asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of rehabilitation of substandard housing in Scotland.

The Housing (Scotland) Act 1974, which came into operation on 27th November 1974, gave local authorities new and extended powers to deal with houses below the statutory tolerable standard by declaring housing action areas, and local authorities have been given every encouragement to make use of these powers. Since the Act came into force, 68 housing action areas have been declared, covering 4,927 houses, of which 2,855 are to be improved. Also, many of the houses improved with the aid of grants will have previously been below standard.

Does the hon. Gentleman think the programme is going as fast as it should? Does he still have a target date for ridding Scotland of the rest of the houses which are below a tolerable standard? Is it possible to speed up the valuation process, which seems to be causing delays in some areas?

I know the hon. Gentleman has had problems—not leadership problems, but difficulties in his constituency about valuations. If we can help, I shall be willing to look at the matter. We have no specific target date, because most of the responsiblity rests with local authorities, but we have provided a framework of legislation and the financial resources to make a serious attack on the problem. This is the first year of existence of the new housing authorities and, although I am not complacent, I am satisfied that they are beginning to realise the benefits of the housing action area procedure.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the problem of substandard housing is not experienced only by local authorities? Is he aware that in the village of Steelend in my area many National Coal Board houses are in a very bad condition? Does he agree that, if the NCB cannot find the money to improve them, an extra Government grant should be given to the local district council to enable it to carry out the necessary work?

I would not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend. There are generous funds available for local authorities for public sector housing. About 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. of the total housing stock is below a tolerable standard. The NCB is in the same position as any private sector landlord and has access to improvement grants.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present figures for house improvements show a shattering reduction on the huge totals achieved by the last Conservative Government? Will he give expenditure on this work a much higher priority, as an improved house produces an excellent home at much less cost than a new house?

I do not accept what the hon. Member says. We have rightly given grants more selectively and concentrated on making more money available for houses below a tolerable standard and for people whose homes really need the improvements.

Has my hon. Friend seen the memorandum submitted to his office by the residents of Downfield Place in my constituency which shows that Edinburgh District Council is failing to carry out the instruction in Circular 67 to inform residents of a housing action area exactly what an order means? Will he consider what pressure can be put on local authorities failing to carry out this task, which is so vital if the 1974 Act is to work as intended?

I am not aware of the circumstances in Downfield Place. I am sure that this is an important matter, and if my hon. Friend writes to me I shall take it up to find out whether the Edinburgh District Council is in default. I know it is not exactly setting the heather on fire in other aspects of housing policy.

What effect will the proposed cuts of £94 million in Government expenditure over the next four years have if £6 out of every £10 for the Scottish budget is to be taken from housing? Surely this must have a devastating effect on house-building rates and rehabilitation rates.

I am never very sure that the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct. I should like to see them in writing and study them first. I repeat that there is no restriction on the available resources for new housing. We are giving resources for modernisation and improvement at a record level. I do not think that this is an unsatisfactory performance by any standard.

In view of my hon. Friend's recent letter to me about improvement schemes, will he say whether he has had a favourable response from the Scottish Special Housing Association as to how far it might assist local authorities in this matter?

Yes, I have had frequent discussions with the SSHA. It is directing its resources to this very problem. I should add that the housing associations are making an increased contribution. Over the next five years they expect to rehabilitate 3,200 houses each year. Although I am not satisfied, I think that we should get some recognition for our effort.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the home help service.

The rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 allowed for a 3 per cent. increase in expenditure on social work services. This is sufficient to maintain existing services, including the home help service, but decisions on levels of services are for local authorities themselves in the light of their assessments of needs and priorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many local authority areas the numbers of home helps are being reduced because of a policy of no additional recruitment? Is he not ashamed to be a member of a Government who are spending £4,000 million on nationalisation but who are responsible for a reduction in essential services for the elderly? Will he at least be prepared to initiate an inquiry into what is happening in the Strathclyde Region, where elderly and disabled people are not getting the home helps they need?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has got it slightly wrong again. The House will know that he and I represent Glasgow seats. Since the hon. Gentleman tabled his Question I have made some checks with my officials on local authority home help services in Glasgow. The fact is that the great majority of clients are getting a home help on five or more days a week. In addition, in the Glasgow district there has been an increase in the number of clients receiving the service despite a reduction in the number of home helps. Our information suggests that the service is being more effectively deployed.

Is not my hon. Friend getting somewhat fed up with the sickening hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who comes to the Dispatch Box with synthetic compassion for whichever interest group he has a Question about on any particular day, yet who is constantly demanding, like his leader, even more drastic cuts in public expenditure?

I am already on record as saying that the Conservative Party in Scotland is the falling dinosaur of the Scottish political world. It must come clean with the electorate. It cannot continually ask for cuts in public expenditure in the House and at the same time betray a social conscience for cheap electoral gains.

In terms of expenditure on social work and the health services, how can the Minister give up the income from pay beds yet deny home helps to elderly geriatrics?

Surely that is the weakest case so far for increasing home help provision.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many district nurses are deeply concerned that the home help service is not adequate? Does he accept that they are having to take over the service's function? Is he entirely satisfied with the situation in Strathclyde?

No one denies—I have never denied this myself—that there are constraints on public expenditure. However, in the Glasgow district, an area which we have checked because it is represented in part by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), there is a better service because of rationalisation. I adopt the same attitude towards the SNP as I adopt towards the Conservative Party in Scotland as the SNP does not have a social services policy. At the same time as it is thinking of creating an army of 80,000, perhaps in its policy statements it might think of setting out a policy for better social services.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory and complacent nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present estimates of the cost of servicing the proposed Assembly in Scotland.

I have nothing further to add at this stage to the proposals outlined in Part VI of last November's White Paper on devolution and to the statement made in the House on 14th April by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Do the proposals outlined in the White Paper include the salaries of all the extra civil servants who will be needed for the Assembly? Will it be only the Scottish taxpayer who will pay the cost?

The proposals in the White Paper took account of the salaries of the additional members of staff who would be required to service the Scottish Assembly, and beyond that I do not want to go at this sage.

Does the Minister agree that it would reduce the cost if the money from English companies which is going behind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and his friends to thwart the will of the Scottish people were devoted to improving the benefits for the Scottish people?

It is a new experience tot me to be asked to referee a fight between the SNP and the Tories: I usually promote such fights. However, I have never noticed any reluctance on the part of the SNP to accept the aid that is given to opposition parties, aid which I imagine contains some element of English money. The House will bear in mind that at a recent selection conference at Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles the short list was made up of someone from the Caribbean and someone from London. The hon. Gentleman ought not to put such questions to me.

Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that questions of this nature were never raised when the United Kingdom was to enter the Common Market? Will my hon. Friend seek out and publish the amount of money involved for the British taxpayer in servicing Strasbourg and Brussels salaries, and so on, and point out that it will probably cost a great deal less to service democracy in Scotland than bureaucracy in the Common Market?

It is fair to say that my hon. Friend paints with a rather broad brush. My attitude to the cost of the Scottish Assembly is that democracy cannot be too expensive. The working class of this country has had experience of democracy being expensive before, when it was not represented because of the cost. No one can argue—certainly it cannot be argued from the Government Benches—that democracy can be too expensive. We justify the cost of the Assembly on that basis.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that of the extra 1,000 civil servants who will be required for devolution, according to the White Paper, only 200 will be needed to service the Assembly? If 800 will be required because of the Government's insistence that there should be an Executive superimposed on the Assembly, will the Government take that into account in considering the changes that are to be made from the White Paper?

I notice that at each succesive Question Time the hon. Gentleman slips that much further on the subject of devolution. I am beginning to wonder where he stands between his hon. Friends the Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

rose—

I cannot call anyone else on this Question. It is 10 minutes to three and we are only on Question No. 3.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 23rd April.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish TUC at its conference at Perth.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 23rd April.

My speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 23rd April has already been given wide publicity. I shall be meeting the General Council again on 28th May to discuss matters affecting the Scottish economy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he spoke optimistically about employment? Is he aware that his Government have now been in office for over two years and that, despite the promises that his leader gave in October 1974, unemployment is now 50 per cent. higher? Is he not thoroughly ashamed of his record?

Not at all. I am optimistic about employment in Scotland. Unemployment in Scotland in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom is better than it has ever been. That is to the credit of the present Government.

Is it not obvious that there is a great deal of agreement between the Labour Party and the STUC about devolution and other issues? Is it all that surprising that the Labour Party is the only organisation which has this special understanding with the STUC, as the Tories cannot make up their minds about devolution and Scottish nationalists cannot make up their minds about whether they are Socialists?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. There is a very warm and friendly understanding between the Government and the STUC, and I hope that it will continue.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in his speech to the STUC, speaking as Secretary of State. he made the startling admission that both he and the Government were prepared to take no responsibility for the present levels of unemployment? How does that tie in with the fact that defence cuts under this Government are throwing hundreds of people in my constituency out of work and that other cuts which the Government are being forced to make because of their economic policy are putting thousands of others out of work every month in Scotland? The Government should be ashamed of themselves

I did not say to the STUC that the Government took no responsibility for unemployment. That would be an absurd thing to say.

The right hon. Gentle man said that.

The hon. Gentleman must bear with me. I think that I am rather better informed of what I said at Perth than the hon. Gentleman is. I did not make any such statement. Of course we take responsibility for the general economic situation.

And unemployment?

And unemployment, of course. Concerning the defence budget, I notice that the hon. Gentleman has joined his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Carthcart (Mr. Taylor) in calling for more Government expenditure.

Did my right hon Friend have any discussions with the STUC about Chrysler? Did the STUC make any comment on the fact that those who are always shouting "Put Scotland first" refuse to buy cars made in Scotland?

There was no specific comment. I did not get the impression that the STUC took the SNP at all seriously. Indeed, the SNP was not mentioned in my company.

As the right hon. Gentleman has again said that he is optimistic about the future at a time when the seasonally-adjusted figures show that 100 Scots are losing their jobs every working day, will he give an indication of when he thinks that, because of the Government's policies, unemployment in Scotland will begin to go down?

I hope that we shall very soon begin to see the turn-round in unemployment. It will be brought that much nearer if we get full support for the Government's budgetary and pay policies. I am disappointed that the Opposition, in their hypocritical way, cannot bring themselves to support the Government's efforts.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the STUC that the Scottish Assembly should have control over the Scottish Development Agency and Scottish universities? May we have a categorical reply on that matter?

At Perth I said that I thought that the STUC's document on the Government's White Paper was very interesting and that its ideas were being carefully considered.

rose—

Order. For the rest of Question Time I shall call fewer supplementary questions.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

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

I have already met representatives of the distant-water sector to discuss the situation at Iceland. I intend to meet representatives of both the inshore and the distant-water sectors, principally about the common fisheries policy and the economic situation, in the course of the next few weeks.

I welcome the meeting that the right hon. Gentleman has arranged. Will he tell us in advance why no statement has been made to the House of Commons about the ending of the last session of the important Law of the Sea Conference? Does he agree that throwing away in advance our card of a 100-mile exclusive limit was incredible diplomatic stupidity and that variable limits will be totally unworkable?

I disagree completely with the hon. Gentleman. We have taken a realistic view of the situation. Our position could have been that much easier had the previous Conservative Government not thrown all their cards away before we got into the Common Market.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in all the discussions with the various sections of the fishing industry the one matter on which they were agreed concerning limits, if nothing else, was that variable limits were difficult to police? Will he assure us that something will be done to try to retrieve that position?

Any limit is difficult to police. My hon. Friend will know that, apart from that question, enforcement and other matters are now being discussed in the Common Market context.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is cross-party agreement on the need to obtain a better deal on limits for our fishermen? Does he also accept that my hon. Friends and I, and no doubt other Members in other parts of the House, are willing to join an all-party delegation to the EEC to try to get a better deal for our fishermen?

I am always interested in such offers, even from the unlikeliest of sources. The Government have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals on limits are unacceptable. That is why we must negotiate limits more satisfactory to our industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had from the Scottish Trawlers' Federation regarding the financial prospects of the fishing industry.

The Scottish Trawlers' Federation wrote to the former Secretary of State on 20th April requesting a meeting to discuss a number of important issues, including its financial position. Our officials met the federation last week and my right hon. Friend will see the federation in the course of the next few weeks.

I am very grateful for that reply. At the meeting with the officials, was it possible to sort out the differences of base lines with regard to calculations for earnings, which was a cause of dispute between the Government and the STF? Notwithstanding that the most recent figures show a very welcome upturn in terms of earnings, how quickly can the Government respond if matters change drastically in the near future?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the constructive approach that he adopted in January—unlike the exaggerated approach of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). The industry was proclaiming in January that there would not be an industry in March, so I have news for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, as well as a reply for my hon. Friend.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) does not know much about this. He will not like the reply because it is a good one.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman see that it is absurdly misleading to calculate the industry's viability over the whole year merely by extrapolating the earnings over only a short optimum period? Will he say something about the latest situation on EEC reference prices?

Even I can understand that it is not wise to anticipate earnings in detail. All I am saying is that for the first three months and into April earnings have been well above what the industry itself was predicting, so I have a right to claim that we were right in the first instance.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the provision of hospital services for the mentally handicapped in Scotland over the next five years.

The memorandum "The Health Service in Scotland—The Way Ahead" drew attention among other things to the need for improvements in hospital and community health services for the mentally handicapped in the next four years. I have no doubt that health boards will take full account of the principles in the memorandum in deciding how to meet the needs of their areas.

Does the Minister realise that nine out of every 10 beds for the mentally handicapped in Scotland are in hospitals built in the reign of Queen Victoria? Does he realise that we could deal with that problem without increasing public expenditure if the Government withdrew their legislation to abolish pay beds? That legislation is totally irrelevant to the needs of Scotland and will cost £40 million every year.

The hon. Gentleman should get this matter into its proper perspective. The amount that we take from pay beds in Scotland in terms of annual income is almost nil compared with the National Health Service expenditure.

Half a million pounds.

Half a million pounds will hardly cure the problems which were created in the reign of Queen Victoria. The problem has grown over the years, particularly as the Conservative Government concentrated resources on the acute services rather than long-stay patients. This Government have now told the health boards to take greater account of the needs of long-stay patients. We have every confidence that the health boards will heed our request.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the rate of house building, public and private, in Irvine New Town; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. I am glad that Irvine Development Corporation has been able to overcome past difficulties with building contractors, and I note that it is now in discussion with the local authorities about meeting future housing needs in the area.

My hon. Friend is new in the job, but he is the only one who is happy about the situation in Irvine. Is he aware that the Irvine Development Corporation is building houses for higher rents in Scotland for general needs within a 10-mile radius of Irvine? Will he consult his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for housing with a view to encouraging Cunninghame District Council to build houses to let at reasonable rents for young people in Irvine and Kilwinning?

I am not as new to the job as all that, because I have been following this matter with some care. I was answering the point put to me by my hon. Friend regarding the difficulties of the development corporation, particularly with builders in the area. I note that the local authorities are to meet the Irvine Development Corporation. I think that it is better to wait until we see how those discussions progress before we make any further comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional measures he proposes to deal with unemployment in Scotland.

The Government have already taken substantial steps to reduce unemployment. In addition to measures to encourage investment and training, we have introduced a recruitment subsidy for school leavers and a job creation programme for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently announced additional funds. So far, these schemes have helped to create or protect over 13,000 jobs in Scotland.

Does not the Secretary of State acknowledge, particularly and somewhat ironically in view of the terms of the Employment Protection Act brought in by his Government, that we now have evidence of further redundancies coming in Scotland over the next few months which will swell the figures and that the news of, for example, the Marathon situation must accentuate this evidence? Is there not a case right now for two measures: first, immediately to increase the budget of the SDA so that it can make an impact on unemployment over the coming months and, secondly. to ensure that there is a fixed preference policy laid down for North Sea oil and gas development whereby Scottish companies are enabled to get the lion's share of the business?

There is already a memorandum of understanding with the offshore operators, which is working very well. I have already said that if the SDA, with which I am in close touch, feels that its budget is inadequate it will no doubt ask me for more. It has not done so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the hypocrisy of SNP Members, the level of unemployment is totally unacceptable to many Labour Members? Does he further agree that one of the best methods of dealing with it would be to try to persuade SNP Members, particularly their Chief Whip, to cease denigrating the efforts of the Scottish working people in the motor car industry, and that the phrase "Put Scotland First" sounds a little hollow when it is uttered from the driving seat of a Japanese Datsun or a Swedish Volvo?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is utter hypocrisy for SNP Members to talk about preference for Scottish industry when they themselves buy foreign goods.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is giving the impression that he simply does not know what to do about this level of unemployment? As nearly 3,000 Scots are being put out of work every month by the Government's policies, will he not suggest to his colleagues giving up the idea of nationalising North Sea oil and spending the money on creating Scottish jobs?

That is perhaps the most absurd supplementary question that we have had, even from the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's actions have preserved a large number of jobs in Scotland? Is he also aware that we look forward to new jobs being created by the entrepreneurial activities of the SDA? What and how much may we expect in that direction?

I am hoping for quite important initiatives from the SDA quite soon now. I ask my hon. Friend to await them. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not in the least complacent about the Scottish unemployment situation. I have said that the figures are appalling and unacceptable. I stand by that, but we are doing everything possible to reduce the figures.

In spite of the obsessional attitude of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the STUC has said that at a time when there ought to be a decline in unemployment in Scotland it is on the increase, and that the CBI has said that there is no sign of any kind of boom? Will he, therefore, give serious attention to the two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)?

I think that I have already answered those two points. I know that Opposition Members are very sensitive about the Datsun car—so sensitive, in fact, that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) seems to have absconded from here, probably in his Datsun.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many newly qualified primary and secondary teachers, respectively, will leave colleges of education in the Strathclyde Region at the summer vacation; and how many vacancies for teachers will be available.

About 1,200 primary teachers and 1,500 secondary teachers are expected to qualify from the four colleges in the Strathclyde Region at the end of this session. The regional education authority cannot yet estimate the total number of vacancies in the schools this summer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I could give him an estimate that in the Lanarkshire sub-area there will be scores of primary teachers unemployed under the present arrangements? Is he further aware that, by our reducing the size of classes to 30, those teachers could all be employed? Is it not time, therefore, that the Treasury was told in the strongest possible language to end the present policy of crazy economics in order to give these people employment? It has cost more than £4,000 per head to train these people.

This is a serious situation. There are certainly not enough jobs available for all teachers coming out of colleges. I cannot say at present what the gap will be, because no final figures are available, but I am arranging to see that we have the most up-to-date estimates, and we shall be having discussions with the education authorities about this matter. The figures to which the education authorities are working in recruitment are the figures negotiated in the contract of service with the teachers' organisations. The first aim must be to get all the schools in Scotland adequately staffed.

We are not debating this subject now.

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

I am frequently in Glasgow on official business and will meet the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress there on 28th May.

When the Secretary of State visits Glasgow, will he take the opportunity of visiting the teacher-training colleges and explaining there, as well as in other parts of Scotland, including Tayside, why it is that jobs are not available for so many teachers who are coming from the colleges this year? Does he not understand that it seems to be the planning policies of a madhouse to budget for so many teachers without providing employment for them?

I have just answered a Questions about that, and I said that there is a serious problem. The bulk of the teachers coming out of the colleges this year went to them in 1973. If there is a lack of planning as far as they are concerned, it does not actually rest with this Government. But that does not mean that there is not a serious problem with which we must try to deal as best we can.

Order. I must ask for shorter answers as well as shorter questions.

Does the Secretary of State accept that we on this side, as well as asking for cuts in Government spending, are asking for the right cuts and the right priorities? How on earth can it make economic sense to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on extending State control when we are not able to employ all our teachers and when yesterday in Fife there was a redundancy raffle of teachers because that county is faced with the problem of bringing down its teaching standards to the Government's own standards?

The hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the various education authorities concerned are calling for even more drastic cuts in education expenditure as well as in other kinds of expenditure.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he visited Glasgow, and went round the city, he would recognise that there is a great need for more and more education? We have a moral obligation to the people in the training colleges and it is imperative that we find room in the classrooms for the teachers we have trained. We dangled the prospectus before them and they accepted it.

I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but I repeat that the schools in Glasgow will be better staffed this year than they have ever been and for the first time for many years there will be no part-time education in my hon. Friend's constituency or mine. I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of this, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest effects of public expenditure cuts on services for retirement pensioners and those in geriatric wards of hospitals in Scotland.

The Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 6393) makes provision for an increase of 2 per cent. per annum in real terms in local authority expenditure on social work services; I am sure that local authorities will take full account of the needs of the elderly in their budgets.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that Councillor George Foulkes, the director of Age Concern in Edinburgh, has expressed grave concern that existing services to pensioners may deteriorate greatly as a result of the cuts? Does not the Minister agree that a great many Scotsmen in these circumstances would be delighted if the immensely expensive Community Land Act were postponed indefinitely?

I will certainly make arrangements for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the reply which Councillor George Foulkes got to his letter. The expenditure on local authority social work services has increased at the rate of eight times that of other local authority services over the past five years, whereas in the health services the growth rate has decreased from 4½ per cent. to 1½ per cent. This is something of which a Government dealing with public expenditure have to be cognizant.

Would my hon. Friend agree that while it is appropriate for those of us who reject the statutory line behind the public expenditure cuts it is gross hypocrisy for those who demand even more massive cuts to complain about them? Will he instruct the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that education happens to be an aspect of public ownership and control?

We are all politicians and we all agree that one of the advantages of being in Opposition is that it gives one the freedom to be totally irresponsible, and there is no greater expert on that than the Conservative Party.

Will the Minister positively encourage the provision of more sheltered housing for the elderly?

Yes, indeed I will.

How does the Minister justify to himself that there will be inadequate improvements in the position of the elderly in Scotland while at the same time the Government are insisting on the provision of hundreds of millions of pounds for the nationalisation of Scottish shipbuilding and Scottish aviation?

This must be the day when there is a Press release about nationalisation from Conservative Central Office. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for the social services explained earlier, the standard of service being given to the elderly, particularly in the Strathclyde area, is now much better and much more efficient, even with fewer people working in it, than it has ever been. That is how the situation is justified.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received representations from the Scottish Old People's Welfare Council (Age Concern, Scotland) about a deterioration in the domiciliary services for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

I will send the hon. Member a copy of the reply which my right hon. Friend has sent to the representations made by Age Concern, Scotland. The main point of that reply is that the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 made sufficient provision for social work services to be maintained, but that decisions on the level of such services, including domiciliary services for the elderly, are for the social work authorities themselves in the light of their assessment of needs and priorities.

Does not the Minister agree that it is alarming if the facts that Age Concern has are that the Government are arranging for the maintenance of the existing service but appear to establish that the total number of those aged over 75 will go up by about 18 per cent. in the period 1973 to 1981? Are these statistics, which Age Concern supplied, correct?

I must put on record that Councillor Foulkes, who is a director of Age Concern, appreciates that the Government have a difficulty over constraint in public expenditure and he said so in the letter. Of course as a director of this particular organisation he is concerned. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter, which indicates that compared with 1969 to 1970, when we spent £21 million on social services in Scotland, we spent £75 million between 1974 and 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed in the administration of the area health boards in Scotland; and how this figure compares with the total number employed at the date of the creation of these bodies.

Staffing statistics are not available for 1st April 1974, the date of reorganisation of the National Health Service; but at 30th September 1974 the number of administrative and clerical staff, including former special grades and ambulance officers, was 10,696 expressed as whole-time equivalents. At 30th September 1975, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of such staff had increased to 12,197. The figures quoted include the staff employed by the Common Services Agency as well as the staff of the 15 health boards.

Does the Minister accept that an increase of nearly 2,000 in such a period is hardly the sort of increase which is acceptable in the present circumstances? Does he accept that this is a region of bureaucracy which lends itself to empire-building? Will he do his utmost to effect some sort of control so that this increase is not continued?

Yes, I agree that the increase is totally unacceptable. Of course, like the other reorganisations in which the hon. Member's party became involved, this has, unfortunately, led to an increase in bureaucracy. We have required the NHS authorities to freeze their staff levels at the figures prevailing at the end of February 1976 because we are not prepared to accept an increase of this order.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement)n the programme for the provision of geriatric beds at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy.

The Fife Health Board proposes to provide 60 geriatric and 90 psycho-geriatric beds in a new building on a site at Whyteman's Brae, Kirkcaldy, adjacent to the Victoria Hospital. Oncosts associated with the difficult nature of the site are at present unacceptably high, and the building division of the Common Services Agency, acting on behalf of the Fife Health Board, is urgently examining means of reducing these oncosts to an acceptable level.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a considerable degree of urgency for this project to be started as soon as possible? Recently, a friend of mine was discharged from the geriatric unit in the Victoria Hospital to live by himself. Two weeks later, he was found dead in bed. This was one of many instances of people not getting proper treatment in geriatric wards. I plead with my hon. Friend to make sure that this new extension of the Victoria Hospital is started as soon as possible.

I accept fully the urgent need for the facilities described. On the subject of the on-cost of over £1 million —the figure with which we started and which we are desperately trying to keep down—I have had early meetings with my officials and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall push on with the matter as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding the extension of the existing 30 m.p.h. speed limit on the trunk road (Route A985) at Westfield, Kincardine; and if he will make a statement.

Only those from my hon. Friend on behalf of the local residents. After careful consideration of the relevant factors I concluded that the extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit was not justified.

Is the Minister aware that this short link of dual carriageway is creating serious problems for people living in Westfield, Kincardine? Is he also aware that his refusal to impose a 30-mile an hour limit for the area is greatly regretted? Does he not agree that there are two further measures left open to him? The first is to provide a suitable footpath leading from that area. The second is to provide high-powered lights over the dual carriageway. Will he do all he can to relieve the anxieties of residents?

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for his intelligent supplementary questions. He is always most diligent in looking after his constituents' interests. I would inform my hon. Friend that there have been two accidents on that stretch of road in the last three years, and in neither case was there evidence to suggest that excessive speed was the cause.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will consider any recommendation from the Scottish Law Commission to establish a Department of Legal Affairs.

Any recommendation from the Scottish Law Commission, including any recommendation for the establishment of a Department of Legal Affairs, will be most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman will, however, recall that, in answer to a Question which he asked me on 11th February 1976, I indicated the Government's view that, after devolution, the decision whether or not to implement any such recommendation would fall properly to the Scottish administration. This remains the Government's position.

Does it not therefore follow that the Government intend to leave the final decision on this matter to the future Scottish Assembly, once established?

No inference for or against that view can be drawn yet. The Government are considering the many representations made to them and will have to reach a view on them.

Even before the establishment of a legal department takes place, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider again submitting the case of Patrick Meehan to the Secretary of State for consideration, particularly in the light of the Devlin Report and the question of identification? This is a matter of great anxiety and disquiet in Scotland.

I am answering a later Question on that subject.

asked the Lord Advocate how many official court visits he has made in the last year.

One visit, which was to Glasgow.

I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to make more court visits. From his experience, either as Lord Advocate or previously, in his court visits has he ever come across a judge or a lay magistrate calling upon a solicitor to offer legal advice or assistance under Section 2(4) of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972? Will my right hon. and learned Friend recommend further use of that provision, and also that more details be given of the legal advice and assistance service to people who are cited to appear in court?

My hon. Friend has asked detailed questions and I would require notice of them.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to abolish the need for corroboration in criminal law in Scotland.

No, Sir. In my view, the general rule requiring corroboration should remain. There are some statutory exceptions to this general rule, and it may well be that from time to time other exceptions would fall to be considered as points of difficulty arise in this field.

While accepting the general point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, is there not a case for looking again at the matter and trying to establish some distinction between trivial and serious offences? The fact, for example, that two traffic wardens are required in a relatively trivial offence seems somewhat unnecessary.

Value judgments come into the question of what is trivial and what is not. Some of the exceptions are in the poaching Acts and others are in the Road Traffic Act.

While protecting jealously the important safeguard of corroboration, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see whether there are not statutory and technical offences which could be excluded from the general rule?

I am always open to representations on that topic.

asked the Lord Advocate what rôle he envisages for the Scottish Law Officers after the implementation of the Government's policy on devolution.

It would be premature for me to put forward any final view on the rôle of the Scottish Law Officers after devolution. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's White Paper on Devolution proposes that the Lord Advocate should remain a United Kingdom Minister with many of his existing responsibilities. Arrangements will, of course, require to be made for the discharge of such Scottish Law Officer functions as may be devolved.

Do the Government's proposals involve the Solicitor-General for Scotland also remaining a United Kingdom Minister? If so, what provision is to be made for the Assembly to be advised on legal matters?

I am not in a position to make a statement on that. It is among the many matters which the Government have to consider.

asked the Lord Advocate what recent representations he has received concerning the case of Mr. Patrick Meehan.

I recently received representations from two solicitors who are members of the Patrick Meehan Committee. Following these representations, I instructed the Crown Agent to precognosce various witnesses. This was done. Thereafter, I instructed the Strathclyde police to investigate certain matters which had come to light.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he is in touch with the Secretary of State, say how long it will be before we get a decision? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman now regret that he and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) persistently refused to refer this case to the High Court for further consideration? When it is all over, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to support the idea of an inquiry held by someone outside the Scottish legal or police world into the whole handling of this case?

It would be inappropriate for me to attempt to answer the last point. There is some misunderstanding about this matter. For example, the Sunday Times, in its leader on 9th May, which the hon. Gentleman is echoing, stated that efforts during the past two years to get the Meehan case reopened had been regularly rejected, on my advice, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That statement is inaccurate. The matter is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for consideration, and it is unlikely that he will be in a position to make a state-before early next week.

I speak as a member of the Meehan Committee and as his counsel at his trial. Now that the Lord Advocate has received a very painstaking and impartial report by Assistant Chief Constable Arthur Bell and Detective Chief Superintendent John McDougall, which establishes beyond peradventure Mr. Meehan's innocence of this crime, will he take immediate steps to ensure that this man, wrongly imprisoned, is released at once and thereby remove one blot from the law of Scotland? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also have an inquiry made into how this appalling event has been allowed to drag on for so long?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an impassioned appeal but it would be inappropriate for me to respond when the matter is before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is his decision, and it is an important one. Certainly it should not be based on emotive considerations.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one feature in particular seriously concerns lay people like myself, and I hope that he will take it into consideration? The solicitor for a man who had recently died sought special permission from the Scottish Law Society for this exception from the rule of confidentiality so that he could make the information available, since it was suggested that there was a strong possibility that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. How long can a solicitor keep that information while a man stays in prison? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to discuss the rule of confidentiality with the Scottish Law Society, and if necessary consider, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, referring the matter to the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession? Would he also draw this idea to the attention of the Attorney-General?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The degree to which the doctrine of confidentiality can extend is a matter for some concern.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this report is one of a factual nature, con- taining admissions and analyses of the case, or whether he has passed it to the Secretary of State with advice as to what should be done in connection with the matter on legal grounds?

It would be wrong for me to go beyond the statement I have already made.