asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on teacher unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on teacher unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from students advocating the creation of an adequate number of additional teaching posts with a view to employing all newly-qualified teachers at the beginning of the new school session; and if he will make a statement regarding the nature of his replies.

Representations on teacher unemployment have been made by about 175 students. In addition, I have received two petitions organised by students. The replies have referred to the detailed statement which I made in my reply of 26th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) which outlined a number of courses of action that are still being pursued and to the consultations I have since carried out.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the fact that he has come forward with no positive proposals will be greeted with dismay not only by the teaching profession but by parents throughout Scotland who find it difficult to accept a situation in which there is a high level of unemployment amongst teachers while children are being subjected to the development of composite classes? What consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to the EIS survey submitted to him earlier this week, which shows that more than 400 schools which previously did not have composite classes now have 2,000 such classes—

Order. The hon. Lady is not setting a good example with the length of her supplementary question. Hers is the first supplementary question, and I hope that no one will follow her example.

The question of teaching standards was negotiated between teachers' organisations and local authorities. I was not a party to the discussions, but my understanding was that the matter of composite classes was exhaustively discussed in these negotiations.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Labour Government mounted a rescue operation to save the jobs of car workers they earned the admiration of the people of Scotland? It cost £2,000 million to save Leyland and £142 million to save Chrysler. We should not forget the Concorde project which cost £1,000 million. Why cannot we mount a similar operation costing £7·5 million, which I understand is all that is required to put these 2,000 newly-qualified teachers to work?

If we were to compare every new demand for public expenditure with demands that had been made in the past, and if we were to say that because public expenditure had been incurred in one area, there was a case for making similar moneys available in an entirely different area—in this case teacher employment—we would be unable to control public expenditure. I do not feel that the public expenditure difficulties with which the Government are faced allow me to accept the kind of easy solution to this problem that my hon. Friend suggests.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that his estimate of 2,000 unemployed teachers will not be increased by the further round of public expenditure cuts? Will he ignore the crocodile tears from the Scottish Nationalisation Party, bearing in mind that last night it condoned the spending of £300 million on additional nationalisation when the money could have been used to provide jobs for teachers?

I dare say that when prospective redundancy threatened the shipyards on the Clyde the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would be the first to demand Government intervention and public expenditure. I am, however, answering a Question about teachers, not about shipbuilding.

Am I right in assuming that even £5 million might be enough to employ the 2,000 teachers threatened with the dole queue? Will my right hon. Friend consider my suggestion for raising that money? If he took the £2·25 million which was not used up by the designated schools scheme and, say, £500,000 from the job creation scheme, together with a couple of million pounds from the defence budget, it would leave only about £250,000 to find. That is about the sum given in aid to the official Opposition parties, including whatever went to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt).

My hon. Friend is characteristically ingenious. I can tell him that under the job creation scheme 143 jobs have been approved and proposals involving a further 450 jobs are under consideration.

Will the Secretary of State finally clear up the question whether this whole situation is due to miscalculation by his Department three years ago or to the fact that current public expenditure pressures make it impossible, in the Government's judgment, to realise the projected teacher-pupil ratio intentions of three years ago?

There is no diminution in the projected teacher-pupil ratios in Scot- land, which will be better next year than ever before. It might be said that three years ago, when I was not responsible for these matters, the number of students entering colleges should have been considerably reduced. Public expenditure implications are at the heart of this matter, and I have never sought to disguise that fact from the House.

Is the Secretary of State really saying that Scottish schools are so well staffed that they do not need extra teachers, or is it a question of money? If it is the latter, would it not be better to save money by slowing down the modernisation programme for schools and using it to assist teachers who have already been trained and who, I believe, are needed in our schools?

It is not possible to spend money out of the school building budget—which itself is already under considerable strain—on providing additional teaching places. I do not say that in happier circumstances we could not profitably employ more teachers in Scotland, but despite the restrictions we shall have the best-ever teacher-pupil ratios.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the control by local authorities of open-air markets; and if he will make a statement.

Local authorities and retailers have made representations about the control of open-air markets and my right hon. Friend is considering the adequacy of the existing provisions.

Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of great urgency, particularly in my constituency? The working party on civic government has suggested a form of legislation that would give local authorities sufficient control, but it is not anticipated that this will be introduced until 1979. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will look favourably on the possibility of introducing a minor Bill in the next Session to cover this point?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. He has been worried about it for some time. Planning authorities may apply to my right hon. Friend for a direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order to bring markets under full planning control. My hon. Friend's own local authority has already done this, but the problem is that market operators can appeal, and this can take a considerable time. I accept what my hon. Friend said about legislation being needed. We want to tackle the planning aspect not in a piecemeal fashion but with other improvements in civil government. We shall consider this subject for next Session, but my hon. Friend should remember that there will be tremendous pressure because of the Assembly Bill.

Before making any concrete proposals for Government legislation on open-air markets, will my hon. Friend remember that this system of trading has been prevalent in England for a long time? Why should not Scottish consumers have the advantage of cheaper goods, just as English consumers have had for a number of years?

I do not deny that even in Scotland we have a number of open-air markets working satisfactorily, but several local authorities and the Retail Traders' Association have complained about nuisance, noise and traffic problems. The impetus has come from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) is asking for legislation to allow local authorities to make their own judgment on whether markets are a good idea in their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the design of and contract for the Kessock Bridge linking Inverness and Ross and Cromarty.

Contractors wishing to tender for the design and construction of the bridge have been invited to submit their names for my right hon. Friend's consideration.

Does the Minister realise that the preliminary pricing and design work could be completed within six months and that the only reason why this bridge is not starting in the spring of 1977 is that the Government have committed far too much of their limited budget on half-baked nationalisation schemes, to the detriment of important projects such as the bridge?

We get this hackneyed message from the Opposition time and again, and it is usually irrelevant to the Question on the Order Paper. The technical, procedural and financial problems involved in the construction of this bridge could take about 18 months to overcome. We do not deny the need for the bridge and our target date is early 1978, though I should add a note of caution and say that this depends on the economic climate at that time.

Is the Minister aware that, if Scotland had access to the revenue from Scottish oil, the Kessock Bridge would have been built long ago?

If we were dependent upon the support of the SNP—[Interruption.] I certainly am not. If one thing is clear lo the public in Scotland, it is that the attitude of the SNP is chasing away investment in Scotland.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. The Minister should resign.

I do not intend to resign before I have answered the next Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has held recently with Lothian Regional Council about trunk roads in the region.

The Scottish Development Department has regular contact with the council on trunk road matters.

Will the Minister do his best to ensure that the building of roads in Edinburgh does not involve the destruction of good and sound property, as have some of the insane proposals in the past? Will he have a word with the Minister for Transport and the regional council about the possibility of increased rail transport on the old suburban railways of Edinburgh?

I shall certainly pass on to my hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's latter comments. I share his concern about the road programme in Edinburgh. The Lothian Regional Council has recently published a green paper setting out its proposals for the relief of blight created by road programmes in Edinburgh and the council is now considering comments on that document. As trunk roads are not involved, it is a matter for the authority. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy of the green paper from the council. If he is unable to do so, I shall try to help him.

Will my hon. Friend put pressure on the Secretary of State to meet a deputation that I have arranged with Transport Action Scotland to discuss the provision of a motorway link from North Ayrshire to the motorway system? Is he aware that some of us are beginning to think about organising a petition in the House on the lines of "Come back Willie, all is forgiven" when we see the actions of the present Secretary of State?

I might sign it myself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has made some of his typically helpful comments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is writing to him on this matter.

I do not expect an expansion of the road programme in a period of economic restraint, but will the Minister say whether any planning is being done on the need to provide a ring road for Edinburgh?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has covered a lot of road recently. We wish him some success from his travels. I have noted what he said and I shall pass it on to my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill, who has responsibility for these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce measures to encourage the restoration of private sector tree planting to the level reached in 1973–74.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of tree planting has been established in Scotland between September 1975 and May 1976 in both the Forestry Commission woods and in privately-owned plantations; and how this compares with plantings in each of the last three planting seasons.

Records maintained by the Forestry Commission relate to financial years. Provisional figures for 1975–76 show commission and private sector planting of 41,000 and 23,000 acres respectively. Figures for previous years are given in the commission's annual reports.

I have no wish to go back to estate duty and all the jiggery-pokery that went with it, but will the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and urge him to make alterations in the Finance Bill to encourage private woodland owners to raise the level of planting to that which they are capable of achieving, so as to avoid the loss of 2,000 jobs in rural Scotland, as estimated the other day by the Chairman of the Forestry Commission?

This is only one factor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Do not be so offensive. This is only—

Order. Does the Minister realise that in theory every remark like that is addressed to me?

I shall try to be more specific in future, Mr. Speaker. This is only one factor, altough not an insignificant one, in the apparent loss of confidence in the private sector, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that changes were made to the capital transfer tax in Schedule 9 to last year's Finance Act. They have given considerable benefit as well as applying the principles of the redistribution of wealth, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept.

Does the Minister agree that in the next few years forest products will be the biggest single drain on our external payments, and that it is now essential for the Government to review the taxation methods which they introduced, which I think were supported by SNP Members? Does he appreciate that it is essential that the Government should listen to the advice that is given to them by the forestry industry, otherwise the drain on our export payments will materially increase and will have a damaging effect on the country as a whole?

I fully appreciate the concern of the Scottish woodland owners. I met them only a couple of weeks ago. I share their concern, and I repeat that we are giving the matter consideration. We are certainly watching the trend. The Government fully recognise the important contribution that the timber industry—both the public sector and the private sector—can make to the balance of trade.

Will my hon. Friend reject the blandishments of the SNP and its land-owning friends, who want to continue with the tax dodges that have lost so much revenue and good agricultural land to the country in the past? Does he agree that the proper way of proceeding is to expand in the public sector through the Forestry Commission? Finally, will my hon. Friend reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) that the money used for the Chrysler rescue operation should be used to plant trees instead?

My hon. Friend asks so many questions that it is difficult to reply to them. There is an increasing planting programme by the Forestry Commission. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that. As for the use of good agricultural land, he will know that there are excellent arrangements between the Forestry Commission and my Department. I am not aware of any specific problem. In answer to his first question, I find it quite easy to resist the blandishments that come from the SNP.

As long as the Government encourage the Forestry Commission to be put in a position that does not allow it to use its powers of compulsory purchase to obtain suitable land for planting, is it not the case that the programme that has been supported by Labour Members to encourage private planting, creating a job-dependent situation, is something that the Government must take seriously? Will the Minister now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson)?

As usual, the hon. Lady is in a bit of a mess. I find her question almost incomprehensible. Until now the Forestry Commission has been able to acquire most of the land—

Rubbish.

I am sorry; it is not rubbish. I met the Chairman of the Forestry Commission last Friday and we discussed this matter. On a voluntary basis, and using the market, the Forestry Commission has been successful until now in maintaining enough land by the normal processes of the market. Indeed, it has a bank sufficient—

If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Lady said that, if I believe that, I will believe anything. That is not accusing me of lying, but it is coming pretty close to it, and I rather resent that. I repeat that the commission has a satisfactory land bank at the moment, as a result of the normal processes of acquisition.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list his official engagements for 30th June.

I am attending meetings with other Ministers during the day and this afternoon I am meeting a deputation from the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland about the Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his programme a meeting with the spineless nationalist party to thank it for selling its birthright last night without even getting a mess of porridge in return? Does he recognise that he and his colleagues, who at least believe in what they are doing, are held in more respect than the pathetic ragbag of cardboard Scotsmen on the nationalist Bench, who have shown that they lack principle, consistency and guts?

The hon. Gentleman was late in coming into the Chamber—he has obviously been working on that question. I do not think I need make any additional comment.

When the Secretary of State is considering his engagements for the next six months or so, will he consider having further discussions with various bodies, such as the local authority organisations in Scotland, which are rather worried about what their position will be when the Scottish Assembly is set up? As we have had no general conference on these matters, there are still bodies—the universities are one group, and some local authorities are another—which would value further discussions with the Secretary of State on their position under his proposals.

I am not aware of that. I am meeting COSLA, for another reason, within a fortnight. If it wanted to speak to me about the devolution proposals, it would tell me that and I should be happy to meet it. As for the universities, I can say through the Scottish Office, and through my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, that we have had quite a deal of discussions with the universities in recent weeks.

If the Secretary of State were to meet the Opposition Chief Whip, he might care to ask him why a Conservative Member was absent last night in the important vote. Even if the SNP had voted with the Opposition, the Opposition would not have carried the day. More important, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that today is a day when many Scottish schoolchildren will be leaving school without any employment prospects. Will the right hon. Gentleman make an immediate appointment with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask him to reflate the economy so that many of these children will be able to find the jobs that they need?

We had a debate on youth unemployment on Monday of last week. During that debate I made a number of statements. I do not recollect that the hon. Gentleman was present on that occasion. I do not think I have anything to add at present.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is late in the day, on 30th June, to ask about his official engagements? However, is it possible, even at this late stage and this late hour, for my right hon. Friend to visit Orkney and Shetland and to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman's constituents that under no consideration will they accept separation from the United Kingdom?

I am aware of the views that they have expressed—and very interesting views they are too. Even with the improved transport services that have been provided under this Government, however, it would not be possible for me to visit Orkney and Shetland today and to be back in the half hour that would be required to meet the two-line Whip that applies to the Bill to be discussed later today.

Will the right hon. Gentleman note that this is 30th June and that the Chairman of the Forestry Commission has retired today? The fact that he was going was known for 18 months. In view of the importance of the forestry industry, why has no appointment been made, or no successor found? When will a successor be found?

The hon. and learned Gentleman's question provides me with a convenient opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Taylor for the work that he has done as Chairman of the Forestry Commission. The announcement of his successor will be made very soon. I am sure that it will be a nomination that will have the hon. and learned Gentleman's support.

rose—

I am sorry, but we must move on.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to pay an official visit to Kinross and West Perthshire.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Tarbert, Loch Fyne.

I have no plans to visit any of these places, but I visited Perth recently to address the STUC Annual Congress.

When the Secretary of State gets around to visiting Perth, will he carry on up the A9 to Inverness? Is he aware that about 100 miles of that road are still not up to standards that would be acceptable on a similar road in England? The accident that happened the other day proves that. Given the cost of the upgrading of the extra 100 miles—about £1 million a mile—and the fact that that cost is equivalent to about 10 days' worth of the revenues from Scottish oil, the Scottish Office must get on with the upgrading of that road immediately.

I do not know where all these revenues are coming from, but they are being spent several times over practically every day by suggestions from Opposition Members. As for the A9, a stretch of the improved road was opened only this week by my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Stirling had a visit at the weekend from the SNP disguised as Scottish patriots at Bannockburn but that following pressure from the trade unions it has now adopted a new posture, a sitting-on-the-fence posture, with regard to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? As the SNP's former allies, the Tories, are now reported to be referring to SNP Members as "rats", is it not obvious that the Tories, who once objected to the late Nye Bevan referring to them as political vermin, now consider that term more appropriate for the SNP?

Order. I do not like—nor does the House—terms of abuse applied to groups or individuals. As for particular types of animals or vermin, it is hard for me to distinguish. I know that the hon. Gentleman was asking a question, but I thought that there was an implication that people were not what they ought to be.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was merely referring to reports of what Tories had said, according to Press Association reports this morning.

Order. Sin does not become virtue.

After all that, I have forgotten the question. It seemed to be something to do with some fraternal or fractricidal argument taking place between the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party. I do not want to intervene in that.

When the Secretary of State visits Kinross and West Perthshire, he will get a very kind welcome. He will see a very great deal of prime agricultural land that is presently being built on around various towns and villages. In view of the necessity for agricultural land, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the terms of Circular 77/75 issued by his Department are carried out in all circumstances to the letter, to ensure that house building does not take place on flat, good agricultural land that is necessary for agricultural purposes?

The terms of that circular certainly stand. We wish to see them implemented. Some of these matters raise questions of planning applications, and so on, on which it is not really open for me to comment. I think that the particular instance that the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind in his constituency is not, at least at present, a matter for me.

I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate my deep disappointment at the fact that the Secretary of State has not decided to visit Tarbert, Loch Fyne. In view of the disgraceful statement made on Monday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the disgraceful let-down of the whole fishing policy of the United Kingdom, let alone that of Scotland, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to come to Tarbert? If he cannot now spell out exactly what fishing limit for the West of Scotland the Government have in mind with which to go into the negotiations, will he come to Tarbert, Loch Fyne, and tell the fishermen there exactly what limit the Government have decided for the West of Scotland?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about fishing. I do not need to go to Tarbert to tell the fishermen of Scotland—

You do not dare to go to Tarbert.

what I think about the present situation, because I met the representatives of all the Scottish fishermen's associations, not to mention the fishmongers and a number of other people, on Monday afternoon.

As the right hon. Gentleman met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on Monday afternoon, will he say what their reaction was to the Government's proposals?

We had—I know that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman—a very amicable meeting.

As the Secretary of State lives in my constituency, when he visits Edinburgh will he say what hope he can give to parents there that the education system will take account of their wishes regarding the choice of secondary schools? Is this entirely a matter for the administrators of education, who now outnumber teachers in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman's latter observation is ridiculously inaccurate. I am sorry that a chartered accountant is not able to do his arithmetic properly. As regards the hon. Gentleman's other question, he has a Written Question on the Order Paper, and I think that it is marked for answer today. He will get an answer on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the future of Robroyston Hospital.

In the light of consultations with the various interested bodies, the Greater Glasgow Health Board has reaffirmed its earlier recommendation that the hospital should be closed. The matter is now under consideration, and I shall let my hon. Friend know the outcome as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a calamitous decision on the part of the Greater Glasgow Health Board, which has not been famed for the brilliance and foresight of its decisions in the past? Does he realise that Eastern District Hospital and Foresthall Hospital are on the scrapping list, that Stobhill Hospital is full, and that the closure of Robroyston would be a grave blow to the people and patients in that area?

It is important that my hon. Friend should recognise the very serious difficulties surrounding Robroyston Hospital, with the breakdown of the main sewer system and the fantastic cost of repairing that system. We have taken into account all the points made by my hon. Friend in his supplementary question. I assure him that when I make a decision on this matter all these points will be for consideration.

What consideration did my hon. Friend give to the points in the Ruchill Hospital inquiry report about the very substantial build-up that will occur in the demand for geriatric provision in the north of the city? What guidance has his Department given to the area health board about consultations with the staff involved in the hospital?

As in all parts of Scotland, I think that there will be a build-up in the demand for geriatric facilities, but my hon. Friend should appreciate that this area of Glasgow has 25 per cent. of all geriatric places available at present, so it is not under-provided for. Our present consultations with the staff will continue before I finally make a decision on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will define the proposed division of responsibilities between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Assembly in regard to the operations of the Scottish Development Authority.

I have nothing to add to the information given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 25th May.

Is the Minister aware that the Government are heading for what can only be described as a proper "bourach" in this matter? If the Scottish Development Authority is to be controlled by the Assembly, it presumably means that its spending priorities must be controlled by the Assembly. If the Secretary of State has coincidental powers, there will inevitably be friction. Even if guidelines are established, as the Lord President has suggested, they will be Westminster guidelines and will probably exacerbate this friction, if nothing else.

I thought that the statement by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council received a great welcome from the people of Scotland who believe that responsibility for the agency should be devolved to the Assembly. I do not at this stage see any likelihood of friction developing, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the degree of independence in the operation of the agency will depend overwhelmingly upon its borrowing power and the authorisation of this by the Assembly or the Treasury? What consideration will be given to the Lay-field Report in relation to local finance generally within the time scale of the Government's decision on devolution?

I do not think that my hon. Friend's question on Layfield has anything to do with the transfer of powers to the Scottish Development Agency.

The SNP is, and always has been, in favour of the establishment of the SDA. Will the hon. Gentleman give the agency an annual budget of £3 million? The present budget is not good enough.

I do not know whether this money is to come out of the oil revenues, together with the money for increases in old-age pensions and everything else. As my right hon. Friend and I have said, there is no shortage of money for projects put forward by the agency.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that while there are many matters that can, and should, properly, totally and sensibly be devolved to the Scottish Development Agency, for the purposes of the economy and industry Britain is one integrated unit?

The Lord President made it clear in his statement to the House that while we were anxious to transfer responsibility for the Scottish Development Agency to the Assembly we still wish to do this within the context of a United Kingdom. We see great advantages in that for the people of Scotland in an industrial sense. That is why we want to preserve the industrial integrity of the United Kingdom.

In view of the points made in the Standing Committee on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and reiterated by the Lord President last night, in relation to a Scottish dimension in that Bill, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the proposal put forward by the SNP for a centralised bureaucratic body is rejected by the STUC, which prefers a more direct relationship between the main body and a good democratic local management in that industry?

I take the point made by my hon. Friend. We are concerned that in the shipbuilding industry we should have something that is of benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he need not worry about this matter, because there will not be an Assembly, because the Bill will not get through this House?

I am sure that in the days ahead—perhaps long days—we shall listen to the long speeches that we are accustomed to hearing from the hon. Gentleman. I am sure, too, that he will seek to persuade us, and we shall listen to his statements with great care and respect.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the problem is potentially worse even than indicated by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)? If the Government's proposals in their present form are implemented, responsibility for industry in Scotland willl be divided three ways—between the Assembly, the Scottish Office and the Department of Industry. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a nonsense solution for a nonsense problem, and that the most appropriate action for the Government to take is to reconsider their whole approach to industrial matters as they affect Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statements that have been made from both sides of the House over many years, he would have appreciated that there is an anxiety to give the people of Scotland more say in their own affairs in an industrial sense, and that is something we have done and are continuing to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the reasons for the long delay in payment of cattle subsidies this year; and what steps are being taken to avoid such delay in future.

I do not accept that there was a long delay in making this year's payments. Overall, the time taken was about the same as in previous years. There was, however, a particular problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in establishing the precise acreage available to a number of occupiers. This has been largely overcome and should not delay payments in future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been long delays in making payments? I have had numerous complaints about this over the year. These delays have caused intense inconvenience and hardship to crofters in my constituency, who have had to pay early in the year for imported foodstuffs because of the conditions last winter. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that next year these payments will be made at the proper time, as they were in previous years?

There has not been undue delay, but I accept that within the hon. Gentleman's constituency—[Interruption.] I wish that members of the SNP would listen. I am trying to be helpful on this occasion, at least. A particular problem arose in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. A new form was introduced, which involved precise acreages. A high percentage of claim forms were inaccurately completed and we had to send additional staff to the hon. Gentleman's constituency to get the matter sorted out. Consequently, there was some unusual delay in some of the crofting counties, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, having now received the necessary information, there should be no delays in future payments.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept the thanks of the small farmers in Ross and Cromarty for the expeditious way in which his Department handled the cases that I represented to him, but will he at the same time bear in mind that considerable hardship was caused to many small farmers, and that any interruption of the cash flow on small farms is a serious matter indeed?

I accept that. I received representations from many hon. Members, and I hope that they were treated with urgency, because I accept that there was a problem. We now have an improved system of payment, but it involves a new form. The date for receiving claims was a month later than in previous years. I can only plead that there were teething problems in the system, which I think we have now got sorted out.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that adequate safeguards exist in Scotland to control the entry of animals into Scotland that may carry rabies.

Yes, Sir. The anti-rabies legislation that we introduced in 1974 provides effective control over the entry into Great Britain of dogs, cats and other rabies-susceptible animals.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the foreign fishing boats fishing off the coast of Scotland have animals on board, and that these boats come into small local ports? Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to get in touch with the countries that have boats fishing in our waters and tell them of the regulations at home before the boats get here, rather than have problems arise when they come into our ports?

There is a general recognition amongst most mariners or skippers of their obligations under international regulations, including this one. If the hon. Gentleman has a feeling of alarm, and lets me have details, I shall see what I can do to help.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Scotland's land frontier is particularly vulnerable? What steps is he taking to establish a cordon sanitaire on the Scottish-English border?

I am not sure whether that is meant to be funny. I am not sure, either, whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is some difference between rabies that might come from England and rabies that might come from elsewhere. This is a serious subject, and we have a working party, on which Scottish local authorities and my Department are represented, dealing with it. In general, all the authorities are well acquainted with the problem and know what to look for.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make increased public funds available to the Strathclyde Region in order to increase the number of primary school places in the Troon area over the next five years.

The regional council has not asked for additional capital investment for this purpose, and I would expect any extra accommodation that may be needed to be provided from the council's annual allocation for school building.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Kyle and Carrick District Council has given planning permission for an additional 800 private houses and that the Scottish Development Department has given the district council permission to build 120 extra council houses in the Troon area? Will my hon. Friend arrange a meeting between the Strathclyde Education Committee and the district council to discuss the question of increasing the number of primary school places in Troon? His answer shows that the amount of money allocated for primary school places in Troon over the next five years is totally inadequate.

It is not my duty to arrange a meeting between the regional council and the district council in Ayrshire. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward the constraints on public expenditure he excluded roofs over heads. That is to say, where places are needed for school pupils, primary or secondary, they are excluded from any constraints on public expenditure. On the other point, with regard to the next five years, the amounts and allocations for the years following 1976–77 have not yet been settled, and there is still sufficient time for the regional authority, which has educational responsibility, to submit its estimates to the Department.

Would it not be better for the Minister to be quite open about this and admit that there is a great need for more expenditure on education and training of teachers throughout Scotland and that the Government, through their incompetence, have run out of money and cannot provide it?

I must repeat what my right hon. Friend mentioned a few minutes ago. We have more teachers in schools than we have ever had in the history of Scottish education, and we have the best pupil-teacher ratio that we have ever had in our Scottish schools. As for accommodation, I repeat that the question of roofs over heads, where places are needed, is separate from the question of constraints on public expenditure. It is up to the Strathclyde Region to submit its application when it knows what the rolls are in the various areas mentioned. I can assure both the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that places will be found for the children that they are worried about.

Before giving any more commitments on public expenditure will the Minister come to Glasgow, or contact Glasgow today, where the Secretary of State gave a commitment that we would have a Bridgeton scheme at no cost to the ratepayers of Glasgow and yet it was revealed this morning that the Glasgow and regional ratepayers would have to pay a lot more?

I must confess that I am not aware of the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. All I know is that Bridgeton is not in Troon, and that is what the Question was all about.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next hopes to meet the Scottish Economic Council.

The last meeting of the council, of which I am chairman, was on 4th June, and the next meeting will be held on 10th September.

Will the Secretary of State, at one of these meetings, ask the council to consider the question of the slowness of the Scottish economy to recover from the present recession? Will he ask it to prepare proposals to encourage industrial development and investment in Scotland, and not leave this matter entirely to the Treasury to handle?

At the meetings of the Scottish Economic Council one item that is always on the agenda is the current economic situation in Scotland. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the kind of matters in which he is interested were discussed at the last meeting and will be discussed again in September. In regard to the wider matters, I think that a published document and certain statements that are being made today are relevant to them.

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

My right hon. Friend and I took part in the meeting on 28th June between Ministers and the main representative organisations of the United Kingdom fishing industry. Consultations with the industry will continue at ministerial or official level, as appropriate.

Does the Minister realise that the renegotiation of the fishing limits is probably the most important single issue for the fishing industry over the last decade and that the Government have made a hash of it? Is he further aware that giving in on the negotiating position in respect of 100 miles, and then abandoning his promise to stand on a 50-mile fishing limit, is a shame- ful betrayal of the British fishing industry?

That is rather flowery language, but it does not accord with the facts. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Luxemburg only yesterday, which emphasised the Government's determination to secure what are reasonable fishing limits in all the circumstances.

When the Minister next meets the representatives of the fishing industry, does he expect to be able to tell them who will patrol our 200-mile limits and when the orders are to be placed for suitable boats and aircraft to do the policing?

That all depends—[Interruption.] If the rabble on the SNP Bench will listen while I reply to the question that has been asked, they may appreciate that it all depends on when we meet the industry. We are well aware that there is a whole host of problems afflicting the industry at the moment. Certainly the question of the protection services is one to which we are giving consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what matters is not the extent of the limits but the amount of fish that may be caught by the British fleet and the job protection of people involved in the industry, and that these must be the two prime concerns—not any strange virility symbol of 200, 100 or 50 miles?

I agree. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, has already been in touch with the employers' association in the fishing industry about the present problems of redundancy and to see how job security for the future can be achieved.

Will the Minister confirm or deny the reports that the Government regard a 12-mile limit for the west coast of Scotland as adequate for the needs of the Scottish fishing industry? Does he acknowledge that this is causing the greatest concern and anxiety among fishermen along the whole coast of Scotland?

I certainly accept that there has been concern. We have already said what our position is—that it would be up to 50 miles, and possibly could be 12 miles in some areas.

Where?

It depends where the fish are, actually. I assure the hon. Member that we are well aware of the parts of the waters around our coast that are most prolific in fish. That is one of the considerations that we have very much in mind.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the rôle of Crown counsel in dealing with complaints against the police.

Yes, Sir.

In view of the letter that I have sent to my right hon. and learned Friend, concerning the case of one of my constituents who filed a complaint about alleged police assault, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a person complaining in a case of this nature should have a right to know why charges are not being proceeded with? In the case of my constituent, will he try to ensure that a satisfactory explanation is given to him so that justice is not only done but seen to be done?

It is not the practice of my Department to give reasons why it has decided not to prosecute in a particular case. If my hon. Friend considered the matter he would realise that in many cases the reason would be non-availability of evidence, or the quality of such evidence as was available, and it would hardly be in the public interest to have a public discussion of such matters.

asked the Lord Advocate if he has yet completed his inquiries into the costs involved to public funds in the recent Rotary Tools case in Glasgow.

Yes, Sir. The total sum paid in respect of Crown witnesses was £2,051·16. This sum includes the expenses at both the precognition and trial stages. One procurator fiscal depute carried out the investigation into the case on my behalf, with the assistance of police officers. Clerical and typing staff were also involved. It is impossible to quantify the cost of their work on this case. These are matters for which I am ministerially responsible.

Since the defence expenses are what we are really concerned about, will the Lord Advocate make an endeavour to find out what has been the cost to the taxpayer, through legal aid, of the defence in this case? Will he investigate the possibility of trials of this sort being carried out at less cost to total public funds?

On the last point, one should look at this matter in context. This trial lasted about five weeks. That is unusual in a Scottish trial on indictment, whereas south of the border trials of that length, and a great deal longer, are relatively commonplace. For all that, we endeavour to keep the length of trials in Scotland, and the cost to the public, at a minimum. I think that on the whole we do this very successfully. In regard to the earlier part of the question, the position is that the Legal Aid Fund is independently administered by the bodies authorised to administer it under statute, and is not, therefore, a matter of ministerial responsibility.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this case clearly portrays once more the high cost of one of the less acceptable faces of capitalism—in other words, the high cost of private enterprise?

I would say, of course, that the crimes involved, and what was done that led to the trial, certainly amounted to something that was contrary to the public interest, and contrary to the economic interest. The figures that I have disclosed indicate that the public expenditure involved in setting matters right was comparatively small. I should add that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend please include, in his reply to that letter, the cost of legal aid whether or not he has ministerial responsibility? I take it that he has the facility for acquiring that information, because it is the greatest single expense of the trial and one that we should look at closely.

I appreciate the anxiety of many hon. Members in this matter. I cannot undertake to obtain that information but I certainly undertake to do the best I can. The difficulty is that the fund is managed and the moneys are disbursed under statutory authority, and the money comes from public funds. The difficulty is that the accountability for it has all been provided for in statute, and it is difficult to break down the bulk figures. However, I shall see what can be done.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the cost of legal aid per case or per hour, or however one analyses it, for cases in Scotland is conducted in a much more economic way than it is in England? Does he not also agree that, having delegated the administration to the Law Society, a great saving to public funds is achieved, because the Law Society carried out all the administration involved? Does he not also agree that the Law Society would no doubt be prepared to provide this information, but that it simply will not yet be available?

I entirely accept the latter point that the hon. Lady made, that these figures are not yet available. I share her tribute to the Law Society for the way in which it carried out a public service in this regard. Beyond that I do not think I can go.