asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money the Government have now spent in adapting the Royal High School in Edinburgh for a Scottish Assembly.

£650,000 has been spent in purchasing the former Royal High School site.

At a time when economic pressures in the United Kingdom are so great that they are likely to cause serious trouble, is it not foolish for the Government to pursue a further element of disintegration in our society? Will Ministers pause and think again, and postpone the devolution Bill until the next General Election, when it can be discussed with the whole electorate?

It is not the Government's purpose to pursue any element of disintegration in our society. One of the fundamentals of the devolution proposals is the preservation of the economic and political unity of the United Kingdom. We are committed to put this Bill on to the statute book, and we will do so in the next Session.

Will the Minister resist English interference in Scottish affairs and admit that the amount of money being spent on the Scottish Assembly is a mere bagatelle compared with the £2½ million coming from Scottish oil every day?

I always welcome interest rather than intervention in Scottish affairs from all parts of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom. This sort of interest will help to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. As far as costs are concerned, the amount spent on the Royal High School, and in particular on its conversion, is very good value for money.

Would it not help to get things in perspective if the Minister took the costs involved in devolution and compared them with the cost of our joining the European Economic Community and of direct elections to Strasbourg?

I am not necessarily sure that both matters are related. We have studied the costs involved in devolution and we are satisfied that we will get adequate value for money.

Can the Minister explain to the House why he is so sure that this expensive Assembly will stop the disintegration of the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that it will be a stepping stone to the creation of a separate Scottish State?

I know that that is the view which the hon. Member has held for some time and which he has expressed forcibly. However, it is not a view which is shared by many hon. Members of his own party. There is no evidence, in looking at other parts of the world where there is a devolved system of government, to show that this will lead to separation. I do not think that the hon. Member should take the threats of the Scottish National Party all that seriously.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not listen to advice given by the Scottish National Party in relation to English interference. Will he also—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. I resent that remark. Will my hon. Friend also ask the Scottish National Party what it intends to do with the Scottish coal industry if it does not want English interference? The Scottish coal industry is dependent on English coalfields.

In many respects my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Hitherto, the Scottish National Party has not been in a position to talk about policies, whether in relation to the coal industry, housing, education, the health service or anything else. On the day the Scottish Assembly elections are held, politics in Scotland will be transformed and the SNP will no longer be able to campaign on slogans.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that progress has been made in renegotiation of the EEC fisheries policy which is satisfactory to the Scottish inshore fishing fleet.

It is premature to talk of satisfactory progress. The Commission's latest proposals have only recently been tabled, and substantive discussion on them with our EEC partners begins next week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the present economic situation and the need to produce as much food as we can ourselves, it is absolutely essential to have the widest possible fishing limits to preserve the Scottish inshore fishing industry?

I certainly agree that it is important that we should have an economic, effective and viable fishing industry in Scotland. That is what I intend to achieve.

For the avoidance of all doubt, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that the proposals being made by the Commission are totally unacceptable to the Government? Does he appreciate that as long as he pursues a policy of getting the maximum limits and catch potential for the British fishing fleet he will have our wholehearted support?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his closing remarks. I have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals regarding limits are wholly unacceptable to the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, as is sometimes alleged, the Government feel that they are in a weak bargaining position over fishing policy alone, they might broaden the negotiations to include trade and agriculture, where we have considerable bargaining power? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are going into the negotiations with the firm intention that we must have a 50-mile limit?

The Government's position on limits was made clear on 4th May. I have nothing further to add to what was said then. We are aware that discussions about fishing must be related to the general context of EEC discussions and negotiations as a whole.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since 4th May his Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), said in Aberdeen on 3rd September that the United Kingdom had not a hope in hell of getting a 50-mile limit, and that this has caused considerable distress throughout the industry? Will he take this opportunity of publicly reprimanding his Under-Secretary of State for that absurd remark?

Certainly not. I have every confidence in my hon. Friend. The statement on 4th May did not call for a 50-mile limit all round the United Kingdom. It talked abouts limits up to 50 miles. That remains the position.

I welcome the Secretary of State's firmer line this afternoon in contrast to what was said in Aberdeen last month. I assure him of support as long as he takes a firm line on this important issue for Scotland. In view of the importance of this issue to Scotland, will he be taking part in the EEC negotiations next week on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry?

On the last point, yes. On the first point, I should listen rather more attentively to the hon. Gentleman if I did not have in mind the miserable record of the Conservative Government in the original negotiations.

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

I am normally in Edinburgh every week on official business.

Has the Secretary of State considered the transcript of evidence of the recent Tartan Army trial in Edinburgh? Is he aware that, as a result of that trial, the Scottish National Party has announced an internal inquiry to determine the amount of infiltration into that party of men of violence? Will the right hon. Gentleman call upon the SNP to make its findings public? Will he also indicate the Government's view on the likelihood of further acts of political violence in Scotland?

Some of those questions are not for me. It is up to the Scottish National Party to put its own house in order.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the SNP has always puts its house in order regarding anything of that kind, just as the other political parties in Scotland have done in relation to criminal charges which may arise in connection with any of their members? Furthermore, does he accept that the implication made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is the kind of thing which does not do any good to politics? Finally, is there to be any inquiry into the handling of the case by the Crown Office?

That is not a matter for me. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is sensitive to criticism when it is directed to his party but that he is free with abuse of others.

When the Secretary of State next comes to Edinburgh, will he call a meeting of those involved in maintaining discipline at football grounds? Will he tell the House why the guidelines laid down by the Government have not been fulfilled in either England or Scotland? Is he satisfied that the magistrates and district courts have sufficient powers to deal with anything which may happen at a football ground?

I do not think that this has much to do with a visit to Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am arranging to meet the SFA. I have also arranged a meeting with chief constables on Friday. I shall be discussing with them some of the matters that he has mentioned. I am extremely concerned about what happened last Saturday. Concerning penalties, the answer is that adequate penalties are available. It is for the courts to use these penalties, as I hope they will in suitable cases, in a very severe way.

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

My right hon. Friend and I are meeting representatives of the industry later this afternoon and tomorrow.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry regards his proposals on limits as totally inadequate and spineless? Will he tell the fishing industry this afternoon that when his right hon. Friend goes to Brussels he will stick out for a 50-mile limit, no less, and that if he does not get it we shall apply a direct or an indirect veto?

My right hon. Friend has already made the Government's position clear. A 50-mile exclusive limit or, indeed, a 50-mile protected zone, whatever that means—that was the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—would mean that our fishermen would be fishing in the plains of Normandy or the bogs of Donegal. I wish that the Conservative Party would get off this simplistic 50-mile exclusive zone all round the United Kingdom.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anger and frustration felt by Scottish fishermen at the financial and other implications of the Government's new safety regulations, as was shown at a meeting recently held at Arbroath? Will he ensure that his English ministerial colleague fulfils his promise of a review of these regulations after they have been in operation for one year?

I should prefer it if the hon. Gentleman would write giving me the details of what was said at the meeting to which he referred. We have assured the fishing industry that we will deal with the question of safety in as sympathetic a way as possible.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no reduction in standards in the safety regulations for fishing vessels sailing from any British port, since the lives and safety of those who go to sea are of first importance and are to be considered as more important than the cost of such regulations? Will he also give the latest figures regarding the viability of the Scottish fishing fleets?

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no reduction in the safety requirements for the fishing industry. Earnings of white fish trawlers over 80 ft. in the first eight months of 1976 were 28 per cent. up on 1975. Average earnings per day at sea were 48 per cent. up on 1975. The earnings of the industry as a whole were 42 per cent. up on 1975. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question that was put to me. All I can say in the short term is that the industry is in a healthy state.

Appreciating as I do that the Under-Secretary of State, as a Socialist, is entitled to speak with authority about hell, may I ask why he sold his negotiating pass by announcing to those with whom we have to negotiate that we had not a hope in hell of getting what we were looking for?

That is too sophisticated for me. I suggest that it is high time that Tory leaders injected a degree of realism and showed some courage and honesty in facing the difficult negotiations that lie ahead of us.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the most recent state of unemployment in Scotland.

Although there was a welcome fall of 8,700 in total unemployment in Scotland between August and September, the current level remains a matter of serious concern to the Government. Our regional and economic policies are directed towards curing the underlying causes of unemployment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour Party has become the natural party of massive unemployment as a direct consequence of its policies? Will not the vicious increase in interest rates produce a further decrease in the confidence of British industry and probably lead to even worse unemployment figures in future?

I cannot accept any of the hon. Gentleman's assertions. I do not believe that the recent increase in interest rates will have the serious effect on unemployment that some hon. Members suggest.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Scottish Assembly is elected it will be much more effective in dealing with unemployment if it is given more economic power than is proposed in the dissolution Bill?

It is the devolution Bill, not the dissolution Bill, and it has not been published yet. We believe that the proposals already outlined for control of the Scottish Development Agency, for example, give an effective balance between the genuine powers of the Assembly and the maintenance of the economic unity of the United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ascertain how many youngsters have gone back to school because no jobs were available for them? How many jobs does he expect to be available for youngsters leaving school at Christmas?

There was a substantial reduction in youth unemployment in the latest figures. I cannot give the information for which the hon. Lady asks in the first part of her question. It is a matter not only of those who go back to school but also of those who decide to stay on after the leaving date. This is sometimes a desirable development and I do not consider it necessarily to be an adverse feature of the situation. It is the Government's intention to make jobs available for young people who want to leave school. They have the right to expect that employment will be available for them.

What action does my right hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that multinational companies such as STC respect their obligations to the British taxpayer, since this is one of the causes of unemployment in Scotland? Does he intend to pursue the efforts which some of us are making to get Rolls-Royce to review its policy in Scotland, particularly in the East Kilbride constituency?

On my hon. Friend's second point, he will be aware of the letter sent out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the other day. My hon. Friend was also at a meeting with the Secretary of State and therefore knows the overall prospects of Rolls-Royce, not only for this year but for next year and a little further forward as well. He also knows the context in which the decision on Blantyre was taken. On my hon. Friend's first question, my experience is that multinational companies are no worse, if no better, than other companies in dealing with redundancies. I do not think that the problems in Scotland can be attributed to multinational companies or to any other source of employment in Scotland.

Can the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on his earlier assertion that the increased interest rates, coupled with an increased payroll tax through national insurance contributions, will have no effect on unemployment in Scotland? Is he really so out of touch with the economy of Scotland and the economy of business there that he believes this? When will he face the fact that it is as a result of his Government's policies since 1974 that we have such long jobless queues? He is living in the same cloud-cuckoo land as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I did not say that the increased interest rates would have no effect on investment intentions. It would be absurd to claim that. I said that they would not have the serious effects which some hon. Members opposite have claimed. The July survey of industrial trends by the Scottish CBI confirmed the upward trends first indicated in January and April this year. Taken as a whole, Scottish industry now has much more confidence in the future than for a long time, and this is confirmed at my meetings with industrialists.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish the analysis of examination results as announced in July and considered by the Scottish Examination Board, in the light of the use of calculators.

This is a matter for the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board—but since it was raised by the right hon. Lady on 21st July we have been in touch with the board and it is pursuing the matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply is wholly unsatisfactory? Is it not possible to make an analysis of recent results? Surely it must be possible to identify pupils who used calculators and those who did not. If, as I suspect, there is shown to be an inbuilt benefit to those using calculators, will the hon. Gentleman undertake either to supply them to all pupils taking examinations or to say that calculators must not be used in examinations?

This is a matter for the board, which is keenly aware of the need to ensure equity and fairness in examinations where some candidates are using caluculators. The board believes that its arrangements and the way in which it presents examination papers do not give a significant advantage to anyone using calculators, contrary to what the right hon. Lady said in her supplementary question on the last occasion when she raised this subject. The board is today re-examining its attitude to this matter.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Kinross and West Perthshire.

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

As the Secretary of State is responsible for transport in Scotland, although one might not believe it, may I ask whether he has considered the effect on the tourist industry, other industries and life in general in Perthshire of the proposed closure of Motorail in Perth by British Rail? If so, what steps is he taking to prevent it?

This is a matter for the day-to-day management of British Rail. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants helpful answers on matters of this kind, he ought to put down the Question which he wants answered.

Is the Minister aware that I welcome the rather belated interest shown in this matter by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)? Will he personally intervene with British Rail to ensure that this piece of economic lunacy is not perpetrated?

I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will have noted the comments made today.

If the Secretary of State does visit Kinross and West Perthshire, will he do what all his fellow Ministers have so far failed to do and tell the people of Scotland exactly how many extra people will become unemployed as a consequence of the recent increase in interest rates?

The last time I made a speech in Kinross and West Perthshire was during the General Election of 1959, and nobody paid very much attention to me then. Over the past couple of months, members of the Government have made 50 or 60 visits in Scotland and we have met representatives of many organisations to explain Government policies.

rose—

Order. May I draw to the attention of the House that it is now 3 o'clock and we have reached only Question No. 7. It would be a great help if hon. Members would try very hard to ask only one supplementary question when they are called and if answers could be correspondingly brief.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the operation of the special mortgage fund set up by the Building Societies Association in consultation with local authorities.

As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) on 24th March, progress with the scheme has not been all that I would have wished. Discussions continue with the building societies about their taking a wider view of lending policies, and we are encouraging local authorities to seek to involve individual societies more closely in meeting local housing needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer he gave to my Question on the last day the House sat before the Summer Recess indicated that the building societies were unduly restrictive in operating the scheme, since only a handful of families in the whole of Scotland have succeeded? Is he aware of the difficulties which this poses for the regeneration of inner city areas? If the building societies will not be more flexible in their arrangements, will my hon. Friend consider increasing the sums available to local authorities for lending?

I accept that. The lending to local authorities is being maintained at £13 million this year, but I admit that this matter is giving me concern in our total housing strategy. I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the Government's recent action in increasing interest rates, many of our constituents who are trying to buy their own homes will be paying upwards of £5 a week more in mortgage repayments? As this is a result of the social contract, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that home buyers are separately represented in future discussions of the social contract so that they can have their case heard?

I am more concerned with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook)—namely, looking after first-time borrowers, especially in the large cities, where there is tenement property for which the building societies will not lend. That is the stumbling block in encouraging people into owner-occupation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ring that the building societies are throwing round certain areas is deplorable? Will he urge local authorities, and perhaps the Government, to aid the inner city areas, especially areas such as the West Centre of Glasgow, by environmental improvement schemes? That may, by a backdoor method, encourage the building societies to give more money for some of these houses.

I have enough bother about exclusive limits without trying to define the ring that the building societies put around certain areas. I think it is to the credit of Glasgow that there is environmental improvement in the private sector. It has been an enormous boost and encouragement to building societies to go in and lend on property where the environment has been improved. We shall give Glasgow every encouragement in that direction.

What specific representations has the Under-Secretary made to the joint Government and building society liaison committee on this matter? Is he aware of the net outflow of building society funds from Scotland which could be used to help low-income families and young married couples? Why not use some of the oil revenue? I am sure that the Shah of Iran would be willing to help if the hon. Gentleman could not get resources from other sources nearer at hand.

The hon. Gentleman must know that there is constant discussion and dialogue between the Government and building societies at United Kingdom level and at Scottish level—indeed, I have had them myself. In that respect there is nothing wrong with the discussions. It is the outcome with which we are a wee bit dissatisfied.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the horrifying increase in mortgage rates and the reduction in the availability of mortgages generally, not only for old property, will have a desperately severe effect not only on couples buying houses but on the Scottish building industry, particularly bearing in mind that owner-occupation in Scotland is at a low level? Has the Secretary of State been successful in getting any form of exemption for Scotland in terms of this difficult problem?

That is a typical exaggeration. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the statement made yesterday by the chairman or managing director of the largest building society in the country to the effect that it does not think that the increased rate of interest will have any bearing on the number of people looking for mortgages.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has plans to make an official visit to Garve, Achnasheen, Plockton and Kyle of Lochalsh.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most civilised way of getting there is by a railway that is both a tourist attraction and an infrastructure that is more important to the life of the community than regional grants? Will he keep it open after the oil platform at Kishorn has been completed?

The future of individual services is a matter in the first instance for the British Railways Board. I have not heard of any proposals for the withdrawal of passenger services on the line my hon. Friend has mentioned. As regards the future of the railways as a whole, the Government's transport policy consultation document gives an opportunity for discussion of these matters.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was only after years of fighting with successive Governments that the line was retained? Will he note that it is imperative that any future plans for rail cuts do not refer to this line?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was this Government who saved the line.

No.

How on earth can the Minister justify—

Order. Mr. Hector Monro, Question No. 10.

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

On 29th October.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the reputation of the Scottish Office is now reaching an all-time low? Will he explain to the House and the Economic Planning Council what estimate has been made of the loss of jobs that will arise from 15 per cent. interest rates and the 2 per cent. payroll tax?

Any loss of jobs arising from the increase in interest rates will be as nothing compared with the loss of jobs that would come if we followed the Opposition's policy of indiscriminate cuts in public expenditure.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the council, will he discuss with it the development of Tweed-bank in the Borders? Bearing in mind that this has been a central part of Government policy since 1966, why was the announcement made to the Press by the SSHA rather than by the right hon. Gentleman to the House, or at least to Members of Parliament for the region?

This is not on the agenda for 29th October. If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question about Tweedbank, I shall be glad to answer it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are likely to lose more jobs because of the action of the district valuer in North Lanarkshire in trebling rents for industrial factories, which is bound to force many individuals to return south? Will my right hon. Friend take the initiative of advising this officer that he should pay as much attention to the unemployment market as the rent market and not worsen the situation in parts of Scotland where we have 10 per cent. of the insurable population unemployed?

I shall look into what my hon. Friend has said, but generally speaking rents for industrial premises in Scotland are very competitive. Under regional policy certain incentives are available, such as rent-free periods. I do not accept that the Scottish situation is uncompetitive. It is very competitive for industry, whether it is coming in or is already established.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the industrial and economic position in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on the economy.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present state of the Scottish economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Scottish economy.

Prospects for the Scottish economy are closely linked to developments in the United Kingdom economy, where output, particularly of manufacturing industry, is now running well above the levels of a year or so ago. Recent surveys of industrial trends in Scotland also show a rising value of output and export deliveries.

I am not quite sure whether I understand exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that answer. I shall ask him a simple question. Is there not one sector of the Scottish economy that can more quickly put matters right than any other sector—namely, small businesses? If we changed our interest and taxation policies, that sector could immediately take on one more person per firm and halve unemployment in Scotland immediately.

I do not accept that. However, I accept that the small business sector of the Scottish economy is very important. It is not true that it has been neglected by the Government. Similarly, the Scottish Development Agency is paying particular attention to encouraging the small business sector, attention that I very much welcome.

What contribution does the Secretary of State consider that the Scottish Development Agency is making towards improving employment prospects? When is it likely to receive a realistic budget?

The agency is already making a very significant improvement in the Scottish economy, and that improvement will be considerably developed over the next few months. Apart from one particular major acquisition that it has announced, for example, I know that it is considering a number of other prospects at present.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the implications for the industrial regeneration of Scotland if we failed to bring forward a new power generating station order for Babcock and Wilcox? Further, will he consider what implications it would have for industrial development if the Scottish National Party's wish to cut back on electricity expenditure and to cut us off from the possibility of ordering from an English nationalised generating board were fulfilled?

I am very well aware of the particular problem of Babcock and Wilcox. The Government have promised a statement about generating capacity and orders generally before the end of the year. If Babcock and Wilcox were to rely simply on the Scottish generation programme, it would be in a very bad way indeed. It is only if we look at the whole United Kingdom generating capacity, as well as exports for that matter, that there is any future for Babcock and Wilcox. In saying that, I am simply saying what the company and its workers recognise. However, there is a problem there and I hope that we shall be able to end the uncertainty as soon as possible.

Will the Secretary of State say whether he has made an estimate of the extra unemployment that will stem from the higher interest rates and the payroll tax, or whether he is simply not prepared to tell the House of Commons?

On the first point, it is not possible to give a precise figure. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wants figures on unemployment in Scotland. In Scotland so far, approvals under the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation scheme and the subsidy for school leavers have saved about 32,000 jobs. I hope that Opposition Members welcome that.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one major way in which we could help the Scottish economy and employment prospects would be to operate a policy of preference for orders at home? Will he undertake publicly today to ensure that all platform orders that may be forthcoming over the next few years for the development of North Sea oil will be given to yards working in Scotland, thereby guaranteeing employment for the men?

We have provided the capacity in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in England, which may be available for, as far as we can see, any orders for production platforms which may be likely to come forward. I shall certainly expect to see those orders placed in Scotland. We have a memorandum of understanding with the oil companies on that matter. However, it is not possible, for various good international reasons, simply to make an absolute commitment to home preference in these matters. Nevertheless, the capacity exists and I certainly look forward to the orders, when they come, coming to Scotland.

Will my right hon. Friend also understand that a vast number of people who have been employed in oil rig construction on Teesside have recently lost their jobs? If we are to take the view that orders for the North Sea should go only to Scotland, there will be a demand from England and a loss to Scotland of orders that could be placed in Scotland. That is the way to economic disaster for all the working people of Britain.

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right, and in so far as his question contains a reprimand for forgetting to mention the Teesside yard I accept it, because that is a very efficient yard and it is a considerable tragedy for the United Kingdom that it has run out of orders. I am talking specifically about United Kingdom orders, but the fact is that the bulk of these orders go to Scotland because that is where the capacity is.

Leaving aside the fact that small businesses were not helped in 1973 by the imposition by the Conservatives of the levy on the self-employed, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the simplest way of creating jobs in Scotland and reducing unemployment to the Norwegian level of 1 per cent. is by the injection of Scottish oil revenues, which are now running at £700 million a year?

As far as Scottish oil, so-called, is concerned, there has been far more expenditure on North Sea oil than there has been revenue from it so far.

The Secretary of State has mentioned some of the temporary schemes that the Government have introduced to help employment in Scotland. Worthy as they are and much as we welcome them, does he not realise that the fact that they are necessary at all is a measure of the failure of the Government's economic policies? Will he lift his eyes to the future instead of giving such complacent answers, and realise that what we need in Scotland is the prospect of productive industry with a future? In that respect, what relevance have high interest rates and the payroll tax? It is new jobs and modern industry that we want.

There has been concern in the United Kingdom as a whole about investment levels in many areas. No one expressed it more eloquently than the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Indeed, the particular speech concerned was quoted in the House in the economic debate on Monday. Therefore, to suggest that there is some particular worry about investment which has come only from the announcement last week is really no way of solving the present problem. I have already said that high interest rates, by themselves, are not an incentive to investment. Obviously that is the position. But the investment trends generally in Scotland are more favourable now than they have been for a considerable time, and I expect that situation to continue. From meeting Scottish industry, I do not find that it shares the pessimism of Opposition Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding reductions in expenditure and curtailment of services.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has recognised the necessity for its member authorities to continue to exercise the utmost economy. It has also conveyed to me the views of member authorities that the reductions in local authority expenditure required to conform with the last White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393) would entail the curtailment of services and some redundancy.

As the total failure of the Government's economic policies is forcing them to demand these cuts by the local authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir George Sharp has made it clear that if the Government's cuts are insisted upon there will be a large number of redundancies? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a ceiling on rate increases to make sure that spendthrift councils do not merely pass on their higher costs to their ratepayers, who are already hard-pressed enough?

I consider that question to be utter hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman is a member of an Opposition party which as recently as Monday of this week called for savage cuts in public expenditure, and they must include local authority expenditure. What we have called for is a freeze, and even a freeze has employment implications, as I indicated in my original reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the rate support grant is cut by the rate projected, it will mean in the Lothian Region 700 redundancies among teachers and a 40 per cent. cut in street lighting? Is he prepared for cuts that would have that result?

I have not yet said what the rate support grant settlement for 1977–78 will be. That will be a matter for negotiation between me and the Convention at meetings starting on 5th November. Therefore, I do not accept the figures that my hon. Friend has just given.

Does the Secretary of State accept, from the SNP Bench, that the setting up of the ridiculous Strathclyde Region was due entirely to the previous Conservative Government and that the biggest change and improvement we could make would be to get rid of it?

Again, I do not accept that a reform of local government would make a significant impact on the problem of local authority expenditure.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be quite unfair for local authorities which in the past have obeyed the Government's guidelines about expenditure to be treated in exactly the same way as those which have deliberately rejected the Government's requests? Does he not agree that there should be a differential in the approach to local authorities based on their past response to pressure from the Government?

That is a matter that I shall be discussing with the Convention. However, if the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the rate support grant system—which is, perhaps, doubtful—he will know that it is extremely difficult to make the kind of discrimination that he is suggesting for Scotland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please cease his insulting evasions and tell the House what his calculations are for the increase in unemployment in Scotland as a consequence of the increase in interest rates?

I have answered that question on a number of occasions, but in any case it does not arise out of this Question.

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

I had a meeting with the Scottish Law Commission on 14th June last. I have not made any arrangement of a formal nature to have a further meeting with the Commission. There is, of course, a constant exchange of views and information between the Commission and my departments.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the Scottish Law Commission, will he ensure that the excellent principle of the 110-day rule is neither interfered with nor watered down, nor in any way given the blame for the disreputable and incompetent prosecution of what is colloquially called the Tartan Army case, the blame for which rests entirely with the Department for which he is responsible? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer his resignation as an indication of that incompetence?

I always enjoy listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he is waxing indignant. The answer to the last point is that I shall not resign.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what pressure he received from the Scottish Law Commission for a consolidation Bill on sexual offences? Does he believe that it would be wise for the House to re-enact the potpourri of nineteenth century legislation without first having an opportunity to consider whether that legislation requires reform?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that legislative time is at a high premium during the present sittings of Parliament, and it is difficult to get time in all Parliaments for matters of law consolidation. For those reasons, this small measure is a useful contribution to the consolidation of the law. I can understand that people who have strong feelings about certain aspects of the law therein dealt with may wish to take the opportunity when such a Bill is before the House to air their desire for changes in the substantive law, but such changes are not the proper subject of a consolidation Bill and they do not fall within my jurisdiction as Lord Advocate.

Can the Lord Advocate say when he will bring proposals before the House arising out of the Thomson Committee, which I understand reported some months ago?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have a committee working on this subject. As soon as that committee reports, we hope to have proposals to put before the House in this regard.

Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), may I ask whether the Lord Advocate realises that in asking Parliament to approve this consolidation Bill he will be asking Parliament to approve one clause of it that will retain as a criminal offence conduct which the Crown, by his own person, said will not be subject to prosecution, despite its being a criminal offence? Will he accept that it is contrary to public interest that Parliament should be asked in 1976 to approve laws which the Government and he himself have no intention of enforcing?

The hon. Gentleman, with his legal qualifications, will appreciate that what he has put to me is grossly over-simplified. I content myself with saying that for 60 years the Crown Office has adopted a humane and reasonable policy of prosecution in connection with the matter that he has in mind. If people feel that that is not enough and that the substantive law ought to be changed, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the proper way is not by a consolidation Bill, which has totally different objectives, but by trying to introduce a Private Member's Bill, which can be properly considered by both Houses of Parliament in a context that will allow all moral views to be considered properly.

Surely it is one thing for the Crown Office to base its policy on an antiquated statute of the last century but quite another thing to update the law in a consolidation measure and thereby reinforce a policy which his Department has ceased to implement. It is that to which we are objecting.

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has fairly said, but I reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). The matter is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman has put to me. If it were as simple as he suggests, it would be attractive.

asked the Lord Advocate when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Glasgow Sheriff Court.

asked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to visit Glasgow Sheriff Court.

I have no plans at present to make an official visit to Glasgow Sheriff Court.

If the Lord Advocate will not go to Glasgow, will he discuss with the sheriffs of Scotland the appropriateness of the sentences that they impose for hooliganism at football matches? In particular, will he consider whether powers are available to sheriffs to require people found guilty of football hooliganism to report regularly on Saturday afternoons to police stations in a sober condition?

I take note of the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman about hooligans reporting to police stations. I think it may be that we require wider powers of disposal for our courts than we have now. However, that is not a matter directly put to me in the Question.

I appreciate what the Lord Advocate has said about the severity of sentences, but will he take an early opportunity to have further discussions with procurator-fiscals and the police to see whether individuals are being charged with severe enough offences which can result in the imposition of long custodial sentences by the courts?

I shall be happy to do that.

Would the Lord Advocate care to say whether he has considered the question of hooliganism at political meetings in Cathcart and Glasgow, and therefore make a comment?

I am happy to say that the last time I was in Cathcart canvassing I found it to be very peaceful.

asked the Lord Advocate what evidence he has submitted to the Thomson Committee.

I have regular meetings with the Lord President of the Court of Session as business demands.

My Question is No. 33.

I have regular meetings with the Lord President—

Wrong Question.

The Question to be answered is No. 33.

I have not personally submitted evidence to the Thomson Committee.

Arising out of the Thomson Committee, will the Lord Advocate support a change in the system whereby a trivial procedural error by a member of the legal profession, such as we have just seen, can result in legal proceedings being totally abandoned, resulting in a travesty of justice for those concerned, as happened recently in the case of my constituent Mr. L. M. Cameron at Perth?

Now that I have the right Question, it would be desirable not to comment. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points that he wishes to make about that case, he should perhaps write to me.

asked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Lord President of the Court of Session.

I think I am now entitled to say that I have regular meetings with the Lord President of the Court of Session as business demands.

While one would recommend the use of a calculator to the Lord Advocate for the purpose of selection of answers to Questions, at his next meeting with the Lord President, who is responsible for fixing court fees, will he note that divorce expenses in an undefended divorce cost three times as much as those for an undefended separation action in the sheriff court? What facilities will there be for transferring divorces to the sheriff court?

That matter will have to be taken into account by the Government in future when this issue next arises. It is only fair to say, however, that I think that practitioners would certainly not accept that the work done in a divorce case is necessarily the same as the work done in the lesser cases of separation in the sheriff court.

Assuming that the Lord Advocate can tell whether he is meeting the Thomson Committee or the Lord President, and that he is meeting the Lord President, may I ask him to use his influence to break the particularly restrictive bonds on the criminal fees paid to solicitors who engage in more work, paid for out of the same Treasury, when very much more is paid to English practitioners for the same work, a fact which is prejudicial as against comparative work undertaken by solicitors in Scotland?

I am not sure that I understand the hon. and learned Member's point, but I can say that charges for divorces in Scotland are very reasonable.

I have a short statement to make. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed the installation during the Summer Recess of two digital clocks above the Government and Opposition Back Benches. These are synchronised with the digital clocks on the Clerk's Table. Since there is occasionally a discrepancy between the time shown by the digital clocks and that shown by the more conventional clocks at each end of the Chamber, I propose in future to go by the time shown on the digital clocks, which I think are clearly visible to all hon. Members.