidy of individuals and their needs in local government expenditure and we must bear that in mind.

Does not the Secretary of State agree, to use the highly charged, emotive language customarily used by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), that it is "scandalous and shocking" for Conservative Members to complain about what has happened to the rates when they were chiefly responsible for the reform of local government? But would he not further agree that it is also "scandalous and shocking" that, in the preparation of the White Paper, the possibility of the early abolition of the regional tier of local government by a Scottish Assembly was ruled out?

We all appreciate that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) lives in a constant aura of indignation. Long may that continue. The hon. Gentleman's last question is not entirely related to this aspect. We shall be debating the White Paper, I hope, soon after we return in the new year.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to moderate the effects upon the levels of rates which will be levied on domestic ratepayers at the operation of the first full year after the reorganisation of local government.

I am proposing an increase in the domestic element of rate support grant to 27 pence in 1976–77. The total grant proposed for 1976–77 is over £800 million. It is now up to the local authorities to do their part by halting the rise of expenditure.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that encouraging reply. Will he remember that there are thousands of people who simply cannot meet the increased rate demand? Will he continue to encourage local authorities to curb their expenditure? Will the Government also take a lead in this important matter of public spending?

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate support grant per head of population is now 50 per cent. higher in Scotland than in other areas of the United Kingdom? Does not this confirm the considerable extent to which Scottish ratepayers are being assisted out of central taxation?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State accept that local government reorganisation has literally destroyed the present rating system? What can he do to curb the monster that the Labour and Conservative Parties have created by reorganisation? For example, what could he say to the Glasgow District Council, which is apparently spending £900 to bring English primary school children to Scotland, when all they asked for was travel brochures to allow them to complete a school project? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he called for "reasonable prudence" by local authorities?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the leader of his party did not vote against the monster of local government reorganisation. Therefore, his party must accept its responsibility. The financing of local government has concerned me for a long time. The previous Conservative Government produced a Green Paper in 1971 on the radical reform of local government finance. It came to nothing. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would give a much better lead in behaviour to his hon. Friends. We have established the Layfield Committee, and we should await the findings of that Committee about financial changes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I prefer to hear points of order at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to enable pupils to leave school on their 16th birthday.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made on the review of the school-leaving age; and if he will make a statement.

Leaving on the 16th birthday is one of many proposals put forward during the review of the present system of fixed school leaving dates. I am considering the implications of the various courses of action that have been suggested and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in the early part of the new year. The review is not concerned with the school leaving age itself.

At the risk of entering into an aura of indignation, may I ask why the devil this review is taking so long?

This is very complex and the representations that have been put forward are many and varied. The hon. Gentleman must remember that legislation will be required, and that that has also to be considered.

Is my hon. Friend aware that two young people in my constituency were offered attractive employment on 1st December and that they were unable to accept that employment because they still had three weeks' schooling to do, as they do not leave school until 23rd December? Come what may, they will leave on 23rd December. In those circumstances, cannot my hon. Friend introduce some degree of flexibility into the school-leaving date, so that individuals in areas such as mine, which have a high rate of unemployment, can take advantage of these first-class opportunities?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) although I do not uphold his support for truancy by these two young people. The idea of allowing school children to leave school on their 16th birthday was supported by several of the bodies that made representations. On the other hand, a number of other bodies opposed it. There are good reasons why we should consider all these proposals before coming to a decision. The views of my hon. Friend will be considered. He must also remember that there will be hard cases whatever dividing line is drawn. This is always a difficulty when we are drawing up legislation. I shall take account of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Does the Minister realise that 16-year-old pupils at Mary Erskine School in Edinburgh are uncertain about their future? Will he confirm that the Government have decided to refuse the Lothian Education Committee permission to buy that school? Will he explain to the House how we can reconcile that with the Government's decision on grantaided schools?

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) should not take advantage of his Front Bench position to pre-empt the answer that I shall give to his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. West (Lord lames Douglas-Hamilton).

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to make a statement on the report of the Working Party on School Transport set up in 1972.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on Monday 8th December.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some hints have come my way that the recommendations contain many proposals that I do not like? Is he also aware that I have always advocated that free school transport should be our objective? Is the recommendation that all school children should pay a flat-rate fare regardless of distance from the school likely to be implemented? If so, it will be vigorously resisted by my constituents.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. He has raised it before in the House. Free transport beyond a certain distance and discretion to provide free transport have always been matters for local authorities, prior to any change in the legislation. My hon. Friend's suggestion would be fine in an ideal world in which no financial stringencies were operating. At the same time, we must bear in mind that any plan such as that would also involve a cost on the rates and would have to be taken into account in calculating the new rate support grant.

Is the Minister aware that there are still great anomalies within the regions, which were to a certain extent expected to unify transport conditions in their areas, and that many people are sick to the back teeth of having weak excuses from the Government, who seem to have a strange set of priorities?

Nonsense!

I echo the comment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Consultations are now in progress. We must also have regard to the number of Members who have written to us expressing concern about any possible changes. Local authorities have expressed to me informally the idea that this change should not take place. Therefore, there are varying views on the matter. We are considering them. When the Bill is published, the hon. Lady will have the option of voting for or against us.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the White Paper on Devolution.

Nine letters have been received commenting on various aspects of the Government's proposals for devolution.

Does the Minister appreciate that although we believe that the White Paper is right to provide a right of review over the decisions of the Assembly, we find it intolerable that this right should be given not to the elected House of Commons but to the appointed Secretary of State? We believe this view to be intolerable—even if that office were to be occupied by such a benign and impartial gentleman as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

In replying to that benign and impartial supplementary question, let me say that these matters are for discussion in the debates that will take place between now and the publication of the legislation. I hope that the debates take place in a more orderly fashion and that we do not have the noises which have emanated so far from other parts of the Chamber.

Order. This matter is to be debated early after the Christmas Recess. We should get on and deal with other Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Colonsay.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans for a visit.

Does the Minister appreciate that this unfortunate news will come as a hammer blow to the hopes and aspirations of the islanders of Colonsay? Will he advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to don the mantle of his illustrious predecessor, Mr. Tom Johnston, and ask the hydro-electric board to provide a mains electricity service for the people who live on the Isle of Colonsay?

This is a long-standing problem. The hon. Gentleman will know that the hydro-electric board supplies electricity to about 98 per cent. of the consumers in the area. We are now considering some difficult and expensive cases. The priorities are basically for the hydro-electric board, and so far it has not taken the view that it can provide electricity to this island. I understand that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has a proposal before it for assistance with the supplies of electricity to a more limited number of houses on the island.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the fishery protection fleet.

I have no plans at present for increasing the fishery protection fleet under my control.

Does the Minister agree that, since the Scottish Office accepted after the war that nine vessels were essential for safeguarding Scottish fisheries, the reduction to six now, one of them allocated to oil-rig duties, leaving five, making about 50 per cent. fewer vessels at a time when the pressures are far higher, is not acceptable protection for the Scottish fisheries?

That is typical of the very dishonest and irresponsible approach of SNP Members. The hon. Gentleman himself might have been going around Lewis 20 years ago on a bicycle; now he probably has a car. What I suggest to him is that the protection—

Shocking!

The protection service changes with the times, and even with a smaller number of vessels we are now able to give a more effective protection service than that given even with nine vessels previously.

Does not the Minister appreciate that if the SNP's policy of giving the Icelanders a 200-mile limit were put into effect, there could be a 100 per cent. reduction and that we should not need any protection vessels?

I need not comment on that, other than to agree and to confirm that the simplistic approach by the SNP—

What about the protection of Scottish fisheries?

The SNP is in danger, perhaps like the fishermen. If the fishermen over-exploit stocks of fish, as the SNP is inclined to over-exploit some of the understandable and natural discontents in the fishing industry, SNP Members, like the fishermen, may end up with no return.

Have salaries anything to do with the problem of manning vessels? If so, is the Government's £6 policy an inhibition in overcoming that problem?

No, but my hon. Friend is quite right in that there were crewing difficulties last year, although they were not connected with any Government wages policy. However, there have been big improvements in the salaries and, indeed, the leave allowance has been recently increased, so that is certainly not the problem now.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to pay an official visit to the site of the Scottish Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the site of the Scottish Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to the proposed site of the Scottish Assembly.

I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 12th November.—[Vol. 899, c. 734.]

Given that reply, may I put a very simple question? Will the Minister take the opportunity today to define, for the first time, what he understands the word "separatism" to mean?

I have noticed in recent days the touchiness of the hon. Member regarding the question of separatism. I should have thought that the responsibility was on the SNP to publish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I know that the SNP finds it difficult to accept responsibility at any time, but I suggest that it would be in the interests of SNP Members if they were to publish a White Paper containing their separatist policies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I should be delighted to debate for the next year what separatism means, because to date—on the eve of the hon. Gentleman's second anniversary as a member of the SNP—the SNP has been running away from separatism. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's fresh approach to putting this matter to the people of Scotland.

No answer.

I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that now we are to have a Scottish Assembly at some time in the future, Scottish Question Time can no longer be regarded as being the property of Scottish Members of Parliament. Will my hon. Friend take it from me, as an English coal miner for 21 years before coming to this House, that I was quite happy to assist the Scottish coal miners by producing coal that was cheaper than that which could be obtained in Scotland? Will my hon. Friend accept that if there are to be any changes arising out of North Sea oil, I should expect the Scottish Assembly to take into account the fact that English ratepayers and taxpayers will no longer be happy to contribute that extra 50 per cent. which, seemingly, we contribute over and above the contribution of Scottish taxpayers, if there is any attempt to prevent the British people getting North Sea oil at the same price as everyone else?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the consequences of separatism. The Scottish miners will give careful attention to exactly what separatism would mean. I welcome my hon. Friend to Scottish Question Time. I hope that the SNP will follow his example of exemplary behaviour as a Back-Bench Member on the Government side of the House, because the behaviour of the SNP today has been absolutely deplorable.

The Minister has failed to define the term "separatism", but, on the other hand, when he next visits the site of the future Scottish Assembly will he consider the wise words of Lord Kilbrandon in a recent television programme, "Panorama", when he said that a natural consequence of devolution could very well be an increase in contacts between Edinburgh and Brussels and a falling away and withering of the connection with Westminster? If that were to be so, would the Minister describe independent Scottish membership of the EEC, according to his definition, as a form of separatism?

The hon. Member is in great danger of joining the same circus act as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and riding about six horses at one time. Perhaps I should refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. He was opposed to entry to the EEC. I am sure that he would not want that to be forgotten. I happen to take the view that the flow of information and discussion between Edinburgh and Brussels, Edinburgh and London, and Edinburgh and all other world centres will increase with the establishment of a Scottish Assembly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a growing number of thinking people in Scotland regard the Government's White Paper as a load of expensive rubbish? They feel that it is a guaranteed recipe for more civil servants, more bureaucracy, more government, more public expenditure and more taxation, and tragically—although the hon. Gentleman does not want it—would inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom within a decade.

I know that these views are held rather strongly by the hon. Gentleman, but there has been no evidence to support the views that he has been putting forward in recent months.

Perhaps I could be helpful, as always, to SNP Members by helping them in their search for a definition. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the SNP gave the definition a week ago when he said that Scotland would be no more separate than Norway or Holland? In other words, England would be a foreign country so far as Scotland was concerned. Does not my hon. Friend agree that this would apply to many of our own relatives living south of the Tweed if the SNP's policy were implemented?

However unacceptable that view may be to the SNP, it is a fact of life. It is also worth noting that the leader of the SNP is on record as saying that Scotland would have its own army—dare I say a tartan army—its own navy—dare I say a tartan navy—and its own air force—dare I say a tartan air force? I note that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) nods his head in vigorous approval. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it easy to explain to the dockyard workers at Rosyth exactly what will happen to the Royal Dockyard in that situation.

Has the hon. Gentleman heard of the United Nations Charter, which grants the right of self-determination to all small nations? Has he further considered the savings which would accrue if the powers which are to be split between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Assembly were entirely devolved to the Assembly? Does he appreciate that that would entail an additional staff of approximately only 200? Will the hon. Gentleman put on record that the conversion of the Royal High School into a fit establishment in which to have the Scottish Parliament will cost more than to establish a regional headquarters but probably less than buying ostrich plumes for the Secretary of State when he becomes governor-general?

No.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain how it will be possible to give thorough consideration to representations about the Scottish Assembly if the deadline for making representations is to be the end of February and if the Bill is expected to be produced in March?

This debate has gone on for a very long time in Scotland. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House would disagree with that statement. We think it reasonable to expect that those who want to comment on the White Paper which was published a fortnight ago will have adequate time to consider the White Paper and to submit their views in the time given.

Has my hon. Friend read the report in today's Scotsman which indicates that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) believes that we require a year's rational debate on separatism? Will my hon. Friend take the year that is suggested as an opportunity to explain to the people of Scotland what separatism will mean?

As I said earlier, I am certainly prepared to join in the year's debate on what separatism really means. I am sure that the people of Scotland will welcome the opportunity that has been presented to them not once but twice in recent days by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire. I am sure that once the people of Scotland are given clearly to understand what separatism really means—

Tell us.

I challenge the SNP to publish its own White Paper. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) says "Tell us". I have already quoted some of the things that the hon. Gentleman thinks it means—namely, a separate army, navy and air force. I think that the debate in the year ahead will bring out a great many more of the bizarre consequences of separatism.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will be attending the annual general meeting of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on 15th December.

No, Sir. This is an independent body and it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to attend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a great pity, as his right hon. Friend might have taken the opportunity to discuss with the Scottish Council its view that the White Paper

"does nothing to solve Scotland's fundamental industrial problem"?

I must say that I had not noticed that at all, and I meet representatives of the industrial community quite frequently.

As the Scottish Council is among the leading campaigners for the transfer of 6,000 Civil Service jobs to the West of Scotland, will the Minister say whether he and his colleagues are taking steps to ensure that the programme, which has slipped behind, will be brought forward in view of the serious unemployment situation in Scotland?

The programme has not slipped behind. I hope very much that there will be an announcement shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue circulars to local authorities encouraging them to reduce their salary costs.

The importance of tightly restricting their manpower and expenditure has been emphasised to local authorities in several recent Scottish Office circulars and on other occasions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the justification for regionalisation was that if we had larger regions, larger salaries and more responsibility for individuals, we should need fewer individuals? In fact, we have larger salaries and more people. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that is offensive to the ordinary ratepayer who has to pay for them? Will the local authorities do what was intended under the relevant legislation?

As I have said on numerous occasions, the Secretary of State has drawn the attention of local authorities to his very strong view, which I know is widely shared, that there should be no substantial increases in staff. In fact, the rate support grant settlement for the forthcoming year has been made on the basis of freezing all local government expenditure. The Government are not providing for additional local authority staffing.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

The continued development of North Sea oil, the dispersal of Civil Service posts to Scotland, and the establishment of the Scottish Development Agency will all help to create new employment. The full range of assistance to industry under the Government's regional policies is available throughout Scotland and, in addition, special measures designed to help areas with high unemployment were announced by the Government on 24th September and 31st October.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer 3s totally unacceptable to the people of Scotland, as is the present high level of unemployment? Is he further aware that the way in which the Government make their announcement on the position of Chrysler at Linwood this week will be a real test of their credibility in Scotland and for the future of the Labour Party in the West of Scotland?

The House knows that the Chrysler situation is under consideration at the minute. I am not able to say anything about it now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—and I am sure he is—that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) represents a Scottish constituency with the lowest unemployment in Scotland, as a result of Government policies? Will my right hon. Friend try to hurry up the work of the SDA so that areas such as Hamilton in the West Central belt of Scotland will gain some benefit from Government policies, as has East Aberdeenshire?

I agree that the Aberdeenshire area has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom at present. If SNP policy had been followed, the vast majority of the 50,000, jobs that have been created from North Sea oil in Scotland would have been lost.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to extend the dock labour scheme in Scotland is resisted by all dock workers in the ports of Scotland that do not now have the scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to withdraw the extension of the scheme in the interests of safeguarding the employment of dockers in the smaller ports of Scotland?

I do not think that that is the position, but the Bill has already been discussed in the House. There will be ample opportunity to discuss the provisions of the Bill during the course of the current Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an up-to-date statement on his negotiations with the grant-aided schools in Scotland, including the grant-aided schools in Edinburgh.

Nineteen of the 26 grant-aided secondary schools have told me that they intend to become independent. The managers of John Watson's School, Edinburgh, have decided to close the school. Negotiations are continuing between the appropriate education authorities and the managers of Marr College, Troon, St. Joseph's College, Dumfries and St. Mary's Cathedral Choir School, Edinburgh. I understand that the education board of the Company of Merchants of Edinburgh, which manages the other three schools, intends that its schools should become independent, though it has offered to sell the Mary Erskine School building to the Lothian Regional Council. The council has asked for my consent to purchase the school, but I have decided that the extra capital expenditure involved would not be justified at the present time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the comprehensive schools on the western side of Edinburgh—namely, the Royal High School, Craigmount School, Firhill School and the Forester Schools—are already very hard pressed and will be unable to take all the children in their district? They will not be able to cope with the influx that will follow as a result of this decision.

I am not sure that we are condemned by every political party on the Lothian Council. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the children who go to the Mary Erskine School do not all come from the west of Edinburgh, as the scattergraph used by the education authority shows. The authority has pointed out that the children come from the catchment areas of 13 different schools, some outwith the area of Edinburgh District Council. It is not true that the pressure will be entirely on the west side of Edinburgh.

Will my hon. Friend accept that his statement will cause grave disappointment to many people in Edinburgh who support the Government's policy of creating a comprehensive system in that city? Does he appreciate that without money from the Mary Erskine School the fees will be that much higher and more pupils will seek a transfer into the State system than was revealed in the scattergraph? Will he give an assurance that the decision is not final and that, if the position proves intolerable, he will be prepared to look at the matter again? Many people do not see how the Lothian region will be able to place 1,000 extra pupils in the autumn of next year.

Two points arise from my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The number of pupils involved is not 1,000 but could be around 250 as an approximate guess. Of the three schools in Edinburgh none will be put under pressure by the decision. I have not closed the door finally on this matter. If it appears that accommodation difficulties in the public schools are likely to become acute. I shall consider the matter again.

asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the operation of the law of contempt of court as it relates to newspapers and the media.

The law of contempt of court as it relates to the media is no doubt capable of improvement. Certain recommendations of the Phillimore Committee have a bearing on the matter. There has been little spontaneous public reaction to that report and in order to supplement its consideration of the recommendations the Government are now initiating consultation with interested bodies before reaching any final decisions. It would be wrong for me to anticipate the outcome.

I appreciate the Lord Advocate's reply, but will he realise that in Scotland the law of contempt as it relates to the media is mastered by two decisions of the late Lord Clyde, dominant in a recent decision which was patently unjust to the newspapers concerned? Although in Scotland we should not like to see the absurdity of the system in England in which a defendant, such as Mr. Peter Hain, parades himself in the Press, asking for witnesses to come forward to identify him, will the Lord Advocate ensure that the law of Scotland is not oppressive to the media in the proper exercise of their function of guarding the public interest?

What about Gerald Nabarro? He did it.

I am aware of the two cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but fairness and justice are the important considerations when the trial of an accused person is taking place. On any view, there must be rules of reasonable conduct which the media will have to observe. As for the most recent case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, it is a fact that some people wish to see their photographs published in the newspapers almost on any pretext. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not one of them.

I am not on trial.

When such persons are on trial, they have to be protected, even from themselves.

asked the Lord Advocate what discussions he has had with the legal profession with regard to the White Paper on Devolution.

So far I have not discussed the White Paper with the legal profession. The Government have, however, invited the profession to submit any observations which it may wish to make on the proposals set out in the White Paper, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any observations received in response to that invitation will be most carefully considered.

In case the Lord Advocate does not take part in the devolution debate in January, will he inform the House what was meant in the White Paper about control over the legal profession being devolved to the Assembly?

What is intended by the White Paper is that such power as is possessed by Westminster at present to legislate on the legal profession will be devolved to the Scottish Assembly. In saying that, it is necessary to make two qualifications. On the one hand, the present practice has been that legislation on the legal profession has been of very limited extent and generally at the request of the branch of the legal profession concerned. On the other hand, control means no more than it says. There is no intention to devolve to the Scottish Assembly anything greater than the Westminster Parliament at present enjoys in regard to the legal profession. However, it is correct to point out that the White Paper accurately states the potential of devolution on this aspect.

asked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to meet the Scottish Law Commission.

I have no formal meetings arranged with the Scottish Law Commission.

Has the Lord Advocate seen the important case in the English High Court where a ruling was given that a householder who did not possess sewerage services should not pay rates? Does he regard that decision as raising an important principle? Is he willing to invite the Scottish Law Commission to examine this matter, because it could make a substantial difference to the rate liability of Scottish householders?

Whether the law should be reviewed or changed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is little point in referring the matter to the Scottish Law Commission, because there is no doubt about the legal position in Scotland. Sewerage is one of the many services the cost of which is met from regional sources. There is no parallel in England. The difference is that between rating on the one hand and charges for services on the other. The nearest situation in Scotland to the position in England concerns the arrangement for water services. In Scotland if a person does not receive water, he is not charged.

In view of the extent of EEC legislation, will the Lord Advocate recommend the appointment of an extra Law Commissioner in Scotland with the special duty of reviewing the enormous amount of legislation and its relationship to Scots law and Scots lawyers?

The manning of the Scottish Law Commission is kept under constant review, in view of the heavy load that falls on that office. The amount of EEC legislation is one factor to be considered. As present I do not believe there is any necessity for the appointment of an additional Law Commissioner.

asked the Lord Advocate what representations he has received about the reform of the divorce laws in Scotland.

Since I last answered a Question on this matter on 22nd October, I have received several representations from members of the public.

Will the Government undertake to give all possible support, including the necessary time for a Private Member's Bill, which I understand may be introduced this Session?

I understand that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has made a statement on this topic. Should he make a request in the appropriate form to me or to any other Minister, the request will be considered on its merits.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will pay an official visit to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

I had the pleasure in January of this year of paying an interesting and, I hope, useful visit to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Although I hope to make further visits to the court, I have no immediate plans to do so.

Does the Lord Advocate remember a phrase in Scots law solvitur ambulando to the effect that one will bumble through in the end? Since some of this work will foul up Scottish law, will the Lord Advocate make the situation clear to his co-jurists at the European Court of Justice?

I think the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the sole British judge in the European Court is Scottish. The maxim he mentioned may be no more impressive to that Scottish judge than it is to the hon. Gentleman. As for the quality of law administered by the Court of Justice, even the most cursory examination of its decisions shows that it takes account in the fullest sense of decisions in the various nations of the Community, and no criticism about judicial quality can be levelled against it.

In the light of the SNP's recent conversion to Europe, if not yet to Britain, will the Lord Advocate impress on his Cabinet colleagues the importance of the earliest implementation of Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome, which calls for direct elections to the European Assembly, so that we in Scotland may elect our members directly instead of having them selected for us by the Westminster Parliament?

The Government have already made their position clear on that matter, and the hon. Member has added his voice to it.