asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations have been made to him by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) on the subject of the Scottish Assembly.

I have now received the Council's formal submission recording its views on the White Paper of November 1975.

Does not the Minister agree with the Scottish Council that the White Paper totally refuses to recognise that the economic unity of the United Kingdom is not inviolable? Does he not agree with the Scottish Council that the refusal to recognise that the Scottish economy is not necessarily the same as the English economy means that Scotland's prospects of economic rebirth are not very bright?

It is strange that the hon. Member should call in aid the Scottish Council document. If the hon. Member cares to read it and not quote it out of context, he will see that the Scottish Council repeatedly rejects any proposal which will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member disagreeing. I challenge him to read that document. It specifically mentions the question of separation and the hon. Gentleman's policy of withdrawing 71 Scottish MPs from the House of Commons. In the penultimate paragraph the Council makes the point that it is totally in favour of the retention of the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and the presence of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons. The hon. Member should therefore not be so hypocritical as to call in aid the Scottish Council's evidence. It has produced a very good document with much of which I agree.

Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the document produced by his colleagues in the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group, which clearly indicates that, taking the White Paper as a basis for discussion, a series of proposals has been produced making devolution for Scotland a meaningful consideration, far short of the separation which the Scottish National Party wishes, but in accord with what the majority of the people of Scotland want?

Yes, I have had an opportunity to study the document produced by my colleagues in the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group. The document proves to me that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party and the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group are united in their views about the kind of devolution they want for Scotland. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there is a world of difference between the proposals contained in the three documents to which I have referred and the proposals put forward by the SNP, which would be a disaster for Scotland.

Interesting as the views of the Scottish Council are, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest change in Scotland since the debate in January has been that important bodies such as the Scottish CBI, chambers of commerce, universities, doctors, secondary school teachers and accountants have made it clear that, on consideration, they are now against a Scottish Assembly? Will he also use this opportunity to clarify the numbers in the Scottish devolution unit?

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify an answer which I gave in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have written to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise both to him and to his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I confirm that the figure of 55 which I gave includes the staff in the Scottish Office and is not the total figure in the Cabinet Office Constitution Unit.

If the hon. Gentleman shares the view of the Scottish Council about the desirability of retaining the office of Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet, does he realise that it would not be tenable to put forward such a proposal if the Secretary of State were to be stripped not merely of the suggested powers but of the economic and manpower powers which the Government in the White Paper propose should be left with him?

The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) in its document does not suggest that the powers contained in Section 7 of the Industry Act should be taken from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Council welcomes the fact that the Secretary of State has Section 7 powers and is to have the Manpower Services Training Agency and all the other manpower functions which are to be devolved. The Scottish Council supports the view that the Secretary of State ought to have these functions. As a Government we take that view. It will mean that it is important to have the Secretary of State in the Cabinet.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there must be a world of difference between the latest Labour Party proposals for devolution and the Government's White Paper, since the package which the Secretary of State said was just about right has now been subjected to some very hurried cobbling and patching?

Political differences and differences in policy emerge from time to time in all parties. My mind goes back to the 1966 election manifesto of the Scottish National Party. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen were not even in the SNP in 1966. The SNP at that time was saying that 36 seats would give it the right to set up a provisional Scottish Government. That is a direct quote. Now the SNP is saying that 36 seats would give it the right only to negotiate, obviously in the hope that negotiations would fail. I notice that SNP Members are becoming very Westminsterised.

rose—

Order. If we are to have long questions and answers, we shall not go beyond Question No. 8 today.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is making any attempt to sound out the views of Scots currently resident in England and Wales on devolution.

The White Paper on Devolution contains a general invitation to express views to the Government on the devolution proposals. A similar invitation was contained in the shortened version of the White Paper.

That answer has about as much savour as porridge without salt. Are there not more Scots resident in England and Wales than in Scotland? Should not the Government make a specific effort to try to take their views into account before going forward with their half-baked measures?

I advise the hon. Gentleman that porridge is certainly good with salt, but it is even better with a spoonful of treacle in it in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We do not have the information which the hon. Gentleman suggests should be available about Scots living in England and whether they outnumber those living in Scotland. We recognise the importance of Scots where-ever they live throughout the world. The Scots are always willing to share their expertise with all other nations, including England.

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's use of treacle does not spill over into the form of his answer. Since a form of obtaining the views of Scottish people on devolution would be a referendum, which has been talked about, are the Government thinking of it seriously? If so, are they giving consideration to what would be done about Scots living outside Scotland?

It is not part of the Government's policy to hold a referendum on devolution.

Will my hon. Friend reject the treacly porridge political attempts of the SNP in this matter? Will he also sound out English people residing in Scotland and the national and multinational companies which are responsible for employment in Scotland on their views regarding devolution or separatism?

I think that my hon. Friend will accept that there is no demand in Scotland for separation. Indeed, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) document makes the valid point that 80 per cent. of industry in Scotland is either United Kingdom or international in origin.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government will not take seriously the idea of a referendum on devolution?

I did not say that we did not take it seriously. I said that it was not part of the Government's policy to have a referendum on devolution. That is different from saying that we disregard it altogether as not being a serious matter. It is a very serious matter.

Does the Minister feel that the idea propounded by the hon. Member for mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is worth while when a conference on devolution, planned to be held in Harrogate on 11th March, had to be abandoned for lack of interest? If we are to have a referendum, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the word "independence", not "separatism", appears on the referendum sheet?

It is separatism the SNP talks about.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) could easily have sent a copy of one of his many speeches to Harrogate. That would have served the purpose. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has a serious point. Scots living in England will be desperately anxious to ensure that Scotland does not separate, because a separate Scotland would have to tell Scots who wanted to come home that they could not do so, because a Scottish independent Government simply could not allow it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us will be delighted to hear that the Government take the suggestion of a referendum seriously and that the possibility is not ruled out? Therefore, will he convey to his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet the fact that the demand for a referendum is growing in all parts of the country and that we should be grateful if they would further consider it?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views, which I respect. No doubt Cabinet Ministers will read his remarks. We take the issue of referenda seriously. I am only saying that they are not part of the Government's policy on devolution.

Returning to the Question on the Paper, would it not be more sensible to get the views on this issue of Englishmen living and working in Scotland rather than of Scotsmen living and working in England?

That, too, is a relevant consideration. In my constituency there are many Englishmen, Welshmen, Irishmen and people of other nationalities—and some Scotsmen. I find no warmth for the idea of separation among those people. They certainly make their views clear about the policies of the SNP.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with progress being made towards the establishment of the Scottish Assembly.

Yes, Sir.

Is it not high time that the Minister stopped deceiving himself on this subject? If he looks at the balance of power in this House and considers the opposition to a meaningful Assembly Bill from Tynesiders, Merseysiders and centralisers of both the Tribunite Party and the Tory Party, he will have to concede that there are only two options open to the people of Scotland, because there is no chance of an Assembly Bill going through: those two options are independence and the status quo.

The balance of power in the House shifts almost from day to day, depending upon the attendance record of SNP Members. It is the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) who should stop trying to deceive the people of Scotland into believing that the Bill will not pass through the House. I notice from his constant Press and television comments that he does not believe that such a Bill will pass through the House. I therefore assume that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the Bill. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's last point. I forecast that if the eventual choice for Scotland is to be between separation and any other form of government, whether based on total unity or devolution, the vast majority will be against separation.

Will my hon. Friend accept that we on the Government side of the House, in spite of recent television appearances and statements by an ex-member of the Labour Party, are not against devolution or any meaningful devolution? Will my hon. Friend now confirm that the SNP is the most dishonest party that has ever been represented in the House and that it wants not devolution or a Scottish Assembly but the complete disintegration of the United Kingdom?

I think that I can agree fully with my hon. Friend's last point. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would forbid me taking the two hours that it would take even to attempt to define what the SNP does or does not want.

On what date does the Minister expect the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly to take place?

I shall inform the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now given consideration to all the representations he has received on the quesion of devolution.

Consideration is being given to those representations so far received; comments are still awaited from several of the bodies specifically invited to state their views.

In view of my hon. Friend's confidence in the good sense of the Scottish people, would it not be wise for the Government to obtain the full-hearted consent of the Scottish people to the devolution proposals by holding a referendum on the matter? Does he believe that the appointment of a new Prime Minister might bring about some change in Government policy in this respect?

Perhaps I should make clear to my hon. Friend, who represents Oldham, East, that I have confidence in the good sense of all the Scottish people from wherever they come, including my hon. Friend. I have already made the Government's position clear on the question of a referendum and I have nothing further to add. As for what a new Prime Minister will do, sadly that is something upon which I cannot comment.

Will the Minister, with all his authority, give an assurance that the new Prime Minister—and, presumably, the new Secretary of State for Scotland—will in no way slow down the galloping speed at which the Government are proceeding with this matter?

There was a time in the middle of last week when it looked as though new leaders were the order of the day. We were wondering patiently what the new leader of the Liberal Party might say not only about devolution but about other areas of policy. So far as I have been able to ascertain and read in the Press, each of the candidates for the premiership is committed to devolution and has said that the policy and programme will proceed.

But has the Minister noticed that, perhaps for the first time since I have been in this House, we have seen two Scottish Labour Members who represent English seats tabling Questions during Scottish Questions, which indicates the degree of opposition to the proposal for a Scottish Assembly? Will he accept that the only true thing that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has said on this subject is that his party seeks either total union or total separation, and that we should all stand behind one Britain and one Parliament?

I do not accept that what the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) says is a correct interpretation of the feelings of the people of Scotland. Nor do I accept that because hon. Members representing English constituencies are tabling Questions on Scottish affairs they are opposed to devolution. I prefer to draw the conclusion that they are now interested in devolution. That is a very welcome sign indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish fishing industry regarding the forthcoming negotiations on the common fisheries policy.

A resolution stating the views of the Scottish and English fishing industry on fishery limits and the reappraisal of the common fisheries policy was sent to Ministers on 18th February. Similar views have been expressed to me and my hon. Friends by the industry on a number of other occasions.

Does the Secretary of State accept that previous dealings with the European Economic Community have not protected the best interests of Scottish fishermen or the Scottish fishing industry? Can he guarantee that, whatever deal is done with the Common Market, on this occasion he will stick out for a 100-mile exclusive zone for British and, of course, Scottish fishermen?

I think that the hon. Gentleman may take it that the Government—this has been expressed before—will seek to get the best possible results from these negotiations to the advantage of our fishermen.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fishing industry in Scotland is united today as never before and is more deeply concerned about its future than ever before? Will he bear that in mind when negotiating the vital matter of the 100-mile limit for our fishermen?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy for the remainder of 1976.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 21st January.

Is not that answer totally inappropriate on the day after the announcement of disastrous unemployment figures? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Fraser of Allander Institute forecasts that there will be no real recovery in output in the second half of 1976 and that unemployment will rise even higher?

I do not consider the unemployment figures of yesterday disastrous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I con- sider SNP Members themselves a disaster. If we had taken all their advice about slowing down oil development and other matters, unemployment would have been even higher. There is every evidence of a considerable easement in Scotland as well as in the United Kingdom as a whole and there is not the same reason as in the past for gloom about unemployment. Of course, if the SNP is committed to the posters that it puts up about things like unemployed school leavers, its members must welcome gloom, but there is no gloom in the figures presented yesterday.

Is it true that not a great deal of the money that the Government have made available in Scotland for retraining has been taken up? What steps can my right hon. Friend take to encourage local authorities and employers to use the money that the Government have made available for a very good purpose?

These matters are not my direct responsibility. We had a meeting in the House yesterday about training and job creation and we are putting forward proposals to get some steam behind the programme. The money is there and is being used, but we want schemes to come forward much more quickly. With the money at present being poured into industry, we hope to build up a pattern of prosperity which I am sure can be achieved with the co-operation of everyone in Scotland.

Can the right hon. Gentleman really be so complacent about the unemployment figures, which have risen in Scotland at the same time as they have been reduced in the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he not recall the fuss that he made when he was in opposition about the news of 90,000 unemployed in Scotland? Why are the figures rising in Scotland when Scotland has the boost of the oil industry? Is it perhaps because the Government's policies towards the oil industry have slowed down and are strangling the important development which Scotland should be having?

The hon. Member is talking nonsense. Over the last year, the Scottish economy and employment figures have stood up better than the figures for any other part of the United Kingdom—and that in the worst recession that we have had since the 1930s. As I listen to hon. Members making these complaints, I remember how they voted against the Government's Chrysler solution and I imagine what kind of unemployment figures we should have if they had been in charge then. Have they forgotten that in March 1972 there were more unemployed in Scotland than there are today, when a Conservative Government were in office and when there was no world recession and no rise in oil prices? That was just the disastrous effect of Tory policies.

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

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that answer will be greeted with deep regret in Kirkintilloch? May I therefore express the deep concern of my constituents about vandalism there? Have the Government any plans to provide recreational facilities in such areas, which are totally without them at the moment? Does he intend to bring forward legislation to deter vandals effectively?

We have had questions about vandalism before. I have always said that if there were any legislation or other provisions which could solve the problem, the Government would be willing to look at them.

If the Minister yields to the hon. Lady's blandishments and goes to Kirkintilloch to examine the situation, will he stop off at Monklands to congratulate the electors there on showing such good sense as to reject the policies of the SNP?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of the Scottish Transport Group, the traffic commissioners, and the local authorities in producing a cheap and efficient passenger transport service in Scotland.

A working party which I established recently has drawn up procedures to facilitate consultation between individual regional councils and the Scottish Bus Group about the provision of efficient local bus services, and these have been endorsed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Bus Group. The traffic commissioners are an independent regulatory body and their in| elusion in these consultations would not be appropriate.

When do the Government intend to bring forward their legislation on rural transport? Will it include steps to remove the authority of the traffic commissioners which merely gums up the works?

We have promised first a transport review and a consultative document, which I hope will be published soon and which will deal with the whole of transport policy. As for rural transport, we announced certain proposals for: experiment last December. One of the experimental areas will be in Scotland. To carry the matter further, legislation would be required. I cannot put a date on it, but we want a more relaxed legislative position and then we can consider whether there are more flexible ways of dealing with some of the problems in rural areas. We are committed to that, although not to any precise way of achieving it.

If the Minister is genuinely dedicated to a more flexible approach to rural transport, why did the Government vote against the Bill, of which I was a sponsor, to allow private operators to operate in rural areas in Scotland?

I am sorry to say, no doubt to the great disappointment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the fact that he had introduced such a Bill completely escaped my attention.

Since there seem to be so many insurmountable problems over the profitability of transport in Scotland by air, road and rail, would the Minister at least consider investigating the chances of rail transport being made free, so that the roads can be kept free of all kinds of pollution affecting them now?

I think that my hon. Friend will find that the consultative document will deal with the whole subject of finance very comprehensively. Looking at the problems as we have them at present, I cannot see that the idea of making services free would be very attractive. It would add very considerably to the taxation burden, both centrally and locally.

Is the Minister aware of the swingeing increases which have been imposed by the Scottish Transport Group's subsidiary, Island Ferry Services, and what do the Government intend to do about them?

Yes, I am aware of those increases. I do not consider them to be swingeing. Considering the additional costs that the group has had to bear on ferry services, I think that the increases are reasonable in all the circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the subsidies to the Scottish Transport Group for island ferry services were considerably increased by the Government only last year.

While most of the supplementary questions have dealt with the rural services, the Question itself does not specify rural services. Will the Minister accept that there is grave difficulty in the commuter areas, where expense and lack of frequency of service are resulting in an impossible position? Will he take that into account at the same time as considering the rural difficulties?

Again, the consultative document deals with the urban areas as well. I agree with the right hon. Lady that, while there are pressing and difficult problems in the rural areas, it ought not to be forgotten that very large numbers of people in the urban areas now face considerable transport problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make an official visit to West Stirlingshire.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend please try to arrange a visit to the naval depot at Bandeath in my constituency, where he will be able to see at first hand an ideal site for an industrial estate right in the centre of Scotland, with excellent access by rail, road and sea? Will he support my proposal to the Scottish Development Agency for the development of this site as an industrial estate, in view of the impending closure of the depot and the need for jobs for the 160 Bandeath workers and others in my constituency?

Yes. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the proposed phased closure in 1977–78 of the Bandeath establishment to which he has referred. He will appreciate that there is a Minister there today, an Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I am equally aware that my hon. Friend has also written to the SDA and is active on this matter, and I should be glad to support his efforts.

Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friend that it is the policy supported by his hon. Friend—unplanned defence cuts—that has resulted in the potential loss of many jobs in his constituency?

I did not get the feeling that my hon. Friend was exactly supporting the Public Expenditure White Paper last week.

If the Secretary of State visits West Stirlingshire or any other constituency in Scotland, he will soon find that his failure to fight for Scotland in the Cabinet has led to complete—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his point in the form of a question rather than a statement.

May I invite the Secretary of State to go to West Stirlingshire, where he will find that there will be a complete revulsion on the part of many people against the Labour Party for its failure to cure Scotland's unemployment problems?

A week past Monday I was somewhere near Gretna and then I went across Scotland into Carlisle. On Friday I was at John o'Groats and around Caithness and Sutherland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing that occurred there bears out the reactions that the hon. Gentleman has prophesied. I find very considerable concern about the continuing mysteries of the SNP refusing to produce a paper on the consequences, economic and political, of its policies for complete separation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the bypasses for the villages of Blackford, Auchterarder and Aberuthven will be begun; and when they will be completed.

On present plans and subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance, I hope that the Blackford Bypass will start in 1977–78. Construction might take about two years. I cannot forecast when the other bypass schemes on the A9 are likely to start, although work is in hand on their preparation.

Will the Minister appreciate that life in those three villages has now reached a state of absolute mechanical and barbaric hell for all those who live in them, that it is important that the bypasses for those three villages should be put in hand immediately, and that there is other expenditure that can be postponed in order to meet a serious human need?

I agree that these bypasses are needed. One of them, as I have said, will be started reasonably soon. For the others, it is a question of priorities and finance.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the road between Dundee and Aberdeen, via Forfar and Stonehaven, to be dual carriageway throughout.

Dual carriageways are being constructed currently between Aberdeen and Stonehaven; the remainder is to be rebuilt mainly as a high standard single carriageway designed so that it can be converted to dual carriageways when the need for this is established.

I accept that reply. However, may I suggest to the Minister that there is one part of Scotland which, for the sake of the United Kingdom, now needs a dual carriageway, and that is the road to the oil areas? It is this matter that should be attended to, rather than building more dual carriageways in areas in which, we are told, industry is declining.

I am sure that we are not building dual carriageways in Scotland where they are not needed. Again this is a question of priorities, and the capacity of the particular road concerned does not justify a dual carriageway at present.

Would it not be more desirable and economical if better use were made of the railway system to carry much of the goods now carried by road?

That also applies in a number of other parts of the country, but, unfortunately, even if there were a major transfer of traffic from road to rail the effect on the road system as a whole would be comparatively marginal.

Bearing in mind the needs north of Aberdeen towards Peterhead and St. Fergus, where the system carries an enormous amount of traffic to and from the gas terminal and other developments, has the Minister any constructive proposals in terms of road or rail to relieve congestion?

I am bearing those matters in mind. If the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind to table a Question on the subject, I shall answer it.

Is the route mentioned in the original Question the official main route approved by the Department for traffic between Dundee and Aberdeen?

Yes, as we have made clear on other occasions. We sent formal intimation of this state of affairs to the two regional councils concerned in January, but we have not had their formal reply.

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if he decides to visit Ross and Cromarty it will be made abundantly clear to him that the answer given by his noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in another place recently on the building of the Kessock Bridge has caused anger throughout the Highlands, since this bridge is vital to the future prosperity of Easter Ross? Will he investigate the methods used in the roads department of the SDD and the arrangements in respect of this contract? Will he make a statement to the House following what was said by the Minister of State in another place?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks this question so important, it surprises me that he did not place it on the Order Paper, in which case he would have been able to get a direct and detailed reply.

I have raised the matter before.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a complex issue of the type of bridge and involves questions of cost and tendering arrangements. Those matters are now under active consideration. I assure him, on the basis of information we already have, that the answer given by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place was correct.

Will the Secretary of State make a statement then?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of present costs, he is satisfied with the current arrangements for the reimbursing of regional and district councillors, and the existing level of such payments; and whether he has any changes in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the financial hardship suffered by members of local authorities whose earnings are in excess of the standard attendance allowance, if he will in such cases increase allowances legitimately to compensate those members; and if he will make a statement.

The present system of allowances for members of local authorities has been the subject of a comprehensive review but I am unable at present to add to the reply I gave my hon, Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 13th October 1975.

Does the Minister agree that, in view of the widespread concern as to the amount claimed by some councillors, there could be some merit in changing the present system, so that councillors are partly remunerated for salary and claim expenses only in relation to their attendance at meetings?

The question of salaries for councillors was discussed during the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. It is not the easiest of ways to obtain the right answer, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some local authority representatives who earn much more than the £10 a day maximum attendance allowance and that as a result their household earnings are substantially reduced when they attend local authority meetings? Is this not unfair? Is there not some way in which the maximum figure of £10 could be supplemented to ensure that these people obtain adequate compensation to recompense them for what they have actually lost?

I agree that the real value of the £10 allowance has gone down since it was introduced. Although there are sometimes criticisms and allegations in the Press that not all councillors deserve allowances, there is also the other side of the story—namely, that many councillors, by losing wages or salary, find that the allowance has lost a considerable part of its value. The Government have been posed with considerable difficulties in reaching the right answer on these conflicting considerations.

Will the Minister say whether he approves of councillors claiming attendance allowances for attending church services?

That raises the whole question of what is an official duty. The matter was considered during the review. But local authorities can take the initiative in defining what is an official duty.

Does the Minister agree that there is general concern among councillors as well as the public that the present system does not operate satisfactorily and that the remuneration paid to councillors does not necessarily reflect the amount of work they do or the responsibility which they carry? Before increasing the sum, does he think it right to carry out a review, in which councils could participate, to find better ways of handling these matters?

I agree that there is considerable concern. Before making any decisions, we shall consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and no doubt it will be able to put to us the kind of consideration that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the grant to the Scottish Sports Council for 1976–77; and if he will make a statement.

The estimates for the Scottish Sports Council's grant in aid for 1976–77 are at present being considered with other departmental estimates before submission to Parliament. The Scottish Sports Council will be informed of its grant in aid as soon as possible.

Will the Minister say why he publicly criticised the Scottish Sports Council for giving grants in respect of golf courses which were freely available on a daily ticket basis to anybody, a facility widely enjoyed by young people? Was not the Sports Council set up to give grants where required?

We should try to get a proper balance in this matter. I am not in favour of giving public money for private golf courses, especially when there are various organisations and groups looking after the interests of young people who do not have the facilities of golf clubs—club house, one-armed bandits and all the other fund-raising facilities.

Would not the Minister agree that the development of sport in Scotland will be severely hit because, as a result of the education cut-backs, school facilities will not be open to outside groups?

I am not aware that school facilities are not to be opened to outside groups If there is any evidence, I should be interested to receive it. I had a meeting yesterday with Dr. Docherty of the Manpower Services Commission. He has £12½ million of public money to spend and I have encouraged him to get together with the Scottish Sports Council to provide pitches, kick-about areas and, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), even hockey and rugby pitches.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now arrange for the immediate definition and payment of salaries to principals, depute principals, assistant principals and heads of departments in further education colleges and central institutions in Scotland, and for full implementation of the Houghton Report Stage 2.

So far as further education colleges are concerned, I understand that the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee agreed on 4th March to the final determination of salaries payable to heads of departments and higher grades of staff. As regards implementation of other aspects of "Houghton Stage 2", I understand a deputation met my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Employment today and I will be discussing the outcome of the meeting with him. As regards staff in central institutions, I understand negotiations about "Houghton Stage 2" broke down on 17th March and I gather that they have gone to arbitration.

I welcome such progress as has belatedly been made, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is great anger and frustration in the profession and among the people holding these posts because of the long time taken to bring the matter to a head? Is he aware that those concerned do not see any conflict with the wages policy and that the sooner this matter is cleared up, the better for the morale of the teaching profession in Scotland?

I should make clear that there has been some misunderstanding among many people about stage two of the Houghton Report. Most of it has been implemented. This part of the dispute concerns restructuring and certain promotion posts in further education. Since the Labour Government came to power, the salaries of school teachers and further education teachers have increased by an average of 60 per cent.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a sense of unfairness among teachers of this class in further education colleges in Scotland? Will he tell the House what was the outcome of the meeting with his fellow Minister this morning?

I have yet to discuss with the Minister of State the outcome of this morning's discussions. If it is unsatisfactory, I shall discuss with him the possibility of this item being reintroduced at the next general round of pay talks.

asked the Lord Advocate what are the salaries of the home advocate-depute and advocates-depute; and what rises they have had and in what years since 1964.

There is no difference between the salary of the home advocate-depute and the other six advocates-depute. In 1964 the annual salary was £1,250, but in addition fees were paid for appeal court appearances. On 1st December 1965 the annual salary was increased to £1,750. On 1st April 1970 it was decided that Appeal Court fees should no longer be paid and that the salary should be increased to £3,500. On 1st January 1971 the salary was increased to £4,500; on 1st August 1974 to £7,500; and on 1st August 1975 to £9,000.

I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, which shows an inflationary spiral even greater than the Government have achieved in other matters. Does he feel that these salaries are justified in view of criticism of the law profession? If so, is the pay based on the real Scottish crime figures, or the bogus figures that the Scottish Office has been putting out over the last six years, although it knew the real figures?

I disagree with both the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. We have had justice on the cheap in Scotland for many years and the services of advocates-depute have been greatly undervalued. There has been a considerable increase in the court time spent in prosecutions because of the increase in crime in the last few years. There has been a corresponding increase in the amount of office work of advocates depute.

asked the Lord Advocate what studies his Department has made of the process of judicial review in other countries.

In considering the question of judicial review, officials of my Department have had regard to the process of judicial review in certain other countries, including a number of members of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am pleased to hear that such studies have been undertaken, but have they led him or his Department to conclude that any effective decentralisation of power within the United Kingdom requires some formal division of power which, in turn, will require some interpretation of vires? Would it not be far better and more appropriate for a judicial matter of this sort to be decided by a court rather than by a political Minister, as suggested in paragraphs 58 and 59 of the White Paper?

It would be wrong to suggest that the studies of this aspect are complete. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand why I cannot give a categorical reply to his question at the moment.

Surely the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has got it wrong. Should not a distinction be drawn between the two types of ultra vires—that in relation to a Bill going through the Assembly, endorsed or otherwise by Parliament, and that in the judicial review afterwards in which the law can be challenged in the courts because, having passed the Assembly and the Parliament, it was thought to be ultra vires? I hope that we do not admit a judicial review and that what is passed by the Assembly and Parliament becomes law.

My hon. Friend draws an important distinction and tempts me, but I shall resist the temptation.