asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received with reference to the White Paper on Devolution.

Since the publication of the White Paper on 27th November 1975, I have received 142 letters from organisations and members of the public commenting on various aspects of the Government's proposals for devolution to Scotland.

Amongst those letters, has my hon. Friend received one from the Scottish National Party explaining the phrase "the gradual approach to independence"? Will he confirm that the Oxford Dictionary gives exactly the same meaning to both "independence" and "separatism"?

I confirm my hon. Friend's assertion that the Oxford Dictionary describes "independence" and "separatism" as one and the same thing. But perhaps I should correct his quotation. I understand from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) that the SNP now adopts a gradual approach to separatism. The fact that I have not received a letter about it from the SNP is probably due to the fact that its members are having difficulty in understanding it themselves. No doubt they will write to me when they decide what it means.

Whilst appreciating the sort of black humour of the Under-Secretary of State's remarks, may I ask whether he accepts that in Scotland Chambers' is the preferable dictionary to both the shorter and longer Oxford Dictionary? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the election results in Scotland speak for themselves, in terms of the dissatisfaction of the Scottish people, from all points of view, with the White Paper on Devolution?

If the election results in Scotland are to speak for themselves, I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will say "goodbye" to at least two of his colleagues in the next election. He may well appreciate my black humour, but I assure him that I do not reciprocate the feeling; I do not appreciate his black humour. If the SNP seeks to don new clothes and hopes that under the cloak of independence it will be more receptive to the people of Scotland than under the cloak of separatism, it is in for a rude awakening.

Do the Government still stand by the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council in a parliamentary answer in December, in which he said that it remained impracticable to devolve industrial powers to the Scottish Assembly?

The Government stand by the view that the White Paper is a discussion document. It is being discussed now. If the SNP does not want to discuss it, that does not mean that no one else wants to. It is being discussed, and we are receiving representations from a wide range of bodies to which we sent letters on 27th November asking for their comments.

Does the hon. Gentlemdan agree that 142 letters from various organisations is a pretty disappointing response? I accept the possibility that the figure is so small because many people are afraid that the Government are fairly fixed in their views. Will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the sponsoring by the Government of an all-party conference in Scotland to examine thoroughly the many divergent Scottish points of view on this issue?

There are two sides to this question. The hon. Gentleman may well consider 142 letters to be disappointing. It would be disappointing if that were the whole picture, but the picture is completed only by my advising the House that of the 800,000 copies of the potted version of the White Paper distributed to post offices in Scotland, 500,000 have already been taken out. I am sure that the understanding that the Scottish people have gained from that potted version is reflected in the small number of letters that we have received.

Will the hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues not to be rattled or over-influenced by the result of the East Kilbride election, which can in any case be regarded as a normal result when any Government are trying to steer through a bad patch? Will he, rather, direct attention to the North-East of Scotland, where, in two recent by-elections, the SNP has been hammered into the ground by the Tories on an anti-Assembly ticket?

I hope that I do not sound offensive to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Sproat) when I say that with friends like I have I do not need enemies.

I have given a good run on Question No. 1. I know that it is harder for Celts, but one supplementary question by each Member called to ask one will enable me to call many more hon. Members to put supplementaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on devolution from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

The Council has been invited to comment on the White Paper of 27th November 1975 and has indicated that it hopes to do so shortly.

Is the Minister aware that when the Scottish Council sends him its views on the Scottish Assembly—and it will be sooner rather than later—it is likely that it will at last come round to the view that we should stop the centralisation of industrial decision-making and adopt full control over trade and industry, and the Scottish Development Agency?

I am reminded that the last time the hon. Gentlman said that he was making a statement on behalf of the Scottish Council, the Council came out the next day with a categorical denial. Therefore, I do not place much credence on the ability of the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of the Scottish Council.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the Scottish Council's view on the desirability of decentralisation of industry and commerce, and also the fact that the Council's recent report shows that of all the non-governmental office jobs transferred out of London in the past 12 years less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. came to Scotland? Will he give an assurance about the steps that the Government intend to take to see that devolution is accompanied by a massive decentralisation, to ensure that more jobs come to Scotland from London and the South-East?

My hon. Friend should be aware of the fact that even while we are discussing political devolution, the Government are involved in a massive dispersal operation comprising thousands of Civil Service jobs—[Interruption.] Glasgow is part of Scotland. To date, 31,000 Civil Service jobs have been dispersed. The people of Scotland will look at that dispersal programme against the background of the SNP's policy of separatism. No wonder the SNP is running scared from the idea of separatism and is trying to assume the cloak of independence.

Is the Minister aware that the common factor in every one of the Scottish Council's views, over many years, has been the refusal to contemplate any benefits to the Scottish economy flowing from Scottish separation from the rest of Britain?

I am very much aware of that view, expressed by the Scottish Council over the years.

Does my hon. Friend not regard the existence of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), together with the other institutions established in Scotland to develop the economy, as an indication of the advantageous position in which Scotland finds itself relative to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is this not due in no small measure to the work done by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend?

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The work done by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State in attracting industry to Scotland is often forgotten. If the House is interested in the statement made over the years by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), it may like to know it was during my right hon. Friend's term of office in 1969 that the Scottish Council issued a statement saying that because of the Labour Government's regional policies it was able to attract an industry a day to Scotland. That is eloquent testimony to my right hon. Friend's record.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal to transfer industrial and economic powers from the Secretary of State to the Scottish Assembly to such an extent as would jeopardise the future existence of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland would be met with great hostility in Scotland? Does he accept that the office, if not the present incumbent, should continue for many years to come?

I believe that both the office and the present incumbent should continue for a great many years. We have a commitment, which is welcomed by the vast majority of people in Scotland, to ensure that whatever Government are in power there will be a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet—a Minister who will be Scotland's voice there. That commitment will be kept.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made arising out of his inquiry regarding the practice whereby Scots standing as sureties in bail are compelled to travel to England in order to deposit such securities.

My Department has consulted the Home Office on this matter and I hope that it will be possible to provide a solution to the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Is my hon. Friend aware that two Airdrie people accepted responsibility to go bail for their son, who appeared on a charge in an English court, but were prohibited from making bail arrangements at the Airdrie police office? Is he aware that they were compelled to make two different journeys to Carlisle the nearest English town—travelling a total distance of 400 miles? Is it not time that this nonsense was stopped and people who live in Scotland were treated as British subjects? Will action now be taken to stop this shocking practice as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a rather complex matter because of the different legal systems in Scotland and England. However, our discussions with the Home Office are at a very advanced stage and we hope that a Bill to be introduced in the not too distant future will take care of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred.

Will the Minister accept that his reply was totally unsatisfactory? Nothing is easier than to make arrangements for an English person to obtain bail in Scotland. Why should it be impossible for the Home Office to act in the reverse situation?

The Home Office has circulated all English courts explaining the difficulties arising from the kind of incident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) referred. However dissatisfied the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is, I must tell him that we are on the point of resolving this matter to everybody's satisfaction.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current economic indicators in relation to the Scottish economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with current economic indicators in relation to the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

A broad range of indicators in relation to the Scottish economy is currently available and continuing efforts are being made to improve the reliability of existing series. There is scope for the development of additional series, and preparation of a revised index of industrial production for Scotland is in progress.

In view of the complacency of the Secretary of State's reply and his abysmal contribution to last week's debate on the Scottish economy, may I ask him whether he has seen a report published by the Scottish Standing Conference on Voluntary Youth Organisations in which young people in Scotland are compared to their counterparts in Norway, the Netherlands and West Germany? Is he aware that by every economic indicator—job opportunity, income level, and so on—the young people of Scotland come off very badly indeed?

Order. Even for a Celtic lady, that was a lengthy supplementary question. If every hon. Member would come to the point and cut out preambles, it would help us all.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so complacent about the situation?

I am not complacent in answering the hon. Lady's question, but SNP Members always manage to get things wrong. They have their own attitude to statistics. I can well understand why the hon. Lady and her party did not like my recent reply on the subject of hypothermia.

May I express my dissatisfaction with the Secretary of State's feeble reply? Has he taken note of that part of the Fraser of Allander Report, from which he has given selective quotes, stating that there will be a decline in employment and output? What message will he give to the Scottish people during 1976 for an uplift in their hopes and prospects?

The hon. Gentleman is very good at selective quotations, too. I quoted a passage from the report which clearly suggests that the long-term outlook for Scotland is good.

Further to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), has the Secretary of State ever heard a more abysmal commentary on a debate on the Scottish economy than that initiated last week by the SNP?

The only thing that was worse than the first speech in that debate was the penultimate speech.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in regard to two key indicators—wage rates and unemployment—the position of Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom is better now than it was two years ago?

That is correct.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that what matters to the people of Scotland lies less in the situation in the past than the situation for the future? Will he answer the question that has been posed to him on many occasions and to which we have been given no answer: what investment are the Government planning through their agencies, particularly the Scottish Development Agency, to bring about an improvement in the job situation in Scotland and to bring in new industries? What money will be made available this year and next year to that Agency?

The hon. Gentleman should await the document to be published shortly on that subject.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems in the West of Scotland are similar to those experienced on Merseyside and elsewhere? Is it not clear that the Government need to change their economic strategy and get down to the job of reducing unemployment, on Socialist lines?

My hon. Friend has made that point effectively in recent speeches. He will appreciate that we are dealing not only with unemployment but also with the problem of inflation. The extent to which we succeed in that, and how quickly, will determine the rate at which we can proceed to a more general reflation, which my hon. Friend and I want to see.

What credence can the Scottish people put on the right hon. Gentleman's sunshine forecast when they recall that in his term of office between 1964 and 1970, although he promised more jobs for Scotland, when he went out of office there were 80,000 fewer jobs in Scotland?

We underestimated the number of new jobs that we would provide. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reports produced at that time, he will dis- cover that to be the case. We provided more new jobs than we estimated we would need.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic outlook for the West of Scotland.

The longer-term economic outlook for the West of Scotland, as for the United Kingdom as a whole, is dependent on the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy and on achieving satisfactory growth in exports and investment. However, the measures which the Government have already taken to alleviate unemployment in the worst-affected areas will help to maintain employment in the West of Scotland, as will the further measures that are soon to be announced. In addition, the Government's intervention to prevent the closure of Chrysler's Linwood plant has saved several thousand jobs.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that shipbuilding and ship repairing are vital industries for the west of Scotland? In view of the present serious situation, which could soon become alarming, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is willing to initiate talks with the Secretary of State for Industry and his other Cabinet colleagues about the position of shipbuilding in Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much extra money is available this year to the Scottish Development Agency, in addition to the money needed for the functions that it has inherited from other bodies?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Development Agency has enough money to keep going until the annual announcement about Government expenditure, which will be made fairly soon. The shipbuilding issue is a serious matter, not merely for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom and, indeed, Western Europe. I do not need to initiate talks with my right hon. Friend, because I am in constant touch with him about it to see what can be done to stabilise the position.

Does my right hon. Friend recall page 13 of the Labour Party's manifesto in Scotland, on which it was said that we would not use unemployment to fight inflation? Is it not the case that the Government are using unemployment as one of the ways of fighting inflation?

I am aware of that quotation. I know most of the other quotations that I hear occasionally from manifestos. I assure my hon. Friend that his interpretation of Government policy is not accurate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in any way satisfied with the progress made by the job scheme for young people, which many of us want to see succeed? Does he not feel that he should put much greater pressure on local authorities and industries in Scotland to take up a chance that will cost them nothing?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the present uptake of jobs. Dr. Docherty has been doing good work on this and has been in contact with local and other authorities. I hope that uptake will be improved. It may well be that some good news along these lines will come later.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the economic future of the West of Scotland should not depend upon the central demand management policies of this House but, rather, on the indigenous efforts of the people of Scotland? Does he not further agree with me in totally deprecating the crocodile comments made by the Conservative Party about the Scottish Development Agency since the Conservatives voted against its creation?

I remember that in relation to one vital aspect of the Scottish Development Agency the hon. Gentleman joined the Conservatives. Of course, the future depends entirely on the people and the extent to which the opportunities are made available by this House. What is required is a co-operative effort on the part of management, men and Government—and responsibility from the Opposition. We find that the sniping at Scotland by some is to a certain extent destroying part of the political stability of Scotland, on which inward investment depends.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing perturbation being expressed by large numbers of workers in the smaller factories in the Govan area which are dependent on orders streamed off from larger factories, and which are now threatened by redundancies? Is he further aware that such workers do not regard a proposed Clyde-side Walkway as an answer to their problems?

My hon. Friend should not exaggerate, or take one part of our programme concerning Glasgow and think that that is the only thing that is being done. If he looks at what we have already done for Glasgow in terms of new jobs and the new focus that we have given it through such things as the British National Oil Corporation and the Offshore Supplies Office, he will see that we are containing the position as far as possible and building up a new long-term future for Glasgow such as it has never had before. I assure my hon. Friend that the letters I receive from people in responsible positions in Glasgow show a due appreciation of what the Government have done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the effect on landings of fish in Scottish ports as a result of the dispute with Iceland about fisheries limits.

The current dispute with Iceland has not had any significant effect upon fish landings at Scottish ports. Direct landings at Scottish ports from Iceland are relatively small, and changes in total landings are mainly due to seasonal factors.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the implications in the short term may not be great, the closing of Icelandic waters could have a catastrophic long-term effect on the Scottish fishing industry? Will the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend convene a meeting with the Scottish fishing interests before the Law of the Sea Conference?

The use of the word "catastrophic" is an exaggeration. It is true that if any of the deep sea trawlers are forced out of their fishing areas there will be increasing pressure on inshore waters. It is our responsibility to look after the interests of the Scottish inshore fleet, and we shall do that. The Secretary of State is due to reply to a Question which appears later on the Order Paper and which deals with the other points raised by the hon. Member.

Can the Minister tell the the House how many Icelandic boats are operating within 50 miles of Shetland at the moment? Can he say how many thousands of tons of herring they are taking away, and at which ports that herring is being landed?

Not without notice. If the hon. Gentleman wants that information, he must table a Question.

Who is likely to be in New York on 10th March to look after Scotland's fishing interests at the Law of the Sea Conference and to try to persuade people there that it is time that this country had a 200-mile limit to look after our fast diminishing stocks?

I agree that this is an important conference. The subject of representation is being discussed. It is a matter of keen interest to the Scottish industry. We shall be taking that fact into account in deciding the representation.

Does the Minister accept that the Icelandic dispute is a relatively minor element among the problems presently facing the Scottish industry? Does he belive in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy? If so, what steps is he taking to help bring about such a renegotiation?

This is a relatively minor problem in terms of catch. I wish that the SNP would give us backing for the general principle of adhering to international agreements. Our fleet is fishing in international waters. I wish that the SNP—purporting to speak for the people of Scotland—would back that line, which is the line we have been taking.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the effect on the Scottish economy of reductions in public transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for improvements in transport and travel by road and rail in Scotland.

I want to ensure that Scotland has an efficient and economical transport network, and, as part of this, services have to be adjusted from time to time as demand changes. At the local level, these matters are the responsibility of the regional and islands councils, through their transport policies and programmes.

Is the Minister aware of the alarm felt in Scotland among rail and bus passengers who fear that their future services may be slashed? Is he aware that railwaymen and bus crews are entitled to know what their future will be? Will he come clean and state clearly what the public transport situation will be in Scotland in a few months' time?

There is no need for the alarm. The position about rail services has been made absolutely clear, and the alarmist stories that have appeared are quite without foundation. The main responsibility for meeting subsidies on uneconomic bus routes rests with the regional councils and I am glad to say that they, with the Scottish Transport Group, are making arrangements in different parts of Scotland.

Is the Scottish Office fully alive to the real disaster that is looming ahead in large areas of Scotland where the regional councils find that they are instructed by the Government not to increase their budgets while the Scottish Transport Group is demanding ever larger sums for uneconomic services? When will the Government bring forward legislation on bus transport?

I thought it was generally accepted in the House that decisions on priorities on bus services were best taken by local authorities and not by central Government. In the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77, there is provided as much support for bus services generally as last year, but with a greater tilting of the balance towards rural services. This has all been agreed with the Convention of Local Authorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in the Central Region and elsewhere, where regional councils are expected to subsidise bus routes but the Scottish Bus Group will provide information only about its unprofitable routes and refuses to give information about its profitable routes? Will my right hon. Friend instruct this publicly-owned bus company that it should provide this essential information in the public interest, otherwise it will get no help from public funds?

I did not know about that difficulty. Arrangements have been initiated by central Government so that the Scottish Bus Group and local authorities should get together to discuss their problems. We have provided finance through the rate support grant, but the main responsibility must rest with local authorities, in conjunction with the Scottish Transport Group. Certain figures have appeared in public suggesting that very large sums have been requested by the Scottish Bus Group, but after negotiations with local authorities satisfactory arrangements have been made in most cases.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no intention to close any essential rail routes to the centre and North of Scotland, to deteriorate further the bus routes in rural areas of those parts of Scotland, or to increase taxation on fuel or motorists, in order to prevent such things occurring?

The only circumstances in which rail services in Scotland would be threatened with the kind of massive closedown adumbrated in the newspapers would be if we accepted the usual exhortations of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) to make massive cuts in public expenditure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure us in the Highlands by stating categorically that there are no current proposals to cut rail services to Oban, Fort William, Wick, Mallaig and Thurso?

Any proposal for any rail closure at any time is made publicly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as motoring becomes more expensive, the requirement for public railways becomes greater rather than less? Is he aware that the last Con- servative Government clearly decided that there was a need for a basic national network of rail services and that we have now reached a level at which we cannot cut any further without breaking that network?

We are already paying massive sums in subsidy to British Rail. The people calling for reductions in public expenditure well beyond anything that is likely to appear in next week's White Paper are hon. Members opposite.

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

I am meeting representatives of the Scottish Trawlers Federation and other organisations concerned with the fishing industry in North-East Scotland on 13th February.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is attending that meeting, but will he take to it an awareness that we are talking not just about a crisis but about the possible death of an industry in which 8,000 jobs are directly involved and another 20,000 jobs indirectly involved? Is he aware that we need financial aid of £4 million fast, and that this sum represents only 3 per cent. of what we are splashing out on Chrysler?

I shall listen with interest to all that is said by the Scottish Trawlers Federation, but I am not giving any hostages to generous fortune today.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the previous trawler subsidy scheme which lapsed in 1973 is still available under legislation and whether it could be reactivated, by Order, to provide a subsidy for an industry that is in serious trouble? Will he take this opportunity to deny the suggestions being made in some quarters that the Government are deliberately with-holding money from the industry in order to force it to slim down the number of vessels?

My hon. Friend's last point is quite nonsensical. The Government have never embarked on that course. We made clear at the outset, when we introduced the aid in 1975, that it was temporary, although my hon. Friend will remember that we continued it for a further period. During that time, a total of £3·2 million was paid in Scotland on total landings worth £59 million. In the longer term, there is no doubt that this industry, like others, must adjust to the market. I shall consider the legislative possibility raised by my hon. Friend.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is meeting the Scottish Trawlers Federation and interests in the North-East, but does he realise that it is essential to meet the whole industry before the British delegation goes to the Law of the Sea Conference in New York, in March?

The hon. Member should not take it for granted that because I am meeting this section of the industry on Friday I have not met other sections. I have had a useful and confidential talk with representatives of the inshore fleet within the past week.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made towards the implementation of his policy that grant-aided schools be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools.

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 10th December.—[Vol. 902, c. 451–2.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since that date there have been 135 applications in Edinburgh to withdraw children from grant-aided schools and accommodate them in local authority schools, and a further 105 inquiries, making a total of 240 in all? Is he also aware that as soon as the increased fee structure to be announced by the Merchant Company comes forward that figure will substantially increase? Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy that where families cannot accommodate their children at these schools they should be allowed places at local authority schools? Is he aware that I shall be most grateful if he will confirm this fact and keep the subject under review?

I am interested in the hon. Member's figures, but the figures that I have are very different. In the 21 months between January 1974 and September 1975 there was a fall-out of 201 secondary school pupils—an average of 10 a month—which is hardly a dramatic figure. Of course we shall provide education for the pupils, and we have said we shall consider the position again if the situation at Mary Erskine School becomes very severe.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the policy decision on the Mary Erskine School shows that his alleged offer of choice to direct grant schools is a total sham? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is creating great hardship for many parents of limited resources because of the substantial increase in fees, and also that the policy is creating an educational shambles in Edinburgh—a shambles that has been condemned by the Socialist Convener of the Lothian Regional Council?

I do not accept that. What worries me is that during the past four months at Scottish Question Time repeated reference has been made to one grant-aided school. Are the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and Edinburgh Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) representing certain seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh or are they representing the Mary Erskine School? As the managers of the school have repeatedly stated, the long-term result of paying £3 million for Mary Erskine would be to ensure that the other Merchant Company fee-paying grant-aided schools would continue. That is not the Government's policy.

If the Merchant Company is genuinely concerned about educational provision for all children and not just about getting its hands on some money through the sale of Mary Erskine's, to enable it to continue with its other over-privileged fee-paying schools, will my hon. Friend ask the Merchant Company whether it is prepared to give the Lothian Region the free use of the school building for comprehensive education until such time as the region can afford to buy it?

I should accept that offer with gratitude.

The hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was disgraceful. He is saying that his policy is not in the interests of the parents or of the children but is merely to spite the Merchant Company of Edinburgh. Let the hon. Gentleman say so straight out if that is what his policy is.

We get fed up with seeing mechanical jack-in-the-boxes jumping up from the Opposition Benches to ask questions about this school. I hope that the machine will be switched off. The only inference the Government can draw from repeated questions from hon. Gentlemen about one grant-aided school is that hon. Members must be very happy with the Labour Government in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed by local authorities in each of the regions of Scotland in each of the years 1970 to 1975, inclusive.

This information is not available. Figures for the total number of staff employed by Scottish local authorities in the years mentioned, as notified to the Department of Employment, were given in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on 14th January.—{Vol. 903, c. 162.]

Is the Minister aware that I find it difficult to believe that the figures are not available, as we know, for example, that the total number employed in the Highland Region now is less than the totality previously employed by the authorities within that region? That is not so in certain other regions. What is the Minister doing to find out why that is, in support of the original criticism made of this expansion by the Secretary of State?

We are arranging in future to get regular figures, starting from March 1976. The difficulty about the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman is that it involves—perhaps not in the Highland Region but certainly in other regions— dividing up the staff between one local authority and another to get the exact comparison in the new regions. We have given the total figures and, more important, we have made arrangements to monitor future staff changes. On the general question of staffing, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State has made his position clear.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to those who make local authority staff numbers the all-too-easy target for their criticism that the ordinary people of Scotland need substantial help, and that to claim that a reduction in local authority staff is possible without a corresponding reduction of services is complete hypocrisy?

Yes. We have never asked for a reduction. Having regard to the need for stringency in public expenditure, we have asked local authorities not to keep adding to the number of staff, as they have done over the years. In most cases it would be fair to say that this has been done for good reasons, wholly supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The situation has changed. Nevertheless, I agree basically with what my hon. Friend said. If numbers are reduced it is difficult not to reduce services.

Does the Minister realise that if Scotland has this absurd Assembly the number of staff will increase even more?

That is perhaps not absolutely relevant to the Question. The staffing implications of the Assembly are included in the White Paper.

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that the people of Campbeltown will be deeply disappointed by that answer. Would he care to instruct his Department to take steps to make sure—especially in view of what has been said about the difficulties which face the fishing industry—that the fishermen of Campbeltown are not prosecuted by sea anglers and others, under an ancient and disreputable byelaw, for employing otter boards when trawling in the Firth of Clyde?

It is not a byelaw; it is—I think—an Act of Parliament, of 1885. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I spoke about it last week to a certain knowledgeable person from Camp-beltown. The hon. Gentleman knows that the matter is sub judice and that there will be a trial in Kilmarnock on 31st March. The question of a change in the law does not arise at present, but the hon. Gentleman may take it that I understand the problem and the feelings of the fishermen. There is little I can do at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest emigration figures from Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest figures for emigration from Scotland.

Net emigration from Scotland in the year to June 1975 is estimated to have been about 19,000, comprising about 4,000 to the rest of the United Kingdom and about 15,000 to overseas.

In view of that answer, will the Secretary of State tell us what arguments he would use to persuade an unemployed person in Scotland not to emigrate?

The arguments are my confidence and the confidence of most people in Scotland in the long-term future of their own country—as part of the United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the age pattern for emigration from Scotland? If the young leave and the old return, what effect will that have on Scotland's economic future?

I require notice of that supplementary question. It varies. When people go overseas, the father usually goes first and the rest of the family go later. There is a certatin rhythm about it. One of the most interesting aspects of the pattern at present is that the position is holding in relation to emigration south of the border, but there has been a spurt or boom in the past year—in relation to the United Kingdom, in the past two years—in emigration to overseas countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, under the 1964–70 Labour Government, emigration from the United Kingdom rose every year, under the Tory Government it fell every year, and now, under the Labour Government, according to figures produced last week, it is rising yet again?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has the figures wrong. When I took over in 1964 the figure was over 45,000 a year. By the time the Labour Government's period of office ended that figure was reduced to about 20,000.

Is the pattern not all too familiar—that Labour Governments have had to clear up the mess left by Tory Governments and, just as we have got on top of the problem, unfortunately we have lost office? This time we certainly shall not do that.

There is no doubt that it is not always the person who labours who reaps the harvest. What my hon. Friend says is quite true. I have been a Member of the House since 1946. We took over then when the country was bankrupt and put it on its feet. We did the same the last time we held office. We are doing the same thing again—cleaning up.

In his rhythmical approach to the question of emigration, will not the right hon. Gentleman reflect that the reduction in emigration to south of the border is perhaps because of the failure of his Government in the United Kingdom?

I do not accept that at all.

In order to get the question in proper perspective, will the Minister comment on net immigration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world?

There are indications that quite a number of people are coming back to Scotland. This is shown in the figures. One of the difficulties is that the figures have to be analysed in order to distinguish the age groups and find out who the people are. There is no doubt that quite a lot of people have been attracted back to Scotland by the developments in oil. I am glad to say that many of them are Scots.