asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to implement the report on football crowd behaviour, 1977.

I have asked the Scottish Football Association to draw the attention to clubs to the recommendations affecting them directly. A Bill is at present before the House which will enable the courts to impose community service orders on football hooligans. I shall shortly be discussing with football bodies community projects involving clubs and young supporters. My right hon. Friend and I are considering what further action might be taken in the light of comments that we have received.

Does the Minister agree that there is much in the Bill to be commended? I hope that he will make further progress in bringing it to the notice of the public generally. In order to set an example, will the Scottish Office announce soon the expected grant of £4 million to improve Hampden Park?

That is another question, of course. The hon. Member, who takes a keen interest in the Hampden Park project, will know that discussions are going on and that we are considering the costs of the project. I thank him for his comments on the Bill and assure him that I will pass them on to my hon. Friend who is dealing with it.

Since St. Johnstone supporters are normally well behaved, is there any rational explanation for the savage invasion of Perth last week, when hanging, flogging and even the firing squad were being demanded by a crowd of Tory reactionaries, ably led by an infamous political hooligan from Cathcart?

I am extremely worried about crowd behaviour, especially what I saw on the television screen from Perth. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) warned the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party about extremism. It is to his credit that he spoke in those terms at Perth. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question.

How closely has the Minister been following experiments in England and Wales with Saturday afternoon detention centres for football hooligans and rowdies, and what plans does he have to extend that system to Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman will study the report of the football working party, which received a great deal of praise from the authorities in England, he will see that many measures are discussed there, including taking care of the hooligans in a punitive sense as well as looking at the problem in an educational sense.

What plans does my hon. Friend have to explore football crowd behaviour in Argentina?

I understand that that is at the discretion of my right hon. Friend and is dependent on the possible success of the Scottish team in the early rounds.

Does the Minister agree that the gathering at Perth was an example to all Scottish parties, particularly to the Labour Party, whose Scottish gatherings are simply extremist shambles? On the particular question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), can the Minister say, after this long delay, when he expects to make the announcement of a decision on Hampden Park?

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. I have the first page of the Leader of the Opposition's speech, I shall not read it, of course, but it says that she was complimented on major victories at the ballot box in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member reported to her the right decision at Garscadden and did not mislead her into thinking that the Conservatives won there. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was a shambles at Perth, but that in no way relates to our problem at football grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the question of the possible siting of a petrochemical complex near Nairn.

My right hon. Friend has received one letter objecting to the mention of a site near Nairn in a general survey commissioned by the Highland Regional Council and other bodies.

That reply suggests that the Minister is not aware that my Question has been overtaken—satisfactorily from my point of view—by events. The Highland Regional Council has now decided not to have this chemical complex near Nairn. In that event, will the Minister give his view of the siting of such a complex in the Highland area, which is totally dependent on tourism and fishing, against the united wishes of the people, the district council and the sitting Members of Parliament?

Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure, I am confused by the hon. Lady's supplementary question. She said that it had already been overtaken by events. There are no proposals for a petrochemical plant at Nairn or anywhere else. In any event, my right hon. Friend would not be involved unless a petrochemical planning application came before him.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he expects the cost of the elections to the Scottish Assembly will be.

£1,120,000 is the best available estimate.

Would the cost of the elections be any different if they were conducted on the basis of proportional representation? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the decision of another place on this matter, since it would be a more sensible and progressive decision than the decision of this House? Will he recommend to his colleagues in the Government that PR should be retained in the Scotland Bill, as it is obviously a very much fairer system than first past the post?

No, I shall not recommend my colleagues in the Government to adopt PR for the Assembly elections. I shall not comment on the decision of another place, because the House will have an opportunity to pass its own verdict on that decision when the Bill returns from another place. Obviously, the costs that we have assessed are based on the existing electoral system.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the considerable scaremongering from the Conservative Opposition about the cost of the Assembly, recent by-election experiences have underlined the very strong public support for the Government's devolution policy? Does he agree with me that it is sad for those of us who believe that a coherent and, at least, occasionally effective Opposition are good for the political system, to see the Scottish Conservative Party in total disarray, ratting on its previous devolution commitments and, finally, forfeiting any claim to represent Scottish public opinion?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. During the passage of the Bill I argued that no democrat should ever count the cost of an extension of democracy in money terms. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Conservative Opposition ratting on their policies. I remember you, Mr. Speaker, once using the phrase that someone was in danger of being labelled as the person who had broken more promises than Casanova. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is in serious danger of that.

Order. Did I say that?

In view of the reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), what consideration have the Government given to the possibility of the House of Lords sticking on this constitutional question in view of the very large majority by which it passed PR?

The best advice that can give to the hon. Gentleman and the House is to wait until the Bill comes back from another place and the House passes its verdict on what was decided in another place.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he considers the Scottish Assembly is likely to begin work.

This depends on the date of the Assembly elections.

Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to assess the damage done to the provisional programme by the unelected gentlemen in the other place? Can he give us any information about his thoughts on the matter?

We are keeping an eye on what is happening in the other place, and I think we shall have certain propositions to put to the House when we get back the amendments from the other place. But I cannot really anticipate what will happen. We are well up to the timetable, and I see no reason why the timetable for Royal Assent before the Summer Recess should not be adhered to comfortably.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that most of the unelected Members of the other place who have taken part in this matter were put there by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and that this Assembly, if it ever sits—which, praise God, it will not—will not have the benefit of any check upon its stupidities?

I do not know whether I accept what the hon. and learned Member said about the kind of opposition that the Bill has been having in another place. It has been opposed by a rather motley crew, as far as I can see.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the irrelevancy of what happens in the other place, the important question affecting the Assembly is the decision of the Scottish people in the referendum? That is what really determines the matter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for the Scottish people?

That is certainly my view, and I hope that it is the view of every hon. Member of this House—which makes it rather odd that some hon. Members, even at this late stage, seem to want to deny the Scottish people the right to take a decision on the matter.

Is not it disgraceful that another place elected by no one and encouraged by the Conservatives should be making such a dog's breakfast of the Scottish Bill? Will the Secretary of State now take the opportunity to warn the Conservative Party of the great danger of playing the "peers versus the people" game?

There would be a danger in that if that were to happen. But the Government have made their views known on the various amendments moved in the House of Lords, and we shall consider what to do about any amendments in the later stages of the Bill there. But, of course, we shall return to all these matters here in the House of Commons, when the Government will take a very robust view of what has happened in the other place.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons why we are having so much discussion in the Lords is that the Government forced this Bill through under a savage guillotine, which resulted in three-quarters of the Bill not being discussed at all? As for the timetable, will he assure us that he will not add to the uncertainty by delaying the referendum? Why cannot he give us a clear assurance that if the Bill goes through before the recess we shall have a referendum in September?

For a long time the Conservative Party maintained a hypocritical stance that it was really in favour of devolution, but it abandoned that at its conference last week. As a result, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would like us to continue discussions on these matters indefinitely. That is not the Government's view. We intend to see that the Bill is put on the statute book, and the hon. Member for Cathcart can be assured that the referendum will then take place without any unnecessary delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to transfer responsibility for social work departments currently exercised by regional authorities to relevant district authorities; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister claiming that he is unaware of the constant anomalies which crop up because of the continued division of responsibility between the regions—which are responsible for social work—and the districts—which are responsible for housing? Is not he aware of the hurt that this is doing to the care of the elderly in Scotland? Is it not time that he gave this matter more urgent attention?

I am not aware of the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman regarding the connection between the regions and the districts. My understanding is that this is working quite well. Nevertheless, the real need with regard to the elderly is not so much to reorganise local government as to reorganise society in order to return to the first principle of caring for the elderly and the young.

When will we have a decision on the responsibility for List D schools?

That matter is under active consideration at the present time.

Too long.

It may be too long, but, nevertheless, we would be accused of riding roughshod over many interests if we took an early decision. At the present time, many consultations are taking place with various bodies throughout Scotland.

Does the Minister agree that the working of the 1973 Act should not be looked at piecemeal? If any minor adjustments are necessary, would it not be better to set up a high-powered commission for this purpose and to receive the benefit of a report?

My own view is that we should not set up any more commissions to consider the reorganisation of local government. Any reorganisation that might take place is best left to the Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a general direction to the electricity boards to stop the practice of using warrant sales as a means of recovering debt, in view of the current investigation into complaints about the practice; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The action taken by the boards to recover debt is a matter for their commercial judgment. I understand that it is only on extremely rare occasions that the boards have warrant sales carried out.

If my right hon. Friend studied some of the provincial newspapers, he would find that this practice is very extensive. In view of the inhumanity of the whole affair, the public humiliation that it causes to debtors, and the fact that other Energy Departments have virtually abandoned it, will not he give the electricity boards some advice in order that this practice should cease?

In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, I am bound to put this into perspective. The boards follow the procedures for securing payment of debt set out in the code of practice, of which, I am sure, my hon. Friend is aware. Despite the debts due to the electricity boards, there was only one warrant sale in the past year.

Will the Minister encourage the boards to fit slot meters into houses where people are having trouble paying their bills? They seem extremely reluctant to do this, yet it would be one way of making people budget so that they could have their heat and food.

The boards have introduced the code of practice on disconnections, which is designed to help people in trouble with their electricity bills. They have introduced a wide range of other measures, including stamps, and so on. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the boards do look at the question of prepayment meters.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the resources available to regional councils in Scotland to keep minor roads in villages in a proper state of repair.

The provision for road maintenance in relevant expenditure for rate support grant in 1978–79 has been increased as compared with 1977–78. It is for regional and island councils to determine priorities for particular roads.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that because the work on these roads, before reorganisation of local government, was undertaken by the district councils, they seem to have been left out of the calculations of the new regional councils? Would it not be right for the Scottish Office now to consider a more satisfactory arrangement in order that the maintenance of these roads becomes obligatory rather than discretionary?

The 1973 local government reorganisation Act was designed to leave as much power and autonomy as possible with the local authorities. That was the Conservative Opposition's Act. Therefore, we, as a Government, have increased our financial contribution through the rate support grant from £72·7 million to £78·3 million at 1977 prices. We, as a central authority, have increased our money. It is for the region, within the rate support grant allocation, to determine its priorities, be they roads, villages, or otherwise.

Does the Minister accept that a great burden would be placed upon quite ordinary house owners if they had to bring roads up to the standard that the regional councils demanded before the regional councils would take them over? Would that not be a great burden on ordinary people?

The real damage to roads in the last few days—and this will apply also to the next few days—resulted from the large number of SNP Volvo and Japanese car owners rushing to Hamilton to save their deposit.

Do not this Question and Question No. 4 make the Minister think that there may be too many responsibilities and powers at regional level and too few at district level?

I cannot accept that. The SNP fought a campaign on the issue of abolishing the regions and it got a very clear answer from the people of Scotland.

Does the Minister agree that the truth of this matter is that the reduction in standards on minor roads is due to the extreme pressure placed by the Government on local authorities as a result of the total failure of all their economic policies?

I am sorry, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee I had the chance to point to the failings of the Tories' 1973 Local Government Act. We gave priority to local authorities, in the sense of allocating additional money to them. We have allocated almost £6 million for next year, which can be spent on roads. If local authorities wish to use the money for maintenance or for other purposes, or, indeed, for purposes away from roads altogether, they may do so. We have left it to discretion at regional level. Surely that was the decision of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), as the Minister who piloted the legislation through the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on revised proposals for school transport; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no such proposals in view.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the LAMSAC Report, prepared for the Department of Education and Science, places a great deal of emphasis on fare paying by children travelling to school? Does he realise that if this comes to Scotland and local authorities accept such a proposal, there will be great opposition from parents in Scotland and hon. Members in this House? If this is a matter that comes up, will my hon. Friend use his powers to ensure that local authorities are discouraged from introducing such schemes, which in some cases will result in the means-testing of parents?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I can do no more than repeat my original answer. My right hon. Friend has no such proposals in view.

Has the Minister given any consideration to the possibility of giving regional authorities more discretion in regard to the mileage rule so that, if they feel it appropriate that they should provide school buses, for whatever reason, they may do so?

Local authorities already have discretion to change the patterns from the statutory limit of two miles for schoolchildren under eight years old and three miles for those over eight years old. I quote Strathclyde as an example. It sets a standard of one mile for those under 12 years of age and two miles for those over 12. The discretion rests with the regional authorities.

With regard to the undesirability of means-testing parents to discover whether their children are eligible for school transport, why is it objectionable to means-test parents for that purpose but not objectionable if the parents want a divorce?

I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member has gone astray again. As I understand it, there is no proposal to conduct a means test for this system of helping people with transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate of home ownership in Scotland; and what is the rate of home ownership in all other countries in Western Europe.

I am arranging for the latest figures available for other European countries to be published in the Official Report. Owner-occupied housing in Scotland has been rising in recent years, from 31·7 per cent. in 1972 to 34 per cent. last year.

Is the Minister aware that Scotland has the lowest rate of owner-occupation and home ownership in Western Europe and that the electors of Hamilton will realise that the Conservative Party is the only party which can effectively redress the balance?

I do not think that any other hon. Member believes that. It does not require any comment from me.

Has the hon. Member's attention been drawn to the series of articles in The Scotsman this week about foreign purchases of Scottish land? Does he not feel that these call for some investigation? Further, does he think that this will help home ownership in Scotland in any way?

If the hon. Member had been attending to his duties, he could have put down a Question on that subject. It is not a matter with which I am dealing at the moment.

Will my hon. Friend tell us what is so wonderful about home ownership?

I need more time to think about that one. However, the Green Paper highlighted the difficulty of trying to assess who gets the better bargain—the council tenant or the owner-occupier who gets tax relief.

Give them the choice.

They have the choice. What we made abundantly clear is that both sides are assisted substantially by the Government.

Is the Minister aware that every survey that has been taken by independent outside bodies and by national newspapers has shown that the majority of young Scots people would like to own their homes? Why does the Labour Party consistently stand out against that aim?

With great respect to the hon. Member, some of these surveys have not been analysed. Nor have they even been conducted in depth. I received 406 applications to sell council houses last year, from a variety of local authorities. I approved 350 applications. The actual number sold was 59. There is no great demand from council tenants to buy their houses.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy over the next six months.

The results of the latest CBI industrial trends survey for Scotland were considerably more encouraging than those reported in January, and unemployment has fallen in recent months. As in the United Kingdom economy, I expect some recovery in activity in Scotland during the present year.

In spite of what the Minister said, may I ask him whether, despite the appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look after small businesses, anything has been done for small businesses, which are the one area which could provide more employment for Scotland, to remove the frustrations and restrictions with which they continually have to deal and which are stopping them from taking on more people?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should overlook the measures announced in the Budget, which are included in the Finance Bill which is now going through the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent meeting in Dingwall of Highlands and Islands local authorities and attended by four Members from four different parties in the House at which it was agreed to press the Secretary of State for an extension of the job creation programme which has been so beneficial in the Highlands and Islands area in terms of employment and amenities that have been missing for a long time? Will he press his colleagues to see whether it is possible to answer that request in an affirmative way?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a special dispensation, the job creation programme was carried on for a little longer in his constituency, I think uniquely in the United Kingdom. We tried to deal with the particular situation there. However, the job creation programme has been replaced by the special temporary employment programme from 1st April. That is working now with local committees, which have had funds allocated to them. I believe that it will do a better job than we got under job creation. The funds available to the new programme are considerably increased, and will increase over the next couple of years.

Is it not hypocritical for the leader of the Scottish National Party to ask for proposals that would involve additional public expenditure a week after his party savagely cut tax-raising in the Budget in the interests of a handful of the rich? Is it not even more astonishing, in view of the earlier question from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), that the SNP seems to object to capitalists in clogs but not to capitalists in kilts?

My hon. Friend has made a number of fair points. It is true that not only the SNP but others in the House have been anxious to reduce taxation but are simultaneously extremely anxious to increase public expenditure, particularly when it affects their own constituencies. I do not know one Member of the Opposition who ever comes to me and asks me to spend less money in his constituency.

If the Government's policy works as well as possible, what is the most reasonable forecast that the Secretary of State can make of unemployment a year from now?

I cannot make a forecast. The hon. Gentleman will know that it has never been the practice to make forecasts of unemployment. However, he will have seen what has happened over the past few months, which, as far as it goes, is very encouraging. There was a substantial reduction of unemployment in Scotland on the seasonally adjusted figures for last month. I hope that that progress will continue.

Was the survey to which the Secretary of State referred taken before or after the recent sharp rise in interest rates, which have fundamental consequences for jobs? Does he admit that after four years of his Administration he should feel thoroughly ashamed that a Government elected on a slogan of "Back to work with Labour" have created a higher rate of unemployment than at any time since the Second World War?

That is not true. If one compares the relative position in Scotland today with what it was when we took over at the beginning of 1974, one sees that there has been a considerable improvement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was slightly unfair to the leader of the SNP, whom I regard as a decent, harmless sort of chap? Does he agree that it is some other SNP Members with whom he should concern himself?

I do not think that there is any answer to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what criteria the recent application by the Kirkcaldy District Council for an increase in the capital allocation for house building and improvements was refused.

The allocation to Kirkcaldy provides for the district council's current commitments, with a margin for some new work. It was told, however, as were other authorities, that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider adjusting allocations in the course of the year to deal with any special difficulties.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgency of supplementary applications being dealt with expeditiously, in view of the critical tender acceptance dates which are often involved? Will he do everything possible to dispel the impression being created by some local authorities in Scotland that the Government are somehow holding up housing improvements? Will he confirm that these capital allowances cover the cost of dealing with dampness in local authority houses which causes so much friction between tenant and local authority?

As to dampness, any remedial work can attract a subsidy. That is part of the new system. I shall be drawing the attention of all local authorities to this in the near future. On the transfer of capital allocation to Kirkcaldy, as far as I am aware, we have not held up the approval of anything beyond the tender contract date. The only one outstanding is for Cardenden for £500,000 which we received only last week, and which I shall be clearing within the next few days.

Does the Minister agree that as the allocation to Kirkcaldy appears to be about £2 million less than it asked for, if this is repeated throughout other district councils in Scotland it must show that the housing situation is much worse than the Government understand it to be?

I have great respect for the hon. Member's knowledge of agriculture, but it is obvious that he does not know much about housing. The facts are contrary to what he said. The allocations throughout Scotland have been increased in real terms this year. The individual allocation for Kirkcaldy is now almost up to what it spent last year. If further schemes are submitted for approval, I see no difficulty in giving such approval.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been some local criticism of the capital allocation for house building and improvement in the Cunninghame and the Kyle and Carrick districts? Will he give an assurance that he will look sympathetically at future applications from those councils?

Some local authorities are not anxious to spend money and they are blaming it on the Government. If any local authority comes forward with a reasonable proposal in addition to what has already been given to it by allocation, we shall consider it sympathetically.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects additional facilities to be provided so that patients from Dumbarton district do not require to use Gartnavel Royal Hospital.

Facilities at the Vale of Leven Hospital, which will be opened in the current financial year, will meet part of the psychiatric needs of patients from Dumbarton district. It is not possible to predict when the remaining needs of the district will be met, as this depends on the completion of major building schemes which are still at the planning stage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how extremely frustrating it is for my constituents, who have the Gartnavel Royal Hospital on their doorstep? Instead of being able to go to that hospital for treatment, they are sent miles away. Is this part of the egalitarian policy of the Government, to make everybody unhappy if everybody cannot be happy? To what extent does the Minister accept responsibility for this state of affairs? Is it not a fact that in previous answers to me the Minister said that it was the responsibility of the health boards? I see him nodding his head. He is acting like Pontius Pilate, and is washing his hands.

Order. The Minister has had time to do more than wash his hands while the hon. Gentleman has been asking his question.

I do not accept any responsibility for this problem. It arose because of the reorganisation of the NHS carried through by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) under the last Conservative Government's administration. What has happened in the years since then is that the Argyll and Clyde Health Board and the Greater Glasgow Health Board have been unable to come to an arrangement that facilities for the patients that we are discussing should be provided in one part of the area as opposed to another. In trying to sort out the problem left to me by the hon. Member for Dumfries, I have called the health boards together to get them talking about this problem so that we can solve it. At present, only the patients are suffering, and that is in no one's interests.

Will the Minister have an early meeting with the Greater Glasgow Health Board to discuss the current level of geriatric hospital provision in the north-west of the city, and particularly the provision for psycho-geriatric cases, which seems to be on the point of collapse?

I do not accept that services are on the point of collapse. That is overstating the case. However, it is an open secret that we are concerned about the provision of geriatric facilities in the whole of the Greater Glasgow board's administrative area, and we are constantly discussing the problem with the board. My hon. Friend will know that a proposal is under consideration for a new mental hospital in the north-west of Glasgow. That development would be in band C of the building programme.

I am glad that the Minister is bringing together the Argyll and Clyde board and the Greater Glasgow board, but will he also use his influence to try to ensure that the services of specialists from Glasgow will be continued in further-flung parts of Argyll, because the only alternative is for people to have to travel to Glasgow?

What happens in a health board's area, in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has put his question, is the responsibility of the board, and it would be wrong for Ministers to become involved in the sort of detail that he has raised. No doubt the Greater Glasgow Health Board will note his comments when the report of our Question Time is read.

Will my hon. Friend ignore the impassioned plea of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) for a UDI for the Hillhead constituency, and bear in mind that the Gartnavel Royal Hospital, which is a very large general hospital in Glasgow, necessarily serves an area very much larger than the Hillhead area, and that the Dumbarton area is very near it? It cannot be more than two miles away.

It must be accepted that health services in the West of Scotland generally throw up problems that we do not have in other parts of Scotland. This is because of the size of the area and the population covered. We must consider what has been said in this Question time. I tell my hon. Friend, who is a doctor, that I do not ignore any impassioned pleas on behalf of patients. We hope that in the not-too-distant future we can sort out the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Despite a decline in landings, the overall earnings of the industry are slightly higher for the first quarter of 1978 by comparison with the same period in 1977, due to the continued rise in fish prices. The future prospects of the industry must of course depend largely on the state of the fish stocks and on the outcome of the negotiations for the revision of the common fisheries policy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the very strong rumours that changes in the CFP have already been decided in Europe and that they will not be announced for a few weeks, but that by that time it will be too late for the House to do anything practical about them? With regard to the strong recommendation of the Public Expenditure Sub-Committee, can the right hon. Gentleman say what action the Government have taken about urgently examining the question of bilateral negotiations with Norway?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are difficulties about the second point that he raised. On the first point, he is talking absolute nonsense. He must know that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there has been a secret agreement. There has been no agreement at all.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the fishing industry's earnings have been protected by the rise in prices, this cannot go on indefinitely because there will be consumer resistance, and that an early resolution of this matter is therefore essential? Will he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate and vote on the final proposals for the renegotiation of the CFP and that we shall not be committed by any Minister in Brussels?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. That is why we are so anxious to get the problem resolved. On the second point, I have no doubt that any agreement reached in Brussels will be debated and, if necessary, voted upon by the House. There has been a good deal of agreement in the House about the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry. We have had several debates already, and the robust attitude that the Government have taken up on this matter has commended itself to the House.

Will the Scottish Office be represented at the forthcoming meetings in Brussels in June? Will the Government maintain their attitude to the 50-mile limit? What is the Government's attitude towards licensing?

The right hon. Gentleman would have to define his question about licensing a little more precisely, but I certainly see a licensing system of some sort as part of a final CFP internal regime. On the first part of the question, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that when substantive discussions take place, my hon. Friend and I will be there.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that within all sections of the fishing industry in Scotland there is widespread appreciation of the work that he and the Minister of Agriculture have done in defending essential British interests in relation to the CFP? Will he say to those hon. Members, especially among the Opposition, who compound and spread totally unfounded rumours that they are acting against the interests of the fishing industry by spreading such rumours, causing dissension and a feeling that we are to be let down? Will he confirm that we are standing firm?

I agree that it is extremely malicious to spread the suggestion that there has been a secret agreement about fisheries. It is malicious in terms not only of this House but of the fishing industry as a whole.

Does the Secretary of State not think that the solution to this problem is for us to get out of the Common Market as being in the Common Market has brought no benefit to the United Kingdom?

The solution to the problem might have been not to agree to the CFP in the first place, but that was done by the hon. Gentleman's Government, though not, I am pleased to say, with his support.

If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, no agreement has been reached, can he tell us what are the main areas of difference between Great Britain and the other eight members? Does he agree that the other eight have been in agreement?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the difficulties arise over the allocation of the quotas, but particularly over the question of coastal preference and access to the waters within 50 miles of the United Kingdom coastline.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that he will have the warmest support from the Opposition if he sticks out for an agreement that is acceptable to our fishermen? Will he make sure that it includes provision for adequate monitoring, which will carry the confidence of our fishermen?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, any agreement will need to have adequate provision for monitoring or it will not be worth having.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is currently being spent on (a) research into and (b) treatment of rheumatism in Scotland; how much has been allocated to treatment in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area; and if he is satisfied with the extent of provision in that area.

My Department is currently spending about £8,000 per year and the Scottish Hospital Endowment Research Trust about £5,000 per year in support of research projects partly or wholly related to rheumatism. Expenditure is not allocated to treatment of patients suffering from specific conditions, and it is not possible to identify how much is spent on such patients. I am satisfied that Greater Glasgow Health Board is aware of the needs of patients suffering from rheumatic diseases.

The Minister will be aware that there are 60,000 sufferers from this disease in the West of Scotland. Is this not the highest ratio in any part of the country? Does he think that 41 beds in the excellent Baird Street clinic are adequate for treatment? Will he allocate part of the new resources for the NHS announced in the Budget to special provision in this area?

I shall have to check the right hon. Lady's figures, but I will accept them as being accurate. The Greater Glasgow Health board recognises the size of the problem, because it has recently endorsed the decision to appoint five consultants in each of the five districts covered by the Board's area. Once stage 1 of the Royal Infirmary redevelopment takes place, it is intended to provide beds in that hospital that have been transferred from the Baird Street clinic.

asked the Lord Advocate what are the latest figures for delays in court hearings in Scotland for sheriff and jury cases, broken down into those awaiting preparation, those being prepared, those awaiting allocation of date for trial and those ready for trial on dates which have been fixed.

I am arranging for current figures of sheriff and jury cases from the six regional offices to be published in the Official Report. These figures by themselves are not a measure of delay. Present indications are that outside Glasgow there are no significant delays in sheriff and jury cases. In Glasgow there are 17 cases awaiting preparation, in which the accused were fully committed in November 1977. There are no older cases in that category. It is estimated that all these cases will be under preparation by the end of June this year.

Does the Lord Advocate think that the trend is in the right direction? Bearing in mind the statement of cases that he has sent me, is it not a fact that 500 cases in Glasgow are awaiting preparation or being prepared, and a further 300 are awaiting trial? Is there not a case for more procurators fiscal and more accommodation? Will the Lord Advocate consider this suggestion?

The hon. Member has highlighted the problems in Glasgow. The latest figures show a slight drop in the significant figure, which is the first of those which make up the 500 cases. The two courts dealing with the backlog of cases are already making significant inroads into that backlog. I have the impression that this impact is not yet reflected in the figures.

Is the Lord Advocate considering setting up special traffic courts in Scotland?

This is a matter which has been considered and no doubt will be further considered in the light of the recommendations of the Stewart Committee, when these come forward.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that in Glasgow too many cases are put down for a sitting on the apparent logic that half of them will go away, fold up, or not proceed? Does he sympathise with witnesses, police and lay people, as well as the accused and their families, in view of the great wear and tear and inconvenience caused to them because of this fact? What are the arguments against fixed dates for sheriff and jury trials in Glasgow?

On the latter point, I have every sympathy with witnesses and others who have to be present when the case begins. On the first point that the hon. Lady made, I am sure that she will be the first to accept that she has put the matter in a very simple way, and that in fact the problem is highly complex. It cannot be dealt with properly in an off-the-cuff answer. I stress that the problems involved are very much a matter for serious consideration by my Department and the Scottish Office.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that the situation in Glasgow is still serious? Does he propose to make another early visit there to discuss the position with those involved? Is he concerned about the number of postponed trials and all the problems that that involves for witnesses, and also the problems arising out of the substantial number of changes of plea?

The hon. Member put a number of points to me. I shall pick out two of them. On the point about changes of plea, in a previous answer to the hon. Gentleman I put forward a view. It is a matter of interest that nobody has written to me since that answer suggesting that what I said on that occasion was wrong. There may be scope for further improvements along those lines.

asked the Lord Advocate what are the main advantages for persons using the new divorce procedure recently introduced in Scotland.

The new divorce procedure which came into force on 25th April 1978 allows affidavit evidence to be accepted in undefended divorce actions. The effect of this is that in the great majority of divorce cases there will be no court hearing at which parties and witnesses have to give oral evidence. Savings in time and expense will result.

I welcome the improvements in the divorce procedure in Scotland. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me why the Scots cannot have the "do-it-yourself" scheme, which, south of the border, costs less than £20 in uncontested divorce actions? Under our new procedure, due to the closed shop in the legal profession, even an uncontested divorce action in Scotland still costs about £200.

There should be savings in both time and expense under the new procedure. It remains competent in divorce proceedings for a party to conduct his own case. Whether such a party would be able to take full advantage of the new procedure I cannot say, but clearly the potentiality is there.

Despite the twice-repeated opinion of the Lord Advocate that there should be savings in time and expense under the new procedure, he must be aware that there are those who believe that the new procedure could be more expensive than the old. Has he made any examination of the way in which the new procedure is working and whether it is more expensive?

I have not specifically inquired into the detail of the working of the procedure, but there can be little doubt that a streamlined procedure that cuts out stages which are at present necessary and mandatory must give the opportunity to save time and expense.

Will the Lord Advocate acknowledge that, all too frequently, it is the children of broken marriages who suffer at the end of the day? Is he satisfied that under the new procedure the settlement for children appears to be adequate and whether the procedure itself is appropriate for ensuring that the proper settlement is obtained for the children, who are the sufferers?

Indeed, that is a matter that is specifically dealt with in the Act of Sederunt.

Will the Lord Advocate institute inquiries in the months ahead as to the possible savings in cost, given that the present undefended divorce costs in Scotland are probably nearer £250 than £200? Will he say something about constructive reform, such as moving towards divorces in the sheriff courts, for example?

On the latter point, my hon. Friend is well aware of the arguments. There are two sides to the case. Obviously, while there are advantages in having a jurisdiction of this kind in the sheriff court, from the point of view of locality and accessibility, one must bear in mind that the new concept of "breakdown" has implications for all aspects of the family. The only court which has complete jurisdiction over all aspects of family matters is the Court of Session. Having said that, I am glad to accept the suggestion that I should institute an inquiry into the expense of divorce. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the £250 figure that he mentioned, for an undefended divorce, applied before 25th April 1978.

asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the law of contempt of court in Scotland.

In my view there is room for reform in this field. The report of the Phillimore Committee has been carefully studied by the Government, and a discussion paper was issued in March 1978. Following discussion on the basis of that paper the Government will consider what further action should be taken.

Will the Lord Advocate remind the House that although we are a United Kingdom there are two systems of law in this country? Will he further remind hon. Members that if they were to defy a court order in contempt of that court in Scotland and reveal the names of witnesses under the pretence of parliamentary privilege, there would be no defence in a Scottish court?

The hon. and learned Member has put forward a view of the law with his customary learning and authority. I point out that the Phillimore Committee, set up jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, reported jointly to those two Ministers, who share responsibility on these matters.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is no surprise that there are cases of contempt of court arising from the Philistine behaviour of that august body the Writers to the Signet in dispensing with a highly important library for gain and not because it needed the space, thereby depriving Scotland and its universities of valuable books and records?

I have no doubt that the learned institutions in Scotland that wanted the books will take every opportunity of purchasing them. If an institution finds that it is not using its library it is better, by and large, that others who can use it should get the books.