asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average domestic rate payment per householder in the current financial year; and what were the comparable amounts five and 10 years previously.

I estimate that the average domestic rate payment per householder in Scotland in 1978–79 will be about £119, excluding domestic water rate, which is a decrease of £9 compared with about £128 last year. The comparable figures for 1973–74 and 1968–69 were £65 and £41 respectively.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that rates have now become an intolerable burden for many families, particularly in areas hard hit by revaluation which have not had the advantage of the overall reduction to which he referred? Since the Government have now had the Layfield Report for a considerable time, can he say whether there are any plans to review the rating system?

We have already said that there are certain aspects of the rating system which we shall continue to examine, but we have no plans to replace or modify it in a significant way. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the reduction in domestic rates in the current year. If he is worried, as no doubt he is, about the burden of rates on householders, I am sure he will welcome the reduction.

Does the Secretary of State agree that his figures show huge discrepancies in the rate burden in Scotland? Certainly in my constituency there has been a steep increase in rates. When the Government examine the Layfield Report, will they look at alternative methods of raising local government finance, as suggested in that report?

That subject has been gone over in a detailed fashion in recent years. The Layfield Committee came to the conclusion that the rating system should continue. I am aware that in different parts of Scotland revaluation has had varying consequences, including the consequences experienced in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, domestic ratepayers overall are paying less this year than they paid last year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain business men in Troon have stated that the Strathclyde assessor has acted illegally in using capital values instead of rental values in determining the valuation of properties in Troon? In view of that fact, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his previous decision not to hold a public inquiry into the rate position in areas such as Cunninghame, and especially in the town of Troon?

I do not see the need for a public inquiry. I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions previously—that those who are dissatisfied with their valuations should appeal. There is a statutory appeal procedure, and that is the way to go about the matter. I hope that those who are dissatisfied will use the procedure.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will make sick reading to the people of Argyll, whose rates have increased hugely, partly as a consequence of the current revaluation? Does he appreciate that his answer is akin to the posture adopted by Nero who fiddled while Rome burned?

The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has a Question on this subject later on the Order Paper, namely, Question No. 19. We should wait until then and save time.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to discuss unemployment with the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

I attended the STUC conference in April, but I have no arrangements at present for a further meeting with the genearl council.

Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that unemployment in Scotland has risen by over 100,000 since October 1974 and that in the last month it has gone up by 530 a day? Is he blind to the fact that this is basically because of the Government's mishandling of the economy? Welcome though temporary employment schemes are, does he not agree that they are not a long-term cure?

I have said on numerous occasions that unemployment is too high. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the current year in Scotland the seasonally adjusted figures have fallen considerably. Although last month's figure showed some stabilisation, I hope that we shall achieve further improvements.

In view of the present totally unsatisfactory level of unemployment in Scotland, has the Secretary of State made any estimate of what would be the additional unemployment if the 51 per cent. take-over powers of the Scottish Development Agency were removed, as promised by the Conservative Party? Will he take it from me that in the Borders the non-availability of these powers would have had a very serious effect in four towns?

I am glad to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, because the SDA is involved with companies in Scotland which are employing thousands of people, many of whom would not be in employment but for the activities of the SDA. Anyone who seeks to damage the powers of the SDA, as does the Con- servative Party, is doing a grave disservice to the people of Scotland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Party looks increasingly absurd by seeking to blame the Government for unemployment in Scotland and elsewhere? Is it not obvious that this unemployment is due entirely to the international crisis and that the electors of Hamilton and Garscadden have given a definite answer to the Opposition in the last few months?

I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly on his latter point. I do not believe that anyone in Scotland thinks that the Conservative Party or the SNP has an answer to the unemployment problem.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the scandalous unemployment figures in Scotland would be greatly reduced if the Government told the British Steel Corporation that it must not cut back its production targets at Ravenscraig from 3·2 million tons to 2·2 million tons, as is currently proposed?

The investment at Ravenscraig will take the present capacity of 1·5 million tons up to 3·2 million tons. The hon. Gentleman is careful to avoid mentioning that fact and is guilty of indulging in the most tendentious and misleading propaganda in Scotland on the whole steel industry. Only parliamentary convention prevents my saying what I really think about the hon. Gentleman and his statements on the steel industry.

Is not the most appalling feature of the present situation the Government's complacency in the face of unemployment figures of the current magnitude? Has the Secretary of State forgotten everything he ever learned in the Socialist movement about the destructive and corrosive effects of 100 per cent. unemployment on each individual personality? Is it not the case that, aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), the objective of the Government is not to produce full employment but to get the people of Scotland to accept the present unacceptable levels?

I repudiate that. It is the Government's aim to get the level of unemployment in Scotland significantly reduced. I am not in the least bit complacent about unemployment.

Has not the Secretary of State got a nerve to answer as he has on unemployment when his Government were elected on a manifesto which stated that we could not tolerate the high levels of unemployment from which Scotland has suffered in the last 20 years? Does he agree that unemployment has more than doubled since he took office and that he has sat in the Cabinet and agreed to policies, such as the increased national insurance contributions, that will further increase unemployment in Scotland?

It is the hon. Gentleman who has a nerve considering that he voted against the plans for Chrysler, which employs 8,000 workers at Linwood, and the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, without which we would have lost between 10,000 and 20,000 jobs in Scotland. He and his party have voted against virtually every action taken by the Government to reduce unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of present legislation on land reform.

The Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 and the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974 have operated well.

Has the Minister been following the articles in The Scotsman about the purchase of Scottish land by other interests, particularly Dutch interests? Do the Government, in general, favour this or disagree with it?

I have been following with great interest the articles in The Scotsman, not only those written by journalists on the paper but the contributions made to the discussion by various members of the SNP. I noticed that the SNP has claimed that Scotland is the only country in Europe which allows what they describe as the indiscriminate purchase of land and that a nationality qualification should be attached to the ability to purchase land. In fact, there is only one country in Europe with a nationality qualification for the purchase of land. That is Southern Ireland, which is reconsidering its position.

On the question of ownership of land, would it not be helpful if we distinguished between land that belongs to the people and land that belongs to those who are prepared to exploit the people? If we look at it in this light, is there any difference between exploitation by a Dutchman and exploitation by the wealthy landowners, Scottish-born and with strong Scottish traditions and names? Is not the solution, particularly in regard to these large estates in the Highlands, a policy of public ownership and proper land reclamation?

In the not-too-distant future—I am not sure of the date—the Highlands and Islands Development Board will be publishing its views on what should happen to land in the North and North-East of Scotland. I agree that exploitation by anyone, whether, as my hon. Friend has said, he wears a kilt or clogs, is exploitation of people, and it always surprises me that the SNP is prepared to defend those who wear the kilt and attack those who wear clogs.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures to show the volume of traffic on the A92 Dundee to Arbroath road; what was the date of this survey; and when he intends to institute a more up-to-date traffic survey on the road.

A total of 7,475 vehicles per day in May of this year, of which 13 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles. A further count will be taken in August.

Is the Minister aware that local surveys have shown that his wrongheaded policy of detrunking the Dundee to Arbroath road will create massive problems for local road users and will mean that while the Government are grabbing the oil revenues, they are forcing their financial commitments on to the shoulders of local government? Can he now give a positive starting date for the Forfar by-pass, on the inland route which he prefers?

That is not a fair description of the position. The hon. Gentleman must know that a public inquiry was held last year, when the reporter recommended that the inland route should be the trunk route and that the coastal route should be detrunked, though it will remain a trunk route until 1st April 1979. That is a fair compromise.

Leaving aside the trunk route choice considerations, may I point out that the oil industry, particularly in Montrose, is generating an enormous amount of traffic on this route, which led the reporter to describe the situation in Montrose as intolerable? Can the Minister give an assurance that in relation to developments on the coastal route, money will be available from oil-related funds to help meet the traffic problem that is being created by oil?

Expenditure on roads in Scotland in 1976–77 was £192 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum. As for the position of Montrose, the hon. Gentleman has met my noble Friend who deals with this matter on a day-to-day basis, and a letter was sent to the local authorities concerned on 30th March indicating that consideration would be given to oil-related expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any representations regarding the operation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act by the district councils in Scotland.

A number of local authorities have made representations about the working of the Act, but there is no evidence to suggest, given the sensitivity of the problems that can arise, that the Act is giving rise to undue difficulty.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there appear to be wide discrepancies in the operation of the Act between several district authorities? Is he further aware that a number of my hon. Friends and I have received phone calls late on Saturday evenings from people who allege that they are walking the streets in our constituencies? Will he therefore consider providing national publicity to indicate the categories of home- less people who are not covered by the Act?

I shall consider that, but I am not sure that this is a matter that should be dealt with by national publicity. I have already sent a circular of guidance to local authorities and we shall consider further guidance. The Act has been in operation for only about three months and one would expect a certain number of teething problems. I hope that the operation of the Act will settle down. I should also make the further simple point that before the Act came into operation there was widespread concern about the previous position. We did not move from a perfect position to an imperfect one—rather the opposite.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of district councils are now interpreting the Act as allowing them to say that tenants who have been evicted for rent arrears have, in effect, made themselves homeless and should not benefit from the provisions of the Act? Does he believe that to be a correct interpretation of the Act?

I do not like to give legal interpretations on the Floor of the House, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer, will probably appreciate. There are a number of difficulties about certain categories of homelessness. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) and the hon. Gentle, man have said, I shall consider the matter to ascertain whether we need to issue more guidance to local authorities.

I accept the overriding priority of housing the homeless, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are genuine anxieties that certain areas may be used as reception areas or, as those in such areas might more crudely put it, dumping grounds, for families with considerable social problems? Will he give strict instructions to local authorities that the burden must be fairly shared and that there can be no question of areas that are already victimised or disadvantaged by having difficult-to-let housing stock having the problems aggravated by the operation of the Act?

Some of these problems predated the Act. The sort of problem to which my hon. Friend is referring has been with us for some time. The social work department cannot contract out of its responsibilities. It no longer has the direct housing responsibility that it once had, but any Act of Parliament of this nature can operate successfully only if there is the closest co-ordination between the housing and social work departments. Emphasis has been placed upon that factor in the circular that we have issued.

To what extent is the problem of homelessness in Scotland due to the fact that under the Government house building has slumped to the lowest level since 1962?

That is a silly comment for the hon. Gentleman to make in this context.

It is true.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money from all Government sources has been spent on Cromarty Petroleum's Nigg refinery project; and whether, in view of the fact that less than 70 per cent. of United Kingdom refinery capacity is being used, he will reconsider any plans, whereby the Nigg petrochemical project can attract Government grant.

No public money has so far been spent on his project.

That is all right.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commercial confidentiality has prevented any statement being made by the company, or by those likely to be associated with it in future ventures, on the Nigg Bay project? Will he confirm that there will be no discrimination against any company that wishes to make massive capital investment in Easter Ross in the national interest, so that we may properly proceed with the development of the area? Finally, will he pay scant attention to the comments of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who seems somewhat confused by his triple role—that of European parliamentarian, United Kingdom parliamentarian and a mouthpiece for British Petroleum at Grangemouth?

It has already been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself that we consider this to be a growth area within Scotland. Until such time as we have had applications from the company for regional development grants, which are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, or for selective financial assistance, which is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, it would not be proper for me to anticipate any such applications.

Is it not appropriate for the Minister in general terms to indicate what positive proposals he has for building up the petrochemical industry in Scotland, bearing in mind that there is a smaller proportion of employees in the industry in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Ministers in the Department of Energy and in the Scottish Office have already made it clear that we see the project as an important development within Scotland. The studies that have already been made, which are now being examined by the Government, are an indication of the attitude that we are adopting to the work of the petrochemical industry.

Now that I am the mouthpiece for BP, may I confess that I am rather in favour of nationalised industries, as opposed to the Daniel K. Ludwig organisation of the United States?

Confession is over.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the water off popular beaches in Scotland is polluted; and if he will make a statement.

The extent to which popular bathing waters in Scotland are polluted is limited. Where conditions are not as good as they should be, improvement is being pursued by the relevant river purification board and sewerage authority.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his Department is seeking to obtain exemption from EEC directives to create cleaner beaches? Surely a country such as Scotland which depends so much on tourism should be leading the way instead of dragging its feet. Will the Minister care to come on a fact-finding mission with me and engage in a bathing party to see and to feel the degree of pollution that now exists?

First, it is not true that we are seeking to avoid the consequences of any directives. It would be necessary to decide whether a directive applies to any Scottish beaches and, if so, what improvements are required under it. As for the hon. Gentleman's kindly invitation, I assure him that I am well aware of what is happening off the Ayrshire coast. I should point out that the Strathclyde Regional Council is now engaged on a major sewerage scheme costing well over £50 million, which will be beneficial to Ayrshire beaches.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his Department is closely monitoring the insidious pollution that is taking place on both shores of the Forth? What is his Department prepared to do to stop oil constantly being spilt at Hunters Point?

My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Trade, is conscious of the problems and we have teams that are working closely with the local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that sufficient steps are being taken to increase the production of mussels in Scottish waters.

I am aware of the difficulties affecting production from Scottish waters but I believe there is scope for development of the market and improved returns to producers. This is primarily a matter for the shellfish industry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has in finding clean beaches in Ayrshire, the majority of the waters of Scotland are exceptionally clean and suitable for shellfish cultivation? Is he satisfied that we do not need legislation to protect the rights of those who rear mussels artificially?

Yes, reasonably satisfied. I do not say that the position is completely free from doubt. However, I do not think that that is a major factor. The problem is that the prices fetched for mussels in the market are extremely low. I am not aware that I can do anything about that at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in converting the Royal High School in Edinburgh for the proposed Scottish Assembly.

Progress is satisfactory. The second stage of the work described in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) on 10th March 1978 is about to be put in hand.

On present plans, what is the earliest date on which the building could be ready for sittings of the Scottish Assembly?

We are aiming for the spring of 1979.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the oval shape of the chamber is to be retained following the conversion work? If so, does he confirm that it is entirely suitable for a multiparty Assembly? Will he take account of what another place has done to the devolution Bill and ensure that the electoral system matches the shape of the new chamber?

The chamber is being retained in its present form. It will be suitable for all sorts of representation but I would not care to predict whether it will be multi-party.

If there is not a Labour majority, with which party does the Labour Party go into collision, the Tories or the SNP?

That is not likely to arise. Of course there will be a Labour majority.

As a considerable sum of public money is involved, have the Government given any consideration to what use might be made of the building in the event of Scotland's rejecting the Assembly plan?

No, we have not given any consideration to that, because we do not think that it will arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the likely period after the proposed referendum on the Scotland Bill before he will transfer his powers to the new Scottish Executive in the event of an affirmative vote in the referendum.

Elections to the Scottish Assembly will first have to be held. Thereafter, once the Scottish Executive is in being, the period to elapse until the transfer of full responsibilities will be for discussion with the Executive.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that if, as we now expect, there is a General Election in the autumn, there will be no possibility of the referendum taking place until some time next year? In those circumstances, will he indicate the earliest date at which the Assembly could begin functioning?

I do not think that I should speculate on these matters, not every one of which is within my control. After the elections for the Assembly have been held, we envisage the take-over being quite a short period. I mean a period of a few months. I cannot be absolutely firm on that because we would have to discuss the arrangements with the Scottish Executive.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the House of Lords is still up to its dirty work of mutilating the Scotland Bill? Does he realise that this House could take advantage of the changes in the referendum proposals which the House of Lords is making by suggesting that in the course of the campaign there should be some restriction over the amount of English money which is brought from London and elsewhere to be put to work in Scotland against the Assembly?

I am paying close attention to what is happening to the Bill in the other place. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is still taking an interest in it, especially as, last week, he voted to kill the Bill.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that there was a tandem period— a running-in period—of about a year for the new regional councils? As the resettlement which will be required when the Assembly comes into being will be considerably more complicated, does he accept that something of that order will be necessary?

No. I have looked into this matter very carefully. I think that we can do it in less than a year. That may seem odd, given the local government experience, but I have to wait to talk to the Executive about it. I think that we can do it in considerably less than a year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Edinburgh it is considered that the Scottish Office is now planning the referendum for April next year? How does that fit in with his plans for March?

I do not know who is considering it. I am not.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the treatment of rheumatic diseases in Scotland; and what action he intends to take in the light of the recently published report "Arthritis and Rheumatism, Everybody's Problem".

My right hon. Friend has received no general representations recently. The report is being studied by my Department.

As the report indicates that the absence rate from work is 20 per cent. higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom as a result of these debilitating diseases and that 4 million working days are lost each year, do the Government see any way of increasing the grants made available for research into the causes and cure of rheumatism and arthritis? Will the Minister particularly consider the future of the Baird Street Clinic, in Glasgow, which has an international reputation in this area?

It is well known that the eventual plan is to transfer the beds from the Baird Street Clinic to the new Royal Infirmary when that building is completed. Obviously that will be to everyone's advantage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland are now on the Y list of thalidomide victims.

Seven young people resident in Scotland are at present on the Y list.

As the number of persons on the list is so small, as this is a once-for-all matter, and as the Distillers Company makes profits, what action is the Minister taking to help towards a generous settlement without any more needless legal and medical nit-picking?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman really understands the problem here. It is a matter between the parents of the young people and those who represent them and the Distillers Company Limited. It is a legal matter. The Government have little or no part to play in it. Those who were on the Y list have not yet had their cases decided by the court. Those are cases in which there is some dispute. There is no point in the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) nodding his head, because I strongly suspect that he does not know anything about the problem either.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will conduct an investigation into the use of drugs in Scottish football and other sports.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Sports Council and other interested bodies with a view to introducing safeguards to eliminate any use of artificial stimulants in Scottish football and other sports.

Responsibility for controlling the use of drugs in sport lies with the governing bodies of sport, including the Scottish Football Association, acting in accordance with the rules of the appropriate international sports federation. The Scottish Sports Council will continue to advise governing bodies on drug testing procedures, and I am sure that the governing bodies are fully aware of the importance of measures to detect and prevent the use of drugs.

As the recent incident involving the use of drugs in Argentina brought Scottish football into even more disrepute than the team's pathetic performance on the field, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now up to the Scottish Football Association and other appropriate authorities in Scotland to try to rescue Scotland's good name by insisting on the highest standards, including strict regulations and, if necessary, the use of spot checks to enforce those regulations?

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. Indeed, FIFA—the international organisation for football—has asked the Football Association and the SFA to conduct inquiries into drug taking in football. I hope that governing bodies will take firm action and ensure that persons caught taking drugs are dealt with severely. It is important not only for the good name of Scotland but in terms of setting an example to the many young people who idolise football stars.

Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes brave words are spoken by the football authorities but action is remarkably sparse thereafter? Will he check in the near future to ensure that action is being taken and that Scotland's football house has been put in order? Will he also bear in mind that the Scottish Highland Games circuit, for example, manages checks on drug taking? Surely it is not beyond the resources of the Scottish Football Association to clear its name and to establish proper controls very quickly.

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that testing will take place in the near future for the good name of football and all other sports. Through the working party on football crowd behaviour and other experiments aimed at helping young people, I have had the fullest support from the SPA and the football clubs. I have no reason to think otherwise than that they will give full support to this proposal.

Does the Minister agree that if the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) took a perpetual sleeping draught none of us would want that to be objected to?

No. The loss of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would make the House a very dull place indeed.

Will the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour that stimulants were used by the journalists and tranquillisers by the players?

I think that there is a great deal of stimulus here today. The only good thing that came out of the whole exercise was that my right hon. Friend went to see Scotland play Holland. I think that his magnetic influence on the players brought about the good result. We are all sorry that he did not go to the first two games.

Is the Minister aware that I agree with his responsible attitude to this matter? Over and above that, does he agree that we should ensure that the reputation of Scotland's sportsmen and sportswomen is absolutely free from any hint of drug taking in future? Will he bring to the notice of the Scottish Sports Council and the governing bodies in sport the recent work published by Canada subsequent to the Olympic Games, covering this matter in great detail, and the work now under preparation by the Sports Council in London?

I certainly undertake to do that. The British Sports Council, which has supported research into detection methods, recently announced the spending of £75,000 over three years to help deal with this matter. Action is being taken, but I realise that there is some urgency about it to get back the good name of football.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the employment restrictions placed on students leaving colleges under the special temporary employment programme, if he will relax the provisions of circular 819 in order to create more teaching appointments; and if he will make a statement.

Provision has already been made in the rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 for the employment of more teachers than are required to meet the staffing standards recommended in circular 819 and the Red Book. Additional posts have also been made available under the schemes for the creation of extra teaching posts in urban areas of deprivation and for the secondment of teachers in special schools to take further training.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that competent education opinion in Scotland has publicly stated that were the curbs on staffing levels in schools to be removed it would lead to considerable employment opportunities? Has he noticed that, among a number of suggestions which have been made, a reduction in the size of composite classes to 25 and a general reduction in primary classes from 33 to 30 per class would result in many students being employed in the profession for which they have been educated and trained?

The figures quoted by my hon. Friend might be a little misleading. For example, in September 1977 the pupil-teacher ratio in the primary sector was 22·4. Therefore, the figures are comparatively favourable. We are already providing for something above that standard. I am not sure that I can go any further at the moment. I am very much aware of the problem that we shall have this year with the output from the colleges, as I anticipated that we would. I have been getting the intake figures reduced to eliminate this problem as soon as possible.

When he is studying the implications of the special temporary employment programme for youngsters leaving Scottish colleges of education, will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to applications from local authorities for the establishment of nursery classes in schools where classrooms have been closed? Teachers may then be employed to establish these nursery classes, to meet the high demand, particularly in the West of Scotland, for preschool facilities.

I am not aware that my Department is holding back nursery class provision. I shall certainly check on that. The fact is that the authorities, for reasons of their own—financial stringency and the rest—have not been enthusiastic about expanding this sector of education as rapidly as some people would like, but if one compares the situation with what it was three or four years ago one sees that there has been a substantial expansion. As school accommodation not otherwise needed becomes available, the opportunities for further expansion will arise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the widening of tasks for which teachers can be recruited is welcome, but that there is scope for going a great deal further in this direction? The in-service training of teachers could be extended to special schools and secondary education generally. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a very serious need for the extension of remedial education?

With special schools one runs into the factor of securing basic qualifications. There has been a tremendous expansion of in-service training in secondary education generally over the last few years. My proposals for the colleges of education assume a continuing growth in in-service training. We are therefore already providing a tremendous amount of such training.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the difference between the rate increase in the Lothian Region of 16·8 per cent. and the decrease in Strathclyde of 0·1 per cent. is attributable to the varying levels of rate support grant awarded to each authority.

Rate poundages are determined by each local authority in the light of its expenditure proposals as well as grant entitlement and other factors. The effects of grant variations on rate levels cannot be isolated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the level of rate support grant for the Lothian Regional Council has decreased by at least 1 per cent. this year while that for the Strathclyde Regional Council has increased by at least 1 per cent.? Is he aware that if this trend continues it will be virtually impossible for the Lothian Regional Council to build the outer city bypass with maximum speed and efficiency? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this project is supported by every political party on the regional council?

I do not think that I can accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He is referring to the results of revaluation. It is well known that Lothian's increase in rateable value was greater than the Scottish average, whereas in Strathclyde it was less than the Scottish average. That inevitably works its way through the resources element of rate support grant. The basis of these calculations is agreed with COSLA.

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

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement to the House later this week on the Council of Ministers' meeting which he and I attended in Luxembourg yesterday and which is still in progress.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that hon. Members from all parts of the House strongly support the fight which his right hon. Friend is making on behalf of justice for the British fishing industry? Does he also realise that it would be far more welcome to the House and the industry as a whole to have no agreement now rather than a bad agreement now, and that if no agreement is reached we look forward to the Minister coming to the House and announcing a comprehensive package of non-discriminatory conservation measures to apply in British waters as soon as possible?

No agreement was reached yesterday about the internal regime. I was present at the meeting. Today's agenda relates to a number of important detailed matters, including conservation. We must wait to see what comes out of today's meeting, but we have already said that in the absence of Community conservation measures we feel free and intend to introduce further national conservation measures.

Is the Minister aware that the whole House will congratulate the Government on the stand they are taking on fishing? Will he confirm that they have no intention of recognising the so-called agreement which was said to have been made in Berlin in our absence?

There is no question of our recognising that so-called agreement. It is impossible to have an agreement without our participation, and informal understandings are not recognised by us.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish fishermen's leaders—namely, Gilbert Buchan and Willie Hay—last night said how much they apreciate the work done by my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Is he further aware that they believe—this view is widely shared, and I share it myself—that we may have to go further than nondiscriminatory unilateral measures if we are to save certain parts of the Scottish fishing fleet, especially that engaged in herring fishing?

I know the views of the industry on conservaion because I met the two gentlemen mentioned and many others in Luxembourg yesterday. As I have said, we must await the outcome of today's meeting, where these matters are specifically under discussion. We have stated, however, that we have the right, which we intend to exercise, to introduce national conservation measures if we consider that to be necessary. Of course, there are a number of areas where we consider them necessary.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there are now considerable shoals of herring to be found off the East Coast? As he imposes a ban on West Coast herring fishing, will he allow a gradual lifting of the ban on East Coast herring fishing so that the factories round the Scottish coast may have some supplies to keep their doors open?

I do not think I can promise that because the scientific evidence, which is accepted by the industry, confirms that we should continue with the North Sea ban at least until the end of this year. It would be foolish to attempt to negotiate minor quotas for different parts of Scotland. For example, the Shetlanders have asked me for that. Such quotas would be the thin end of a very large wedge and would be detrimental to Scottish fishermen.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that off the West Coast the haddock quota of 9,000 tons is nearly exhausted and that there is therefore liable to be a diversion of effort to the North Sea for the rest of the year? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government have in mind measures to cope with that increased concentration of effort in the North Sea?

We are already talking to the industry about that problem. There was a meeting last week. Something will have to be done if we are not to fish out the year's quota long before the end of the year. Both sides recognise the problem, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, solutions are not very easy.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the worst service we could do to the fishing industry would be to repeat the performance of the Conservative Government which negotiated entry—that is, to pretend that any national fishing agreement reached now would provide a long-term safeguard for the industry? Is it not the case that, although we can employ national discrimination now, in 1982 the superiority of the Community legislation will be the overriding factor?

Unless, as I hope, we are able to negotiate something better, by 1982 the rest of the Community will literally be able to fish up to our beaches without national restrictions. That was the mistake of the Conservative Government, but I have no intention of compounding that mistake by agreeing to an internal regime settlement which is unsatisfactory for the United Kingdom generally and for Scotland in particular.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that if the suggested ban on West Coast herring fishing is eventually imposed he will use his influence to secure exemption for the one or two vessels that confine themselves to drift-net fishing?

I shall certainly look at that problem, which arose last year as well. There were difficulties even then about getting these very limited exceptions to the rule. I do not want to say any more at this moment because the discussions are literally going on today, and I should like to know what has happened at them. However, we have an interest in excluding, for example, the Clyde fishery, which is a significant local fishery, from any ban on the West Coast. We have been talking about that in Luxembourg today. I should like to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said when we see what happens today.

Is it not rather silly of the Secretary of State, in his last reply, to destroy the unanimity in the House about the importance of arriving at a satisfactory agreement, particularly bearing in mind that if he wishes to talk about the regional negotiations there are many people who wonder why on earth a Labour Government failed apparently even to attempt to resolve the matter in the alleged renegotiation in Dublin? Does the Secretary of State agree that the important thing is to arrive at a satisfactory permanent solution? As long as the Government go along these lines, they will get full backing from the House.

Again, these are matters which are literally being discussed today. I would expect, however, that if there is no more substantive agreement there will at least be some kind of roll-over arrangement. But I honestly cannot answer that particular point today. On the first point, we are grateful for the Opposition's support of the Government's efforts. I do not know whether it arises from a guilty conscience, but we are grateful for their support.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been made of the advantages to the Scottish tourist industry of a roll-on/roll- off ferry connection with the Continent of Europe.

The contribution of a direct ferry connection between Scotland and Northern Europe to the development of tourism is not in question. The Scottish Tourist Board is assessing the market for such a service with a view to persuading possible operators of its potential viability.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I find that answer reasonably assuring, but will he also note that the nearest access point to Scotland for seagoing passenger traffic is Newcastle, and that that traffic has built up in recent years? Will he consider the possibility of helping to steer that access to Dundee, because it would be a tremendous boost to the port and city of Dundee if he were able to do so?

I should be very glad, and so would the Scottish Tourist Board, to see a regular ferry service between Scotland and a port in Northern Europe, but the Government do not have power to steer that. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman and others who are interested in this aspect of affairs that the Scottish Tourist Board has been making considerable efforts to persuade the ferry companies involved to consider ports in Scotland and, indeed, to ask major liner companies also to consider ports in Scotland, and that will continue.

Does the Minister agree that such a roll-on/roll-off ferry would be of great assistance to local industry and could help to create jobs in an area of very high unemployment?

I am conscious of the problems of Dundee, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that there are other ports in Scotland which would have a claim, and I am sure he would agree that they should all be considered.

asked the Lord Advocate why he has offered the hon. Member for West Lothian a sight of the Crown Agent's report on the case of ex-Sergeant William Jamieson of Bo'ness Police, conditional on confidentiality; whether he will allow the report to be seen by Sergeant Jamieson, Sergeant Jamieson's lawyers, and the lawyers of the Police Federation; and whether he is satisfied that a Crown Agent's conditional inquiry is a satisfactory method of dealing with the circumstances of such a case.

The Crown Agent's report proceeded upon the statements of witnesses given in confidence. Accordingly, the report must remain confidential and it would not be appropriate to show it to any interested party. However, it seemed to me to be reasonable that my hon. Friend should have an opportunity to see in confidence the results of an inquiry affecting persons most of whom are his constituents.

May I acknowledge the hard work that the Lord Advocate has given to the Jamieson case and, indeed, to so many other cases, and take the opportunity to regret his decision not to seek re-election in Leith? Does he recognise that his offer puts a non-lawyer Member of Parliament into a dilemma? Should I be satisfied, having seen it, though my qualifications to pass such judgment are somewhat limited? Should I not be satisfied, I can do nothing without shattering confidence and breaching faith. Frankly, does this not once again emphasise the urgent need to look closely at the whole stated case procedure in such instances?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that you may see me at the Dispatch Box for more than another year yet.

asked the Lord Advocate whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire on 17th May, he is now able to make a statement about his investigation into the South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Ltd., Glasgow.

The South African Immigration Organisation (Pty) Ltd. has intimated to the Department of Employment that it ceased to carry on business in the United Kingdom on 31st May 1978.

Is it not a bit of a coincidence that this illegal racialist organisation should suddenly do a moonlight flit after I raised on the Floor of the House of Commons the possibility of prosecution? If at some future date sufficient evidence crops up, will my right hon. and learned Friend prosecute the organisation for breaking the law with the same efficiency as the South African authorities would prosecute it if it broke the law in its own rotten country?

It would be wrong for me to comment on the earlier part of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, I can tell him that the Department of Employment had not made available to me facts upon which a prosecution could be brought before this organisation intimated its cessation of business. If facts are presented to me showing that an offence has been committed, I shall examine them with a view to prosecution.

We in the House know that we should not take seriously the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it would be right to say that on the basis of information available to him no prosecution was in fact taken?

It is certainly the case that no prosecution was taken in this case.

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

I am grateful for the interest that the Lord Advocate is taking in the position of the Glasgow Sheriff Court, but dues he agree that one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the present difficult situation is the housing of witnesses for both defence and prosecution in one room, particularly in cases involving violence'? Will he be prepared to look at this point? I appreciate the steps that he is taking to improve the position for the longer term, but will he look at matters such as this in the short term?

I am happy to respond to that. The hon. Member has raised an important issue. I have endeavoured to see that witnesses for the Crown and for the defence are accommodated in separate rooms, particularly since the hon. Gentleman raised the point on a previous occasion.

When the Lord Advocate visits Glasgow Sheriff Court, will he ask for the views of those there on the success of the policies advocated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in Saudi Arabia?

I shall certainly put that question. I doubt whether I shall get an answer.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what efforts are being made to cut down the backlog of cases at the sheriff court? One of the great disadvantages of the present overcrowding in the sheriff court is the ever-increasing backlog of cases. What success is my right hon. and learned Friend having in cutting that down?

On the last occasion I was able to tell the House that the setting up of two additional courts for sheriff and jury cases had started to make some impact. I can now tell the House that at the end of last month the backlog of sheriff and jury cases in Glasgow—that is, cases awaiting preparation—amounted to 248. This compares with 275 cases at the end of the previous month. That is a modest improvement, but none the less it is an improvement—of about 10 per cent.—and I think that it is significant.

When the Lord Advocate visits Glasgow Sheriff Court, will he also visit the proposed site of the new sheriff court, and then consider whether it is really wise to move the sheriff court to the south side of the river when most of the legal offices are on the north side?

I shall certainly be glad to visit the site of the new sheriff court. However, the shortage of accommodation has been such an acute difficulty for the administration of justice that I think that any chopping and changing on merely geographical grounds would really be quite inappropriate.

When the Lord Adovcate next visits Glasgow Sheriff Court, knowing the sensitivity that exists between the Glasgow Bar Association and the profession in Edinburgh, will he take the opportunity to correct the statement in The Scotsman newspaper announcing his regretted resignation, or his intention not to stand again, and saying that there were no vacancies at present on the Court of Session bench? Will he say that there is one of his own creation, and that when the General Election comes he will not recommend to the Secretary of State, or accept a recommendation from the Secretary of State, that he should fill it?

I think that I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, but he has chosen a very long way to put it. I am not sure that I can answer him.

asked the Lord Advocate what arrangements he is making for the employment of more persons to take precognitions in order to assist the procurator-fiscal service.

The Civil Service Department has approved the appointment of 13 additional legal staff and seven additional precognition officers.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that nothing is more depressing for procurators-fiscal in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland than to be overloaded with paperwork when they have to appear all day in court? Will he do everything within his power to make certain that they have the necessary back-up to support, so that they can perform their tasks with maximum efficiency and speed?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of back-up support. The increase of 20 in the staff, which has been authorised by the Civil Service Department, includes deputy fiscals as well as precognition officers. I am happy to say that of the total of 20, six will be allocated to Glasgow.