asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the replacement of listed buildings partially destroyed by fire; and if he will make a statement.

This is primarily a matter between the owners and the planning authority, taking each case according to the individual circumstances.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the great concern in Glasgow that the partially destroyed section of Grosvenor Terrace should be replaced so that the new facade is the same as the existing one? Will he use such powers as he possesses to ensure that a natural disaster, in this case fire, does not give grounds for changing the appearance of the building, which would not otherwise be allowed?

I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that the replacement should be in keeping with the rest of the surroundings. The hotel was a category A listed building, and it is important that any replacement should be of a suitable kind. I very much hope that that point will be borne in mind by the owners and the planning authority, and, indeed, I am sure it will.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this relates not only to the cost of getting the building reinstated to suit the surroundings but to the fact that this building is unique not just in Glasgow or Scotland but in Western Europe? Therefore, it is a serious problem, because this type of architecture does not exist anywhere else.

The right hon. Lady is asking whether the replacement should be a replica. From an architectural point a replica. From an architectural point of view it is not for me to pronounce on the matter, but I believe that any replacement should be in accordance with the rest of the surroundings. Whether, architecturally, that turns out to be a replica of something else is not at the moment a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the colder winter experienced in Scotland, he is satisfied that enough progress is being made in thermal insulation of dwelling-houses in Scotland.

All new houses in Scotland must comply with the minimum standards for thermal insulation laid down in the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations. Public sector houses which are being comprehensively modernised are also expected to comply with these standards. We expect a further 40,000 houses, built before the regulations came into force, to be brought up to these standards each year under the energy conservation measures recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Does the Minister agree that the present snowy conditions in Scotland give an opportunity for occupiers to examine whether their roof spaces are well insulated? I discovered that certain parts of my own house were not well insulated. Will the Minister urge all local authorities and private house owners to survey their properties now in order to discover whether their houses are properly insulated? If they are not it wastes heat, and therefore money and energy.

Has the council bought the hon. Gentleman's house?

So far as I know, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) does not live in a council house. Nevertheless, improvement grants are available to owner-occupiers, in that local authorities may grant-aid thermal insulation up to regulation standard if it is part of the comprehensive improvement of a house. As an exception to that, the elderly and disabled can attract improvement grants even if only for the improvement of thermal insulation.

Does the Minister realise that if the Government were to expand their policy of conservation and energy it would receive much support in all parts of the House, because there would be energy savings and also the creation of more jobs, and it would also enable the problem of condensation to be tackled? On the basis that 40,000 houses a year are being brought up to standard, how long would it take for the public housing stock in Scotland to be dealt with?

I cannot give a precise answer because some houses are already up to standard. There is no standard that cannot be improved upon in the light of scientific knowledge and experience. The number of houses involved is substantial and we must consider the practical point that, unlike other improvements, there is considerable benefit to the consumer in terms of reduced costs. This is wholly desirable, but there is bound to be an element of dispute on the question whether the community should retain some of the benefits of the public money that is being spent.

There is great appreciation of the work done by local authorities in providing thermal insulation, but does my hon. Friend accept that the situation is different in some private tenancies and that it is difficult to get private landlords to provide this insulation? Will he encourage local authorities to give special assistance to voluntary groups—such as the one operating very successfully in my constituency—that provide thermal insulation, particularly for the elderly and the disabled?

Special consideration is given to the elderly and the disabled. If a house is in a scheme of improvement, whether it is owned by a private landlord or a housing association, it is Government policy to give the maximum encouragement to the inclusion of up-to-date provision for thermal insulation when a house is being improved or modernised.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to have discussions with the Scottish Arts Council.

I have no plans at present for a meeting with the Council, but my Department keeps in close contact with the Council.

Bearing in mind that a previous Government were committed to spend £4½ million to help provide half the cost of a multipurpose theatre in Edinburgh, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving an increased grant to the Scottish Arts Council and be prepared to meet the Council on this subject?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the problem with the Lyceum and, perhaps, the Little Lyceum theatre. I shall be writing to the Council today telling it that I shall be happy to have a meeting to discuss the problem. There is a distinction between the Opera House project and the Lyceum project. The first was a project of national significance, but, however much I wish to see the Lyceum preserved as a theatre in Edinburgh, I am not sure that I could say that it is of the same national significance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the current exhibition organised by the Scottish Arts Council in Edinburgh, where he will find more than a dozen almost entirely blank canvasses painted by an artist who believes in minimal art and practises what she preaches?

They are Tory election manifestos.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the exhibition has cost public funds more than £1,500, and will he make inquiries to ascertain whether the Council has been taken for a ride or has merely taken leave of its senses?

I understood that these pictures were representations of the Tory policy on devolution. If I thought that a visit to the exhibition would provide some enlightenment on that subject, I might go. Otherwise, I do not think that I shall.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time the hierarchy of the Scottish Arts Council was elected democratically by artists and their colleagues rather than appointed, as at present, on a "jobs for the boys" basis?

I repudiate the suggestion that the Council is appointed on a "jobs for the boys" basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the staffing standards in Scottish schools.

The recent White Paper on public expenditure includes provision for the employment of teachers in excess of the standards for which we have allowed over the last few years. It is for each education authority to determine how these additional teachers should be deployed, and my right hon. Friend will keep the situation under review.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that present staffing standards were assessed when teachers were in short supply? Now that there are a great many unemployed teachers in Scotland, does he not accept that it is not good enough just to refer to the White Paper, because he is in a position to take immediate action to abolish composite classes and appoint additional teaching staff in socially deprived areas?

The hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of not reading his own policy document. Perhaps I should send him a copy, because in what is described as a radical document for the next 10 years the proposed pupil-teacher ratios are not as good as those that exist at present.

Will my hon. Friend please review the staffing standards? I realise that they have improved, but the Scottish Education Department still looks on the Red Book as Holy Writ. One thing excised from the Red Book was the probationer allowance, which would enable the employment of 1,000 teachers almost immediately. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his reply and have the review that is so necessary?

I have not found much Holy Writ in the SED so far, but I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. He should remember that in the last few months my right hon. Friend has allowed for 500 extra teachers in areas of deprivation, another 100 to ensure that specialist teachers in specialist schools get higher standards and, through the urban programme, another 84 teachers in Strathclyde. Under next year's rate support grant, there is additional finance to provide standards above those laid down in the Red Book and Circular 819, as the White Paper on public expenditure points out.

With reference to the extra employment of teachers, can the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his recent statement that 2,900 extra teachers will be employed by 1981–82? Can he assure us that this is not merely consolidation but that it will improve staff-pupil ratios and reduce class sizes?

Class sizes are already falling by virtue of the decrease in the birth rate. In my constituency there are some primary schools with a roll only half the size of the number of available places. I suggest that the hon. Lady should read the White Paper which deals with staffing standards. We have been much criticised in relation to Circular 819 and the Red Book, but we have said that we shall improve standards as resources allow. That is made clear in the rate support grant for next year and the provisions of the White Paper.

Does the hon. Gentleman's reply means that, where composite classes were introduced because of public expenditure cuts, we can expect, from the next financial year, to go back to normal school arrangements for our children?

I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Composite classes were not introduced for that reason. It should be recognised that composite classes can have good effects. I have heard the intelligent hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) say that he was educated in a composite class.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider using some of the available teachers to extend the provision for the mentally handicapped and thus bridge the gap for the age group who have ceased school and cannot get into adult training centres because there are insufficient places, and will he urge local authorities accordingly?

We have already done that. If the right hon. Lady looks at the recent statistical bulletin from the SED, she will see that the size of classes has been reduced substantially and that there has been a substantial increase in the number of instructors. She is shaking her head. I shall send her a copy of the bulletin so that she can see the information for herself.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussion with Aberdeen College of Education and other interested parties on the future of the college.

At a meeting on 13th February between representatives of my Department, Aberdeen College of Education, Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology and Grampian Regional Council, arrangements were made for further discussions among all the parties concerned to ensure that surplus accommodation in the college is put to the best possible use.

In future discussions, will my hon. Friend take into account the concern expressed recently by Mr. Scotland, the college principal, at the fact that there could be a shortage of teachers in North-East Scotland in the near future and on the question whether it is possible for existing lecturers to find places in other disciplines which may come to the college? Will he guarantee that the 29 lecturers at present under threat of redundancy will not be compulsorily made redundant and that this matter will be dealt with by voluntary measures?

My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this subject. He will understand that I cannot give him the sort of guarantee for which he asks, but I can assure him that my officials met college officials on Monday and had serious discussions on this matter. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his statement on the colleges, it is his intention to ensure that there is natural wastage and voluntary redundancy to meet the standards that he would like to see in order that we can keep the colleges open as the House wishes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in relation to the area served by Aberdeen College of Education there are a greater number of qualified applicants for entry into teacher training in Scotland than the quota that the college is allowed to take? Many suitable applicants are having to go elsewhere in Scotland.

Will he give an assurance, in relation to the consideration of future quotas, that the situation of fully qualified applicants is taken into account in establishing the quota for Aberdeen?

On one aspect of that matter I can say that a report came from the prinicipal of the college, I think to every Scottish hon. Member, pointing out what the hon. Member is saying. However, he compliments the Secretary of State in terms of the increase in the number of lecturers for in-service training. One has to accept, in an area of declining pupil rolls, that one cannot keep on providing teachers who will immediately face unemployment. I assure the hon. Member that we have taken serious account of the document supplied by the principal. As my officials are in discussion regarding the possible extension of the rolls in the Grampian area, all that I can promise is that the matter will be given serious consideration.

Is the Minister seriously telling us that qualified applicants from the North-East who would be able to go to Aberdeen College are being rerouted and directed to colleges elsewhere in Scotland, and that when they have finished their education they will be going back to the North-East to fill the shortage caused by the wastage in teachers up there? Is there any sense in the Government's policy?

There is no sense in the remarks made by the hon. Member. He and most hon. Members prevailed upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to keep open all the colleges of education. He was very active in that, and he must accept that because of that decision, which was welcomed by the House, with falling pupil rolls we cannot possibly guarantee all the places for young people who wish to become teachers. There is no question of rerouting anyone. The position in Aberdeen is repeated in all the colleges of education in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, which organisations and how many individuals have made representations to him in favour of a first-past-the-post electoral system for the Scottish Assembly.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that a first-past-the-post electoral system would be very unfair for the Assembly in view of the present political climate in Scotland? Will he use his influence with his colleagues in the Government to try to get them to amend the Scotland Bill so that there is a system of proportional representation for the election?

This matter was debated by the House during the passage of the Scotland Bill. The Government gave a free vote to Labour Members, and the House decided by an overwhelming majority that PR was not acceptable and that a first-past-the-post system should prevail.

Is the Minister aware that that is a very inadequate answer? Is he also aware that his answer to the hon. Gentleman indicates that the Government's failure to consider electoral reform as part of a devolutionary settlement was a profoundly reactionary thing to do? Does he agree that the result is quite grossly distorted and unrepresentative, and that many feel that the responsibility will be wholly that of the Government?

I do not accept that the answer is inadequate. Any Minister recounting word for word what happens in Parliament cannot be accused of giving an inadequate answer. There is not much that I can say except that the House decided by an overwhelming majority not to accept proportional representation.

On the question whether we should have proportional representation, the Government received representations from six organisations and 14 individuals— hardly an overwhelming approach for proportional representation. But the one thing that I accept—I say this with respect to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)—is that it is a subject that will continue to be on the agenda. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.

Does the Minister agree that it is a deplorable contempt of the House to suggest that an answer based upon a decision of the House is an inadequate answer? It is rather surprising, coming from the Liberal Party.

I have already dealt with that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for protection orders have been made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976; and how many have so far been granted.

My right hon. Friend has received one application, for the Rivers Tweed and Eye. This is under consideration. No orders have yet been made.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern amongst many ordinary anglers in central Scotland about the River Tweed applications? Will he reject any application whose terms are so exclusive and expensive that fishing would be confined to rich syndicates and Tory landlords, such as Lord Home, the Marquess of Lothian, the Duke of Buccleuch and even the Duke of Sutherland, who seems as intent on clearing the Borders as his ancestors were on clearing the Highlands?

From past experience, I am well aware of the use of extravagant language by my hon. Friend. However, I assure him that I do not meet the Lords whom he has mentioned every day of the week, and I have to stick to the facts, which are that we are going through the procedure at the moment. Fifteen objections have been made. The consultative committee met yesterday and is meeting again. There is ample opportunity through the democratic machinery within the Act—I am sure that my hon. Friend will give me credit for this—to examine carefully all these proposals. We have a long way to go before he can jump to any conclusions.

Since most of the people named by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) are constituents of mine, though not necessarily supporters, may I ask the Minister whether he will look at this matter very carefully, because the point made by the hon. Member is perfectly valid and my constituents would be outraged if there were any order which had the effect of giving protection to water that was not open to the public?

Will the Minister accept that I do not understand how, at this early stage, a protection order could possibly be applied to the whole of the River Tweed and its tributaries? It would be far better to deal with the matter tributary by tributary.

That will be considered by the consultative committee, which will advise the Secretary of State, who, in turn, can hold a public local inquiry if necessary. I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. We are talking about proposals that cover 600 miles of rivers, tributaries, and tributaries of tributaries, so it is a massive scheme. I am seized of the representations that have been made that there should be greater access.

Will the Minister look, for example, at the protection order that was read out at a public meeting of anglers of the British Leyland Club in Blackburn, whereby one riparian owner gave a day's fishing to his hairdresser in Berwick in return for a shave?

I must confess at this stage of the proceedings, happily, that I am not involved in knowing such detail. I remind my hon. Friend that that is a devolved matter. If he has any constructive ideas, I am sure that he will see that they are put in the Labour Party's manifesto for the Assembly.

Will the Minister reassure his hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that once we live in the Elysium of a Scottish national independent State we will all have an equal amount of land, none of the people he mentioned will be allowed more than 100 acres and, since it is to be such a rich, oil-fired, tartan Ruritanian tax haven, he can spend all day fishing?

I have given up trying to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on anything. The machinery is adequate. It is the first application under the Act and it will most certainly receive adequate scrutiny, bearing in mind the representations that have been made to me by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the resolution calling for the election of area health boards, passed by a recent Labour Party conference; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I have considered the terms of the resolution but at the moment take the view that direct election of members of health boards is not consistent with my right hon. Friend's responsibility to Parliament for the National Health Service. At present, about one-quarter of the members of the boards are elected local authority councillors. I think that it would be desirable to await the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service before considering any proposals for change.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, on the basis of his own figures, three out of four members of area health boards are unelected and unaccountable to the taxpayer whose millions of pounds they are spending? Will he bear in mind also that the TUC, the STUC and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have all supported the principle of democratically elected health authorities? What weight will be given to this formidable body of opinion when my hon. Friend considers the report which he is awaiting?

In the case of COSLA, it should be put on record that its reply to the Monklands District Council was to the effect that it had given evidence to the Royal Commission saying that it thought that there was need for a radical review. Whether that means that members should be elected or not elected is at this stage a matter for conjecture. On the question of responsibility, it is my right hon. Friend who is responsible to the House for expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland, and, indirectly, the members of area health boards are responsible to my right hon. Friend.

Will the hon. Gentleman take it that the Labour Party is not alone in its concern at the appointments made by the Secretary of State to area health boards? Is he aware that the Act envisaged men and women of skill, initiative and experience being appointed to the boards—not for their political affiliation, which seems to be the only matter which the Secretary of State bears in mind?

I have not been disappointed today, because I expected the hon. Member to raise that point and I have come well prepared. Of the 15 area health board chairmen which he, as Minister, appointed in 1973, I reappointed 10. Two of them were not reappointed because they did not wish to be reappointed. Another was not reappointed because he was to become chairman of another board for which my right hon. Friend had responsibility. Only two were not reappointed and were replaced, and since then one of those not reappointed has been appointed to the Mental Welfare Commission. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw his disgraceful allegation—I do not expect that he will—but it is totally without foundation.

Will the hon. Gentleman broaden his already broad education by considering a recent resolution of the Scottish National Party conference which called for the abolition of area health boards in those parts of Scotland where there are both area health boards and district health boards? Would that not release a considerable amount of money, which could be spent on health care instead of care for the administration?

I sometimes wonder what the Scottish National Party spends its time on. In the past year it has called for the abolition of the regions, it has called for the abolition of Westminster, it has called for the abolition of area health boards, and it is calling for the abolition of the United Kingdom. I understand that tomorrow is the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath. I suggest that instead of the St. Andrew's Cross the skull and crossbones should be flown, because the SNP is the biggest bunch of pirates that I have seen in my life.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the democratisation of administration of the National Health Service should go a lot further? Is it not deplorable that, with a minimal contribution coming from some members of the medical profession and from nurses, this whole field is almost entirely in the hands of the big white chiefs of the hyperdermic and the scalpel? Does this not play its part in some of the problems that we have in the National Health Service today?

I have dealt with National Health Service matters for over two years now. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I sometimes wish that people would stop talking the NHS down. There are many nations throughout the world which would give their right arm to have the sort of health service that we have. There are some things wrong with the National Health Service, but they are not all that much wrong that they cannot be put right. We are always working towards the Utopian situation that we desire.

Is there any limit to the number of elections that the Labour Party would foist on a reluctant Scotland? May we have an assurance that the Labour Party conference resolution referred to in the Question, and the resolution which called for abortion on demand, will be treated with the contempt which Labour Party conference resolutions deserve?

I never take seriously the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who is guilty of scavenging for political votes where he can. If the implication of his supplementary question is that he is against democracy, I hope that he will say so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay a visit to Lossiemouth.

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

If the Secretary of State had time to come to Lossiemouth, would he care to follow up the letter that he wrote to me last week on the vexed question of the replacement of Lossiemouth senior school? Is the Under-Secretatry of State aware of the strength of demand of meetings of hundreds of parents and of a united headmaster and staff who are asking for the justice that was promised them before and after regionalisation, instead of which they are being fobbed off with half a school—a split school with its parts three-quarters of a mile from one another—without modern facilities, and all this against the background that we are to have a great increase in the local population through the Ministry of Defence adding to its base? Moreover, due to the fact—

Order. The hon. Lady ought to ask a question. That was almost as long as a Scottish sermon.

My right hon. Friend, who is well aware of the situation, will have heard the points made by the hon. Lady. If she really wants a serious answer on that matter she would do better to table a Question.

On the question of Lossiemouth, does my hon. Friend recall the letter headed "RAF and SNP", in which the SNP asks

"What is to happen to the Royal Air Force in Scotland when Scotland becomes independent"—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote in asking a supplementary question.

I was wondering how the Scottish Royal Air Force was getting on in Lossiemouth.

Probably as well as the Scottish Royal Navy and Army, or whatever it may be. Frankly, I am not in a position to advance my hon. Friend's education on that. Perhaps one day we shall see some common sense coming from the SNP about these matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Would the hon. Lady mind keeping her point of order until after Questions?

I am always guided by you, Mr. Speaker, but it is in relation to the question asked.

Order. I want to be fair to all, and my experience is that hon. Members on either side can be provoked by a question asked from the other side. I shall be glad if the hon. Lady will follow the practice and raise her point of order at the end of Questions. I shall be here, and I hope that she will be.

On a more serious matter, will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of the nationalists having their way and Scotland becoming independent, there would be a massive loss of defence and other jobs, which could have a very significant effect in education? Is any contingency plan being prepared for the educational disruption which would inevitably stem from a substantial outflow of jobs and people from Scotland if such an event were to take place?

No plans of any kind are being drawn up on that basis. I am certain that most right hon. and hon. Members believe that we shall have not separatism but a proper Assembly, as the House wishes, which will meet the aspirations of the Scots.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory and debonair way in which my question about the Lossiemouth school was dealt with, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of his Department and the Manpower Services Commission for bringing job vacancies to the notice of unemployed persons in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend's responsibility is to consider and approve the strategic plan and programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies as these affect Scotland. Detailed arrangements for bringing vacancies to the notice of job seekers are matters for the Employment Service Agency and the Careers Service themselves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday this week the Agency closed its office in the town of Brechin in my constituency, which is an important industrial centre in Tayside, and that this is happening at a time when that ton has suffered severe redundancies? Will the Minister look at this matter again? Surely, there should be opportunity for people to know of vacancies. Could not the office be continued possibly even on a part-time basis?

I am bound to say that it is not a matter in which I would normally intervene. As I said in my original answer, it would be a matter for the Employment Service Agency. Bearing in mind the numbers who have used the Brechin office—I think 40 persons in one week—the arrangements that the ESA has made for travelling expenses from Montrose, and all the other arrangements that it has made to publicise job vacancies for the Brechin District Council, I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall draw these matters to the attention of the ESA.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those who come up to Shetland to seek jobs experience difficulty in finding anywhere to live? Will he ask the Agency to warn people who come up for jobs that there is a grave shortage of accommodation?

I am sure that these are matters that will be borne in mind by the ESA when appointments are made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the office is kept open at Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, as it would appear that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—requires its services? Any Scottish Member of Parliament who does not know the date of the Declaration of Arbroath should resign.

It had not occurred to me that my hon. Friend or anyone else on the Labour Benches would need the services of the Employment Service Agency. It may be that SNP Members will find it much more appropriate to table such Questions than any Labour Member.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the justifiable grievance of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the Scottish Office and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have created a situation in Scotland in which we now have more than 12 unemployed persons chasing every vacant job? Surely they have an obligation to do all in their power to ensure that the few available job vacancies are filled.

At present there are 15,000 vacancies in Scotland. I have indicated in the course of my original answer and in supplementary answers that, allowing for the number of people involved and the number using the services of the ESA, I think that the Agency had a reasonable case for transferring the work to the Montrose office.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy in the forthcoming year.

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

Progress in both the United Kingdom and Scottish economies over the rest of this year will be greatly influenced by the extent to which growth in world trade can be maintained, and by success in the continuing attack against domestic inflation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in Scotland there are far more businesses becoming bankrupt, fewer new businesses forming and fewer people being taken on by small businesses, and that the small business sector offers the only way in which we can cut into our unemployment problem? Will he consider introducing policies that will help the small business sector?

I think that we have already done that. On the general question of the state of the economy, I do not think that the CBI in Scotland, for example, takes the same gloomy view as the hon. Gentleman.

As the policies of the Secretary of State have resulted in unemployment in Scotland more than doubling in three and a half years, and as the outlook for employment and investment is accepted as bleak, will he at least say that he will have a complete review of the Government's economic policies, which have been a disaster for the Scottish people?

I do not accept that. As for the level of unemployment, the Government have already introduced a number of employment measures that at present are catering for about 54,000 people in Scotland. We have already announced that we shall continue those measures, and in some cases strengthen them, after 1st April.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in advance of that date he will associate himself closely with the work being undertaken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in encouraging the development of small businesses, which is a considerable potential growth area for Scotland?

Yes, I agree with that. I shall do that. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the activities in this area of the Scottish Development Agency, which took over SICRAS, which was previously an independent organisation, he will find that since it was established it has continued and considerably increased and expanded the work done by SICRAS.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that three months after taking office he gave an interview to the Daily Record, published on 14th July 1976, in which he said that the prospects for the Scottish economy never looked so good and that unemployment was set to come down? If he has been pursuing the correct economic policies since taking office, why has unemployment in Scotland reached 203,000?

I think that it has been a disappointment to all hon. Members that over the past couple of years we have seen in this country, and in the Western world as a whole, very high rates of unemployment, which are mostly a direct reflection of the considerable world recession through which, unfortunately, we are still passing.

Leaving aside the Conservatives' imposition of the levy on the self-employed and their calls for further expenditure cuts, which will not help to provide jobs, what percentage growth rate does the right hon. Gentleman's Department expect in the Scottish economy in 1978?

On recent patterns, I expect that the growth in the Scottish economy will be about the same as it has been in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is how the pattern is running at present.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account that, although there are difficulties in the Scottish economy, by and large things are not as bleak and gloomy as Members on the Opposition Benches would wish? Will he publish in the Official Report the recent figures that indicate that, apart from London and the South-East, the wages of manual workers in Scotland are higher than those in any other region of the United Kingdom?

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. That is only one indicator of how the relative Scottish position has improved in recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his code of guidance under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 will, when published, clearly distinguish between the responsibilities of the different authorities as has already been done for England and Wales.

We are on the point of sending out a circular of guidance to housing and social work authorities. Among other things, it will indicate ways in which the Secretary of State would expect social work authorities to supplement the efforts of housing authorities in discharging their statutory responsibility.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the concern that is felt by many people concerned with homelessness in Scotland who feel that the code of guidance that his Department is to publish will be inadequate? Why is it not possible for his Department to take on board the already published code of guidance for England and Wales and to adopt its comprehensive form?

I, too, am disappointed at the inability of COSLA to produce a code of guidance. I do not have time to go into the reasons, but if COSLA had agreed with me we should not be in this difficulty. We shall make the code available, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it would be inappropriate if the references were to the law of England and Wales. Although the circular has much useful information in it, it is not a substitute for the code of guidance for Scotland that ultimately will be produced.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the code of guidance is essential to stop regional councils and district councils passing the buck from one to another? Will he deal with this matter urgently? Does he appreciate that the Act is due to come into effect in a few weeks?

A pretty detailed circular is being issued. It is not a substitute for a code, but it satisfies the requirement to give guidance. I am certain that there will be effective co-operation between authorities that will prevent authorities passing the buck either from one housing authority to another or between housing authorities and social work authorities. I should regret such buck passing, and it will be part of my job to ensure that there is the maximum concern shown for the homeless.

Does the Minister agree that this deplorable situation arose because the Scottish Office has been trying to pass the buck to local authorities? Surely the Scottish Office should take up its responsibilities under the Act and give proper guidance made out by the Scottish Office for local authorities to follow.

I know that the Conservative Party is in a bad way, but the hon. Gentleman should not scrape the barrel. For weeks I have been arguing with the hon. Gentleman that I should consult COSLA in almost everything. Do not blame me for COSLA's inability to come up with a working code of guidance, or its inability to produce some working document. I thought that it was right and proper to consult COSLA and to let those doing the job produce the code of guidance. I regret that the talks have broken down. We shall give the advice now, and I hope that it will be adequate.

May I press on the Minister the urgency and necessity of producing a proper and comprehensive code of conduct before the Act is implemented rather than issuing a circular? I ask the Minister to institute immediately consultations with all appropriate bodies in order so to do.

There have been consultations with the appropriate bodies. I repeat that we are sending out a circular that gives guidance. I can give the further assurance that there will be talks with COSLA and the voluntary bodies, and perhaps together we can ultimately draw up a more extensive and comprehensive code of guidance in accordance with the English procedure. However, there will be adequate guidance to ensure that the Act comes into operation on 1st April.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give a date for the introduction of a road equivalent tariff in the Western Isles.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman capable of some imagination on this issue? Instead of the mindless rubber-stamping of the jacking-up of fares year by year, and several times a year on some occasions, by the Scottish Transport Group, will he give some consideration, as adoption is inevitable at the end of the day, to the road equivalent tariff recommended by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and fight for assistance for the economic survival of the Scottish Islands in the way that the Government subsidise London Transport?

We already give a substantial subsidy to MacBrayne's, which in the coming year will amount to £3·6 million. I have repeatedly made clear that that does not mean that fares in the Western Isles will never go up. The average increases, which have been announced, will be about 10 per cent. They have been graded in a way which will put rather less of the burden on the inhabitants of the Western Isles. I believe that that is the fair way to proceed. I shall be giving an increased subsidy next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to instruct pupils in secondary schools on employee-employer relations and the realities of working life.

A major part of the curriculum development project on "Education for the Industrial Society", which I initiated in April last year, is intended to help secondary school pupils to gain a better understanding of the importance to our economy of good industrial relations.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the curriculum has been designed to show how potential conflict between management and labour can be prevented and to give pupils an insight into the many reasons for distrust and lack of communication on both sides of industry?

One of the most pleasing aspects of this initiative was the tremendous encouragement from the CBI and the STUC as well as from shop stewards and management personnel. The project is designed to do what my hon. Friend wishes. I recognise that his local authority has been much in the forefront in getting young people to understand what the industrial society is all about.

Given the reality of over 200,000 unemployed in Scotland and the past history of United Kingdom policies towards unemployment in Scotland, will the Minister consider arranging a course to give children instruction on the realities of a non-working life until Scotland can use her own resources to create a full-employment economy?

We all regret the fact that so many people are unemployed, but the latest opinion poll recognises that people will not in future support the Scottish National Party.

Will the Minister take note of the fact that if every small business in Scotland employing fewer than 10 people were to take on one more person, another 80,000 people would be employed? Will he consider enlarging the present scheme, which I think concludes at the end of March, not only to special development areas but to the whole of Scotland?

This is not a matter that is within my ministerial responsibility but my right hon. Friend and colleagues are already working on it.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he will arrange to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the law on warrant sales.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the law on warrant sales.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Scottish Law Commission that it is about time we had a report from its committee, which was set up in 1969 to investigate warrant sales? Could this undue delay have anything to do with recent reports that membership of the committee includes such people as Alexander MacPherson, who was recently appointed to succeed my old friend Sheriff Thomson and whose family runs a firm of sheriffs' officers and, therefore, has a vested interest in continuing this barbaric practice of warrant sales?

The short answer is "No, Sir". The work of the Scottish Law Commission on this matter has been carried on very effectively. I should point out, as I mentioned in answer to earlier parliamentary questions, that an inquiry that is by way of a research project into the sociological and factual background is necessary if we are to reform the law on diligence effectively. That inquiry has been under way since November 1977. Considerable material has been obtained and is being processed. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in suggesting that progress is not being made in this area. I remind my hon. Friend that this is not an easy area, because the merits are not all on one side. He should remember that, for example, wage earners in a firm which goes bankrupt may have to resort to diligence to get their wages paid.

Is it not an area in which, however we look at it, we must accept that it is barbaric not to leave a family with a reserve of fundamental items, such as bedding? Could there not be an approach which reserved to a family some amount of money and certain fundamental items?

I remind the House that to suggest that legislation is barbaric is to bring the problem back to the House, because the procedure is based on legislation passed by the House. The procedure is laid down by statute. I disagree with what the hon. Lady suggested. Indeed, she perhaps needs to be reminded tht my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was responsible for introducing a Private Member's Bill which covered the precise point that she made.

asked the Lord Advocate what is the salary of the Scottish Law Officers and of each of the advocates-depute; and whether the latter are part-time or full-time.

My ministerial salary is £11,000 per annum. The Solicitor-General's ministerial salary is £8,270 per annum. Advocates-depute, who are part-time, receiver £9,000 per annum.

Will the Lord Advocate take steps to implement the recommendations in the Boyle Report, which deal with this matter? It is unjustifiable that the senior advocate-depute, who is the Solicitor-General and a full-time Minister, should earn a lower salary than his part-time subordinates. This has nothing to do with guideline breaching or any of the fantasies of the pay policy. Will he put right this insult to the Scottish legal system?

I agree that the present situation is anomalous. I remind the House that, like other Ministers, the Solicitor-General's salary is based upon the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. Since 1975 the salaries of the Solicitor-General and certain other junior Ministers have been twice increased by Statutory Instrument under the Act. The gap to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred has therefore been narrowed.

On the wider aspect of incomes policy, the Review Body on Top Salaries, in its eighth report in July 1976, recommended that the Solicitor-General should receive a higher salary. But, as the House knows, the Government are at present in no way committed to implementing that or other recommendations in the report, as the Lord President informed the House on 12th July 1976.

Is the Lord Advocate aware that, unfortunately, crime is the only present growth industry in Scotland? Is he satisfied that the present complement of advocates-depute is sufficient to deal with the problem?

Yes, Sir. The complement has recently been increased by two.

asked the Lord Advocate when he expects to receive the report from the Crown Office on the case of Police Sergeant William Jamieson of Bo'ness.

I received the Crown Agent's report on 4th February 1978. The Crown Agent took statements from 40 persons in connection with his inquiry into this case. I have studied the report and the statements. I have found there to be no fresh evidence which would cause me to take a different view of the case.

Arising from the Jamieson case, will the Lord Advocate reflect whether it is time that legislation was brought forward to do something about the stated case procedure?

My hon. Friend is right to put his supplementary question in that context. I think that we need to have an early look at this particular aspect of our procedure. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the matter was covered by the last report of the Thomson Committee. In fact, it appears that its recommendations do not go along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Without in any way criticising the Crown Agent, I suggest that it is an unsatisfactory procedure to give the chief prosecuting agent under the Lord Advocate the job of impartially investigating a prosecution in which he succeeded, to see whether he was right in his prosecution. Surely, if any such inquiry should be set on foot, it should be conducted by some impartial person who has no loyalty to either side.

I dissociate myself from any suggestion that the Crown Agent did not carry out this examination with complete objectivity. I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will bear this out—that I made no pretence when I asked the Crown Agent to undertake this inquiry that it was other than a departmental inquiry. Unfortunately, I must use the resources available to me and to my Department.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments, also standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith):

No. 79, in Schedule 1, page 40, line 4, at end insert

'for the first ordinary election only'.

No. 80, in page 40, line 8, at end insert

'for the first ordinary election only: for the second and subsequent ordinary elections the electorate of any Assembly constituency shall be as near the electorate of any other Assembly constituency.'

No. 81, in page 40, line 14, at end insert

'for the first ordinary election only'.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise this matter, for two reasons. The first is that we have little enough time anyway for discussion of the amendments today. The second is the unnecessarily long-winded point of order put by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).

Amendment No. 117, standing in my name, was properly in order in the initial stages and on the Amendment Paper, but it was not selected for discussion in the earlier proceedings because it required a technical paving amendment. Hon. Members do not put down technical paving amendments on Report in order to suit the convenience of the House, and because no such amendment had been put down, Amendment No. 117 was not scheduled for discussion on Report.

As soon as this matter arose—it could not be found out until yesterday that Amendment No. 117 had not been selected—I tabled the necessary paving amendments, Nos. 126 and 127, but Amendment No. 117 has still not been selected for discussion. At times, it is possible, within discretion, for a manuscript amendment to be acceptable, but certainly a starred amendment is frequently allowed to be discussed.

In this case, we have an amendment which is not starred because it has been down for weeks—indeed, for months, since we previously had it down on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The only amendments starred in this connection are the necessary technical paving amendments. This seems to me to widen the possibility of discretion being applied, not in order that the starred amendments may be discussed but so that the substantive amendment, No. 117, may be discussed.

The question of whether Scotland is to become a separate State is manifestly, at least to everyone in Scotland, the crucial subject with which we have to deal. It is a subject that has occupied Scotland over the last seven or eight years. Yet it now appears that it may be the one topic throughout the Bill which will never even have been discussed.

I therefore ask for reconsideration on your part, Mr. Speaker, so that it will not be the technicality that prevents it, and that, if it is prevented, it will be understood to be by reason of the unnecessary amount of time being given by the House to relatively unimportant matters as opposed to this absolutely crucial matter.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) for the way in which he raised his point of order. I gave a good deal of thought to the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He is correct in saying that his original amendment was out of order because it lacked the necessary paving. I am a little surprised that it was only yesterday that he discovered that paving was necessary. I will look at it again, of course, because the list was provisional. But, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it is the exception rather than the rule for starred amendments to be called. It is not at all a general practice. When I have an opportunity, I will look at this question once again.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it would be in order for those who have a slightly different point of view to support my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in his request and add, I hope, a little weight to your consideration. It is not only my hon. Friend who feels that this ought to be considered. I bring to aid the Scottish Council of the Labour Party—

Order. I have already said that I will consider this. To continue to discuss the matter further would be to take up time of the House which could be used to greater advantage.

I make no apology for returning on Report, albeit in a rather different form, to the number of Assemblymen. I have found, not with standing the discussions in Committee, that this is one topic which is important for its own sake in relation to constitutional change of this consequence and which arouses considerable interest and discussion within Scotland among those who have been following our debates on the Bill.

Given the restriction of time, I do not intend to go back in detail over the previous discussions that we have had. Indeed, I should prefer to let what I say this afternoon start from the end of the discussion that we had in Committee. I am prepared to accept that the Government in their proposal have adopted what I would call, without being unfair to them, a convenience argument in regard to the number of Assemblymen. If the Assembly is to be established on the timetable which the Government have envisaged, it is important that it should be related to some extent to the existing constituency boundaries in Scotland.

Accepting the Government's timetable, therefore, I do not regard it as unreasonable that the Government should wish to base their number of Assemblymen—two for each constituency—on the number of existing constituencies in Scotland, with an addition in the case of certain large constituencies, bringing the membership of the Assembly in this way to 150. I shall not argue about that because it would mean going over old ground, and I would rather concentrate at this stage on the merits of the new clause.

4.15 p.m.

The new clause accepts the position as set out in the Bill in regard to the first election to the Scottish Assembly. What my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and I are seeking to do is to change the number of Assemblymen for the second and subsequent elections to a number which we believe is more appropriate to that required to secure the success and efficient working of the Assembly. We maintain that, by delaying this change until the second and subsequent elections, sufficient time will be given for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to do what is necessary. Provision for this is made in the new clause. The first Assembly will be sitting for four years from the first election, and that will give ample time for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to draw up new constituency boundaries appropriate to the number of Assemblymen that we propose in the new clause.

I turn now to the provisions of the clause, which specifically deals with the number of Members. As I said at the beginning, I accept the Government's figure of 150, which is related, I believe, to what is convenient for getting the Assembly off the ground within the timetable envisaged by the Government. But if we were not under the disciplines and restrictions of the Government's timetable, I question whether we would choose that particular number for membership of the Assembly. I shall seek to support this proposition by a number of simple and fairly straightforward arguments which, I hope, will commend themselves to hon. Members in all parts of the House, whether they support the principle of the Assembly or not.

My first and most important argument is one that is put very strongly in Scotland, particularly by those who oppose the Assembly, but it is put equally strongly by the supporters of a directly elected legislative Assembly in Scotland with its own Executive. We shall be setting up in Scotland an Assembly of 150 Members and still continuing to have 71 Scottish Members of this House. The effect will be that three representatives will in future be doing the work currently done by one representative.

It might be said by some people that perhaps the representation by one Member is not always entirely adequate, but when we compare the number of constituents that we represent in this House of Commons with the numbers of constituents represented by Members of other Assemblies elsewhere, I do not think it can fairly be said that we represent too many constituents. It does not make sense to multiply by three the number of people who are to do the work. I quite accept that, if we are to have an Assembly, there must be some addition to the number of representatives, but I do not see why it should have to go up from 71 to 150. I do not believe that that makes any sense at all, and for that reason I think that the Government's proposals must be scrutinised very closely indeed.

One of the arguments of those who oppose the establishment of the Scottish Assembly is put on the ground of economy. That is an important argument. But, as I believe that the establishment of an Assembly will improve our system of government in the United Kingdom and extend our democracy, I have accepted all along that there is bound to be a certain increase in expenditure. This is one of the costs that I am prepared to pay for the efficient operation of democracy in this country. Equally, however, those who criticise the proposals in the Bill have a legitimate argument if the scale of the expenditure in setting up an Assembly is beyond what is reasonably justified. I believe that those who criticise the Bill on grounds of expense and lack of economy have a legitimate argument when they point to the number of Members proposed.

For these reasons, I believe that the number of Assemblymen ought not to be related in the long term to the convenience of the initial electoral arrangements. It ought to be related to what is best for carrying out the work of the Assembly in the long term once it is established.

I wish to make a third point which is equally important. I personally have no doubt that when the Assembly elections take place there will be a sufficiency of persons offering themselves for election to the Assembly. But, given that Scotland has a population of just over 5 million, we must accept that there is a physical limit to the number of people who are suitably qualified, or with the proper motivation and ability, to offer themselves for public service of one sort or another. I think that that is true, particularly with regard to the initial stages of the Assembly.

The Scottish people will then be electing representatives to the European Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, the Assembly, regional councils and district councils. Given the population base in Scotland, I believe that we are putting far too great a demand on the number of suitable persons who should be elected to these different offices.

Of course, in the longer term my argument is that there ought to be a subsequent consequential change in local government in order to return local government to single-tier, all-purpose authorities. That would remove one tier of government. I believe that we should seriously consider this. But, even if we did that in the longer term, I still believe that it does not make sense, nor is it necessary, to increase the size of the Assembly's membership beyond what is necessary for the efficient operation and servicing of the Assembly.

Given that three people will be doing the work of one, given an economy in expenditure and given that we want the best use of those from within Scotland who are prepared to serve their fellow men in public life, I believe that the Government's figure is set too high.

In that situation, what should be the right number? This is open to debate. The Government chose their number for electoral convenience with regard to the first election. I am interested in the second and subsequent elections. I personally would favour a number of 71 based on the existing parliamentary constituencies, and I put forward that argument in Committee. That case can certainly be argued, although it is not one that I am arguing today.

What I have chosen to do is to base the new clause on the recommendations and conclusions of the Royal Commission on which the Bill is based. It is significant that in paragraphs 789 and 790 of the report, and also in the summary of conclusions in paragraph 1140, the Kilbrandon Commission came quite firmly to the conclusion that the best size for an Assembly should be "around 100" Members. For understandable reasons the Commission did not come to a precise recommendation but stated "around 100".

I do not consider that the figure of 150 which the Government have proposed can in any sense be described as "around 100". Since the Royal Commission decided on a figure of "around 100", the onus must be on the Government to say why for the longer term they have chosen a figure of 150. That is the first question I put to the Government. I hope that they will explain precisely why, for the longer term, they have rejected the argument of the Royal Commission.

I want to make another point with regard to the Royal Commission's report. While the Royal Commission was not unanimous—of course, there was a minority report as well—it is significant that there were no reservations about the figure of "around 100".

In paragraphs 789 and 790 of its report, the Royal Commission specifically examined the number of members in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. It is entirely appropriate in this context to look at the experience of the one subsidiary Assembly which had already been set up within the United Kingdom. That is why, in the new clause, I have tended towards 100, as suggested by the Royal Commission, rather than my initial choice of 71.

The Kilbrandon Commission questioned whether a Scottish Assembly of the size of around 50 Members would be adequate to carry out its work. One has to bear in mind that a Scottish Assembly will have to support its own Executive and Ministers as well as junior Ministers in the form of Whips and so on. As well as these practical arguments, a number of other countries have Assemblies of the size which the Royal Commission suggests.

Another argument in favour of the Royal Commission's proposal—this would particularly have been the case had the Assembly been elected on proportional representation—is that the majority party, even under a first-past-the-post system, might not be in a majority numerically. It might be a minority Government. Where there was no formal coalition between two minority parties, one might get the largest single party governing with the support, but without the participation, of another minority party. In those circumstances, it would be important for the Assembly to be of a size which enabled it to support a full Executive. I therefore believe that an Assembly of "around 100" Members is more appropriate than one of 70 and certainly more appropriate than one of 150.

There is a further argument that I want to put forward. I have already referred to the United Kingdom's one precedent, Stormont. It is also worth looking at other countries to see what size of Assemblies they have. Probably the most appropriate countries to look at are ones with a federal structure, because we want to make a comparison with countries which have subsidiary rather than sovereign Assemblies.

I should make three comparisons, with Australia, Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany. I would mention in passing that Australia, with a population of 13 million, has a Parliament of only 125 members. But, of course, it has a second Chamber as well. My comparison is not with the federal but with the State level. There are two close comparisons with Scotland, with its population of 5 million. One is New South Wales, which has a population of 4·6 million and a main Chamber of 96. It also has a second Chamber of 60, but it is the main Chamber which matters for my purposes. Victoria, the only other State with a comparable population—3·5 million—has a main Chamber of 73. From these comparisons, one can see that the Government's figure of 150 is very high.

4.30 p.m.

In Canada I shall make a comparison with two provinces. Ontario, with a population of 7·7 million, has a main Chamber of 117 and Quebec, with a population of over 6 million, has a main Chamber of 108. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will see from the examples of Australia and Canada, both of them Commonwealth countries with subsidiary Assemblies, that the size of the main Chamber is very much smaller than that proposed by the Government for Scotland.

My other comparison is with the Federal Republic of Germany and the example of Bavaria, which has a population of 11 million and a Chamber of 204 Members. Bavaria's population is nearly double that of Scotland. Therefore, by comparison with that region, a Scottish Assembly of 100 Members would be much more appropriate.

It is also interesting to look at other countries which have a unitary system of government. New Zealand, with a population of 3 million, has 87 Members and Norway, which is often compared with Scotland and has a population of 4 million, has 116 Members. I hope I have shown the House that other countries, working under the system of government most comparable to that which we are trying to set up in Scotland, have much smaller Assemblies than the one proposed by the Government.

I hope that the new clause will have the support of both sides of the House. I put it forward in the interests of the best working of the Scottish Assembly. An Assembly of the size that I, propose is much more in accordance with the wishes of people in Scotland. It is not necessary to have an Assembly of the size proposed by the Government. By proposing it, the Government are gratuitously yielding to the arguments of those who oppose the Assembly on the ground of additional cost and bureaucracy. I hope that for the second and subsequent elections the Government will accept an Assembly of the size that I suggest.

Order. I have given further consideration to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I am prepared to add his Amendment, No. 117, to the provisional list, but I must remind him and the House that it falls within the business that must be dealt with before 7.30 p.m. It is the last of the amendments to be disposed of by 7.30 p.m. Therefore, the hon. Member might be being more optimistic than is justified. Nevertheless, I shall add his amendment to the list.

I shall try to set an example in making short speeches. I accept straight away that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has put forward his case in a genuine manner, but I disagree with him on one point. To suggest that there are not 150 suitably qualified people to come forward in Scotland has never been part of the argument of any of us who criticise this whole exercise. I do not doubt that there are a great number of people who would make excellent Assembly Members in Scotland, and it is a very bad argument—I would not call it arrogant—to suggest that there might be a shortage of suitably qualified people.

I think that an Assembly of 71 members, as he suggested at one stage, is the worst of all possible worlds. Nothing would more highlight the rivalry between the Scottish Assembly and this House than having a one-to-one ratio. That would only heighten conflict.

I come to the heart of the matter—the question of exactly what the Assemblymen will do. What will be their role? The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns let the cat out of the bag when he said that there must be subsequent consequential changes for local government. The Lord President may say "Nonsense" sotto voce—

I did not say a word.

Then that was another conversation. We all have to face the fact that a great number of people in Scotland believe that the Assembly will have to do something about changing local government. For the reasons that the hon. Member gave it would be impossible to hold the European elections, the Westminster elections, the Assembly elections and the regional, district and community council elections together. It is often said that the only thing that the Assembly has to do is somehow to wave a magic wand and get rid of the regions.

There might be an argument for doing that, but whatever else it is it is not devolution of decision-making, and it will not bring government closer to the people. If the Lord President is concerned about bringing government in Scotland closer to the people he must stick with my point of view rather than come down in favour of an Edinburgh Assembly. The regions, warts and all, are very much closer to the people than an Assembly in Edinburgh would be.

That is where we come to the crux of the whole matter. Precisely what are these 150 Assemblymen to do? Certainly they cannot spend all their time legislating. What else can they do, other than meddle in local government?

It was stated at Question Time today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown)—that any changes in, for example, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (No. 2) Bill will be undertaken by the Assembly. This may be so. There are a number of other contentious matters that the Assembly could undertake. However, there will be 150 full-time Members sitting in Edinburgh for 37 weeks of each year, every year. They cannot engage themselves solely in tinkering with Scottish legislation and it is very unnatural that they should do so.

What will be their relation to local government? Are they to be part-time or full-time politicians? Will most of them have other jobs as well? Until we are clear on those matters it is no good selecting any number for the Assembly.

People who are in the position of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns really must state their ideas precisely when they talk about subsequent and consequent changes relating to local government. Here we come up against the controversy that is taking place in The Scotsman at present between Miss Isobel Lindsay of the Scottish National Party and James Anderson, the convener of the Labour Central Region. Of course there are very real issues here.

If one makes an attempt to get rid of the regions—an idea that is superficially popular—what would one replace them with? If they are replaced with all-purpose authorities, that means that we will have 60 education authorities, 60 planning authorities, 60 housing authorities, and so on. How would one break up the functions of the districts and the regions? After all the midnight oil that has been burned in reforming local government once in the last decade, are we prepared to undertake it again?

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument as sympathetically as I can. He may wish to retain the regional authorities in the Lothian or Central Regions, but may I draw his attention to the situation on Tayside, where the city of Dundee is flanked by two rural counties? With the best will in the world, it is difficult to have common policies for education and school building programmes in areas such as Angus and Perth, which have individual characteristics, and in the city of Dundee, which has always been a self-governing local government unit. Would not a change of that kind be beneficial to all three areas on Tayside if the regions were abolished?

If the hon. Gentleman is right, those who hold high positions in his party should not suggest that by getting rid of the regions there would be a saving in expensive and highly paid local government personnel. If one follows through that argument, there will be three directors of education for Tayside rather than one. That is the logical conclusion.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that within the regional authority structure there are innumerable deputy directors of education? There is a pyramid structure, some of which would be unnecessary if the process were simplified.

Any change that will lead to more expense appears to be a recipe for the proliferation of senior posts.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) said that this had nothing to do with the new clause. I disagree with him. One cannot sensibly discuss the number of Assemblymen without being clear about their role. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns gave the game away yet again. Many of those who want the Assembly require an Assembly that will be deeply involved in local government. They can have such an Assembly, but let us not pretend that this is devolution in the literal sense of the word. For all my shortcomings, I claim that I am the best devolutionist of all, because I want local authorities to be local and not Edinburgh-based.

Will the hon. Gentleman make clear that the powerful argument for having the present units in local government was perhaps most extensively set out in education than in any other area of activity? It is not possible, in modern circumstances, to provide a wide basis of education in Scotland unless we have units of government that are considerably larger than were the old councils. I have considerable sympathy with the objectives of the new clause, but it would be wrong to found that on the likelihood of demolishing the new local government structure—not because one does or does not want to do so but because it is simply impracticable.

The right hon. Lady was a member of the Royal Commission that discussed these matters endlessly. Had there been any better answer available to the right hon. Lady and her colleagues on that Commission, it would have occurred to them.

I should like to say a few words of welcome on the new clause and the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not set a good example when he instanced the case of local government. The House will agree that although there might be a case for changing local government, the matter should be considered on its merits and not in relation to any new plan for an Assembly or any other constitutional structure.

My hon. Friend was right to say that ideally the right figure should be introduced for the first election and not just for the later one. That may be the basis of some of the arguments that have been advanced against the new clause.

The most obvious argument relates to redundancy. I wonder how we would get on in this House if there were a written constitution saying that our numbers should be reduced by 100 in the next election. We might then look at each other's health and voting record with greater interest than we do at present.

Another argument which could be used relates to consumer interests. This might invite confusion for constituents if they were coming along to constituency surgeries to consult their European or Westminster Members of Parliament, or their Assemblymen. If the boundaries were radically different from each other, this could be a problem in city areas where, even now some constituents find difficulty in knowing to which constituencies they belong.

The third argument is the wait-and-see argument. This is based on the view that it might be best to wait and see how the Assembly gets on before we make any decision about the right number of Members for the future. If we take the wait-and-see argument, my answer is that I am unaware of any Parliament which has voluntarily reduced its numbers in a substantial way. This is the kind of thing that everybody approves in principle to make the use of manpower more effective, but it is not the kind of thing that is done voluntarily. The Government constantly exhort industry to use its manpower more effectively. Therefore, I doubt whether the Scottish Assembly, if it is ever established, will voluntarily reduce its numbers as a matter of discretion.

A further argument is that these boundaries will cause problems when constituents visit Members' surgeries. Will a constituent have to consult three different Members—one for Europe, a second for Westminster and a third for the Assembly?

The hon. Member for West Lothian said that constitutional problems may will arise if the Assembly is established, and that matters may be made even more complex if every hon. Member at Westminster is to have one person covering his home area. This may cause great problems of demarcation and the line of responsibility may not at first be clear.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that following the setting up of an Assembly there might be a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament coming from Scotland to the Westminster Parliament? That would smash to smithereens all questions of boundaries, because the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies would have changed.

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is an argument which the Minister has often used—that one could not hope in that situation to have an Assembly and to keep 71 Members of Parliament here. However, most of us accept the fact that it is not advisable to reduce the amount of Scottish influence at Westminster, although there will be complaints of that sort.

We must bear in mind the subject of consumer interests. We must remember that constituents will have problems in knowing to which areas they belong, who is speaking for them, and on what. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) will probably suggest that he receives letters addressed to him at the City Chamber and the Strathclyde regional headquarters. My wife constantly receives telephone calls from callers who expect me to be in the City Chamber for one day a week. People have been confused, and this will add to it.

Having said that, and appreciating that it is difficult to strike a balance, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns was right to say that if the proposal for 150 Assemblymen goes ahead without any arrangement for changing the situation, there will be a ridiculous situation involving over-government, with too many politicians chasing too little authority.

It means that in place of the jobs done by one, we shall under the Bill have three or four representatives. There will be either a parliamentary constituency with one Member of Parliament and two Assemblymen, or a constituency with one Member and three Assemblymen.

I doubt whether the Government will be taken seriously in telling British Rail, the British Steel Corporation and others to use their manpower more effectively if the Government are creating a situation of over-government.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns pointed to the ridiculous structure involving European Members, Westminster Members and Scottish Assemblymen. It will mean far too much over-government. Those who possess common sense will agree that we should try to reduce the amount of over-government and to minimise the damage done by the Bill. I believe that we should give full support to the new clause. If the Government have a better idea for reducing the numbers, let them bring it forward. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns that the Government's proposals are wrong. They will mean too many public representatives.

If the hon. Gentleman wants the numbers reduced, will he say how much he thinks that Scottish Assemblymen should be paid in relation to Westminster Members?

I have made clear that I do not want the Bill to go through. If it comes into effect we must ensure that it does the minimum damage and we must reduce the areas of conflict.

I do not know what salary will be right for Assemblymen. If it is a full-time job it should be a full-time salary, but if they are full-time there will not be enough work for them to do. We shall run into a problem similar to that faced by regional councillors. It is difficult to fit in with an ordinary job the hard work involved in being a regional councillor, but if councillors were paid a full-time salary there would be the problem of their having too much time. This is one of the complexities of over-government.

We cannot allow the Bill to stand in its present form. If the Government have better proposals for reducing the numbers they can bring them forward in another place. In the meantime, we should vote for the new clause to indicate that the House and the people of Scotland would not be happy if the Scots had inflicted on them three or four Members in place of the present one, with European Members to come on top of the others.

Scotland could become the most over-governed and, consequently, the most overtaxed, country in the world. We must do all we can to avoid that.

I very much regret that we have not explored new methods of running a democratic Assembly, but this is not the time to start on that. In considering constitutional change, we should see how much can be done at local level and work up from that. I rather regret the word "devolution". It is clear that the prospect for Scotland is one of gross and appalling over-government.

We shall have a Parliament, an Executive and a bureaucracy on the Continent, in London and in Edinburgh, in addition to the Scottish regions and districts. This House is the largest elected Assembly in the world and the House of Lords is by far the largest Assembly of any sort. It is clear that the size of these Chambers is not going to be reduced.

What should go? I still maintain that the regions should go. They should never have been set up. We should have one tier of local government, but this is not the moment to explore that proposition.

What else goes depends on one's view of the development of the Assembly. I believe that it will be wholly unstable. It cannot remain in the state in which we shall set it up. No Assembly would be able to go on without powers to tax. It will demand powers over the economy, nationalised industries and the public sector that are far greater than those included in the Bill.

If I did not think that, I would be persuaded by the cogent arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who said in Committee that this House would still devote a lot of time to matters that are not to be devolved. As I do not believe that the situation is stable and that more work will go to the Assembly, in the long run there will almost certainly be demands to reduce the number of Scottish Members here. That question, however, was debated in Committee and turned down.

An Assembly with 100 Members would involve constituencies of about 50,000. That is not wholly satisfactory, because that number is bigger than the average community. Even if reducing the size of constituencies will lead to the difficulties rehearsed by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and others, I believe it to be desirable.

A House of 100 Members is not altogether satisfactory, either. It is too big to operate as a Committee, but will it be able to supply the necessary number of Members for an Administration? I have not yet heard a discussion about how big the Scottish Administration will be. I am not referring only to the Executive. We know how Administrations expand. In this House there are more than 100 people dependent on Government patronage one way or the other. The Scots are not averse to patronage, so how many such people will there be in the Scottish Assembly?

In addition, it is not in the nature of Parliaments or Assemblies to refrain from legislation. One often hears complaints about the fact that there is too much legislation, but when a Member is lucky enough to draw a place in the Ballot he does not throw the chance aside; he scrounges around for a Bill to inflict upon the wretched public. The appetite for legislation appears to be insatiable, and that will extend to the Assembly.

The bureaucracy in Edinburgh, like all bureaucracies, will grow. I hope that the Assembly will be a part-time Parliament, but I do not have such optimistic illusions as to believe that it will work out like that.

I would not be altogether satisfied with an Assembly of 100 Members representing constituencies of 50,000. I must declare an interest, since if that were the average size of constituencies we would go back to Orkney and Shetland being represented by one Member. Very often we get Members who are capable of doing that, but we cannot rely on an endless flow of great Members for Orkney and Shetland. It would be more satisfactory for them to have a Member each. However, this is not, perhaps, a matter that should influence us decisively.

It would be upsetting for the Assembly, which will have enough of an upsetting time anyway, if it knew that at the end of its first session it was to be reduced by one-third. If the new clause is to be considered seriously, the initial numbers must be allowed to continue for longer than that. The Assembly will have enough trouble without one-third of its Members contemplating instant unemployment. In such circumstances, it could be difficult to get people to stand, though I believe that there is a pool of talent that will go to Edinburgh rather than come here.

I think that we should stick to the proposals in the Bill, though I agree that it will have to be looked at again soon and that there is much to be said for writing in a provision that we should have to look at it again.

I do not agree that we should reduce the numbers after four years. We need more experience of the way in which the Assembly is working, so that we can see whether 100 Members can supply an Administration and a sufficiently independent Opposition to make it work.

We are discussing the size of the Assembly. The figures that have been mentioned are the existing 150, the Royal Commission's recommendation of 100 and the 71 suggested by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).

This is not the occasion for a wide-ranging debate on the reorganisation of the structure of local government. That is for an entirely separate occasion.

The amendment is worth consideration. If we are guided by the Royal Commission's figure of 100, based on existing Westminster constituencies, that works out at 1·5 Members of the Assembly per constituency. It would be very difficult to organise that representation. I do not know how one can have half a Member in a constituency.

The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns was nearer the mark with his suggestion of 71. That would be an easier number in relation to parliamentary constituencies. He suggests that we should by all means have 150 members in the Assembly for the first Assembly elections but for the second and subsequent Assembly elections he is suggesting a figure of about 100.

That process would create one of the most difficult prospects that any electoral machine could possible contemplate. When we elect the Assembly, we are hoping to recruit the most suitable and able men and women fit to serve in this system of Scottish government, and we shall be expecting some of those candidates, when successful, to give up good jobs, promotion prospects and security of employment.

I believe that we shall find that extraordinarily difficult. I am basing my contention on the figure of 100, which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned. It would entail redundancies through the reduction of 50 Members in the second and subsequent elections. No candidate will give up a good job and security of employment for four years if, at the end of that time, he can no longer be a candidate for the Assembly and will be in the wilderness.

None of us would like to be faced with the same situation, with a reduction of one-third in the size of this Parliament, knowing that it meant that one-third of the present number of Members would not be coming back, that they would be redundant, many of them having given up jobs and promotion only to find themselves in the wilderness.

I should hate to impose that suffering on Members of the Assembly, but that is exactly what would happen. It would be most inconsiderate to pass any amendment—not just the present new clause—which would create an impossible situation of that nature. We want to recruit all that is best, persuading people to give up their security of life to be elected to an Assembly for four years, yet they would be sacked on the spot, without the consent of the electorate, simply because the numbers were reduced at the second and subsequent elections.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that contention in mind, because it is an important consideration. We found a similar situation when we reorganised local government. That was one of the main reasons why we could not attract some of the best men and women available—simply because there was no security of tenure, quite apart from the hazards of the popular poll.

I visualise that if the new clause were passed it would do the election of the Assembly incalculable harm. It would discourage some of the best men and women that we have in Scotland—there are in Scotland many excellent men and women who would make suitable Assembly Members—from taking part, simply because one-third of those elected would know that in four years they would be redundant and would lose the opportunity of continuing—in spite, perhaps, of the excellent service that they had given to their constituents—as Members of the Scottish Assembly.

I hope that the Minister will bear in mind—it is one of the most important considerations of all—the human factor involved in the proposal before us. It is not in the interests of the new Assembly to operate in the fashion suggested. I do not think that it would be fair to the men and women who will come forward to serve Scotland. For those reasons, I ask the Government not to accept the new clause.

The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is being pessimistic in believing that persons will not put themselves forward knowing that they will be redundant in four years. He has only to look at the Scottish National Party Bench to see that its 11 Members who worked on that assumption were quite happy to stand for election.

I am happy to support the new clause, which I regard as in many respects one of the most important new clauses that the House will have to consider. I say that because in this area the Government gave almost no forethought to what the appropriate size of the Assembly should be before deciding on the figure presently in the Bill.

When the Royal Commission on the Constitution recommended the creation of an Assembly, it indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, an Assembly of 100. When the Government's White Paper was published that figure had been increased to 138. When the Bill originally appeared before the House the figure had increased from 138 to 150. Like Topsy, the size of the Assembly has increased with every available opportunity. At no time have the Government attempted to justify what the appropriate size for an Assembly ought to be.

We know why the figure went up from the 100 recommended to 138 and to 150. The Government simply used an arithmetical calculation. They wanted to use the existing number of parliamentary constituencies, namely, 71, and they doubled that figure to 142, adding a few more simply to make allowance for very large constituencies. That might have been a useful technical achievement, but in terms of convincing either this House or the public as a whole that an Assembly of 150 is either necessary or desirable, the Government have not begun to approach the argument. It is depressing that we have had such a short-sighted response from the Administration.

The only explanation that the Government gave to us in Committee was that it was necessary not to have excessive delay before the first election to the Assembly takes place. That might have had a certain superficial attraction at the time. However, not only has the implementation of the Bill been considerably delayed, the new clause refers only to the sccond and subsequent elections of the Assembly, so no Minister can today maintain that the new clause is undesirable or unsatisfactory for the reasons given on the previous occasion.

The election can go ahead. It is going to be necessary, anyway, to delineate new constituencies for the Assembly. Therefore, there is no reason why the House should not consider the appropriate number on its merits rather than on any spurious technical ground.

I was surprised at the speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), because, while he seemed to accept the principle that the proposed size of the Assembly was too large, he thought it wrong to put forward a figure of 100 and believed that at some future time consideration should be given to what the appropriate size should be. He must, surely, know that if it is not written into the Bill now there is not the remotest prospect of such a revision ever taking place.

Other hon. Members who have spoken are absolutely correct in saying that there is not the remotest prospect of the Assembly itself deciding to vote for its own reduction in size, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. One would be expecting the Members of the Assembly to pursue an extraordinary course of action of self-inflicted damage, which is extremely unlikely.

I do not necessarily think that the Assembly will be too big. I think that the total amount of government will be too big. I said that I rather favour reducing the Scottish representation at Westminster and eventually—certainly in the long run—getting rid of the regions.

The right hon. Member might be right in putting forward these proposals, but to suggest that the overall burden of government does not relate to the size of the Assembly is misconceived and mistaken. The size of the Assembly has to be considered on two counts. First, one has to consider the job that the Assembly is to do.

Second, one has to consider, in relation to size, the general relations of the people with their elected representations in Scotland. On both those counts, I believe that the proposed size of 150 is far too large and cannot be justified on any of the facts. On no occasion has either the present Minister or the Minister of State who dealt with the previous amendment tried to justify the figure of 150.

There are at least four reasons which justify a reduction in the size of the Assembly from 150 to a much lower figure. I accept that there is no magic in the figure of 100, but what we are debating is the question whether 150 will be the size required or will be far in excess of the needs of the Assembly itself.

First, there is the point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), that it is ludicrous to suggest that the job which is at present being done by 71 Members of Parliament—indeed, half the job presently done by 71 Members of Parliament—will in future have to be done by 150 Members of the Scottish Assembly. It is not as though those 150 Members will simply be doing our job. As has been pointed out many times, Scottish Members of Parliament will still have at least 50 per cent. of their work load—on taxation, industry, employment and so on.