asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest situation with regard to the closure of Hamilton teachers training college.

My right hon. Friend has not departed from his decision that Hamilton college of education is to be closed.

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that when the Hamilton teacher training college was constructed it was intended to serve a deprived area with the worst teacher record in the country? Will he concede that the in-service training at the college is second to none? Will he salve his conscience by voting as he did in the Scottish Grand Committee when the Labour Government were in power, namely, in favour of the retention of all the colleges? If he is not prepared to do that, will he do the honourable thing and resign?

The plan to close the Hamilton college is no criticism of the work done by the staff of the college. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that in 1973 there were peak numbers of children in our primary schools. In anticipation of that, in the early 1960s the Government built several new colleges in Scotland, including that at Hamilton. The position on the number of children has been reversed, and for that reason the Government have to take action.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Hamilton college is designed for about 750 student teachers and that at present it has only about 300? Can he say whether the figure of 300 would decline or rise if the college were kept open?

The numbers quoted by my hon. Friend are approximately correct. There is no doubt that there would be a further reduction in the number of student teachers required from Hamilton and other colleges.

Why are the colleges to be closed before the committee chaired by Sir Norman Graham to investigate the position has reported?

The committee on tertiary education is investigating the whole area of tertiary education. However, the statistics on pupil population were so clear that my right hon. Friend was obliged to take a decision now.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the work of the Hamilton college is of considerable importance in Renfrewshire and that, therefore, the proposal to close it is a matter of considerable concern to my constituents? Is he satisfied with all the figures on relative costs and so on that have been issued by the Scottish Education Department?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of the valuable work that has been done by the Hamilton college in training technical teachers and in in-service training. I assure him also that savings have to be made because of the reduction in the school population. Unfortunately, Hamilton college is one of those that have to be closed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his personal integrity and that of the Secretary of State have been seriously damaged by their attitude to the colleges of education? Does he remember that the Secretary of State even joined a picket line outside New St. Andrew's House in an effort to keep the 10 colleges in being? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has produced, no economic argument, because no figures have been produced and no education argument? Even at this late stage, may I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to abandon his silly proposal and to withdraw the document, or at least to postpone a decision for another 18 months, to give the committee on tertiary education time to report and to give us an opportunity to consider the whole subject?

On this subject, and on the question of integrity, the hon. Gentleman should be the last person to comment, bearing in mind that in 1977 he campaigned against the closure of Callendar Park but remained a member of the Government who were intent on closing it. The point is that the closure of colleges in 1977 might have been premature. Present statistics make it abundantly clear that college closures are unavoidable.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the dismantling of the 10-college system of teacher education will have on the provision of in-service training in central Scotland.

My right hon. Friend intends that in-service training will be maintained at its present level.

The House will be interested to know that this scheme is to be carried through. Many hon. Members feel that it is impossible for in-service training to be kept going at the present level when there are no regional facilities available such as would be provided by Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges. What provision will the Minister make for the regional dimension of in-service training? If he does not understand what that means, it is simply—

Order. Even I understand that.

The decision on which colleges should be closed was difficult. My right hon. Friend took that decision so that there would be the best possible distribution of colleges throughout Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must know, that, even with 10 colleges, there are many parts of Scotland today that carry out in-service training and yet are many miles from a teacher training college.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is some strength in the geographical argument of not having the colleges too concentrated? Can he indicate the consequence of the closure of Hamilton and its effect on in-service training?

The decision to close Hamilton, which is about 20 miles from Glasgow, was a difficult one. Nevertheless, it can obtain services from Jordanhill. Callendar Park can obtain services from Jordanhill and also from Moray House. As in-service training is best carried out in schools themselves and not in teacher training colleges, there is no need for in-service training to be reduced in any way.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that after the last threat to close Callendar Park that college expanded beyond mere teacher training? It is a major institution for the region as a whole. I am not a Member from that region, but it is is obvious that this is a major institution serving the region and should be retained.

I know that there was some extension of the work done outside teacher training in all the colleges, but the primary purpose of the colleges is for pre-service training and they have to be considered as such.

If the Government accept the value of in-service training, will my hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the present method of funding that in-service provision?

The funding of in-service training is through the rate support grant. Thereafter, the regional authorities are left to give it whatever priority they choose. If my hon. Friend has any complaint about the extent of in-service training in his part of Scotland, I can only advise him to take up the matter with Grampian region.

Does the Minister recall that last February he gave a firm commitment to three Members of Parliament, including myself, and to representatives of Callendar Park that he would issue a consultative document before he came to any decision about the proposed change in the structure of the college of education system in Scotland, and that firm commitment was followed by a written commitment? Did the Minister forget to publish the consultative document in August, or was he simply telling lies to us in February?

I said in February of this year that we would produce a consultative document, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am not trying to avoid that commitment. It was, however, obvious to my right hon. Friend and myself during the discussions that took place that there could be agreement in principle that colleges should be closed but that there could never be agreement about which colleges should be closed. We had to take that unpopular decision ourselves.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of high energy costs upon industry and employment in Scotland.

Scottish industries are affected by rising world energy prices and we are giving urgent consideration to the report on comparative international energy prices submitted to us recently by the Confederation of British Industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the country will be glad to hear the last part of that answer? Is he further aware that the textile industry, the paper-making industry and even the electronics industry in Scotland suffer from the fact that their competitors have the benefit of cheap energy supplied by their Governments? Will he treat this matter as urgent? Will he press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the heavy fuel oil tax, which could be an immediate step to reduce the cost of energy to industry?

The Government, too, are concerned about the problems that these industries face. We are concerned to look into the survey submitted to us by the CBI. We are paying attention particularly to the methods by which one compares energy prices in different countries. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are doing the best we can to assess these factors.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the State monopolies that are mainly involved in this exercise are taking steps to improve their productivity and to take tough decisions of the kind that their customers face in the real competitive world?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The electricity and other energy-using industries in the State sector are doing everything they can to economise on costs. They are taking new steps, following the Government's initiative, to communicate with their customers on the best means of saving on energy.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the loss of 350 jobs at Culter paper mills outside Aberdeen, which ends paper making in that area after more than 300 years? Is he aware that the paper industry is concerned about high energy costs? Will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government and reduce the ridiculous diktat that fuel prices must rise by 10 per cent. more than inflation?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the paper-making industry. He may be glad to know that I am arranging to meet representatives of that industry as soon as possible to hear the problems in more detail. We shall look at the matter carefully.

Does not the Secretary of State feel that it is both anomalous and unfair that Scotland, as a major oil producer and exporter, should suffer these disadvantages of high energy costs? Is it not appropriate that he should press the point with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that an oil fund is set up in Scotland, which would enable aid to be given to our industries in difficulty?

If Scotland wishes to make the best use of the unique advantage of North Sea oil, it would be well advised not to depart from world energy prices in using it. Otherwise, it would be used far too quickly. Scotland gets overwhelmingly the greatest benefit from oil development. The employment picture in the North-East of Scotland should have convinced even the hon. Gentleman of that.

Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the problems of the fishing and the horticulture industries, whose energy costs are a high proportion of their total costs?

Yes. The Government have been putting pressure on the Commission in regard to the horticulture industry, and it is taking action to ensure, for instance, that Dutch growers have the same prices as other Dutch industries, which in the past they have not had.

As the decision of the Government to make the Gas Corporation increase its prices against its wishes in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement has proved an abysmal failure, would it not be prudent for the Secretary of State to advise his Cabinet colleagues to withdraw the increase and thereby help the gas consumers at both industrial and domestic levels?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are taking steps to enable the price of new firm gas contracts to be held down. There is no future in pretending that gas costs less than it really does. The hon. Gentleman would do a grave disservice to our future security of gas supplies if he were to succeed in doing any such thing.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to issue guidelines on manning level reductions to local authorities.

The reductions in expenditure by local authorities which we propose must mean reductions in staffing as it accounts for 70 per cent. of spending. This has been made clear to local authorities on many occasions since we came into office, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to issue guidelines on staffing reductions in individual authorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider asking local authorities to look carefully at revenue expenditure, and perhaps draw their attention to the private sector—the farming industry in my constituency has had over 160 redundancies this year—as an example that they should follow? The authorities should perhaps look at revenue expenditure and at and large professional departments, such as architects and quantity surveyors, whose work could easily be contracted out.

My hon. Friend is correct. We have sought to impress upon local authorities that their actual increase in manpower over the last year is unacceptable in national economic circumstances. If the Scottish Office can make a substantial reduction in its manpower without affecting the quality of service to the public, local authorities can do the same.

Is the Minister aware that since local housing authorities have been forced, against their will in the majority of cases, to sell council houses, this must mean an increased legal staff to handle those applications? Will he give an undertaking that where a local authority refuses to take on this staff to conform with the Government policy of restricting manpower he will agree to its refusal to do so?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that it is not for the Government to approve or disapprove of an individual employment decision by a local authority. What we are concerned with is the overall total. The Government occasionally have to take on staff for new purposes, but overall we are reducing our manpower, in the public interest. Local authorities have failed to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which housing authorities have asked for consent to demolish housing stock since May 1975 to date; how many houses were covered by such applications; how many were refused; and if he will make a statement.

As the answer is lengthy, I shall, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report. However, I can say that since May 1975 30 local authorities have sought consent to demolish approximately 5,000 houses. Consent to demolish 656 houses has been refused, and proposals to demolish about a further 1,000 houses are currently being considered by my Department.

The bulk of the houses are in Glasgow, including my constituency. In view of the Government's declared intention to cut back on housing expenditure over the next few years, will the Minister ensure that adequate resources are available to make the necessary decisions that follow from permission to demolish in the first place?

It is essentially Glasgow district council that has made the applications. It clearly believes that it will be able to ensure a better use of its available resources if the demolition of particular houses is approved. We shall apply the normal criteria that successive Governments have applied and give Glasgow district council a decision as soon as possible.

How much of the demolition has been of substandard houses, in correcting blunders made by Labour local authorities?

The criteria under which demolition is normally required are excessive damage caused by vandalism or original faults in the construction, which make it more sensible to demolish the house than to improve it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the response by local authorities to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.

Applications by council tenants to buy their homes under the Act are being processed in almost all areas. A few authorities have, however, sought means of discouraging and obstructing their tenants in the free exercise of their lawful rights, and my right hon. Friend takes an extremely grave view of the threats by members of one authority that they may attempt to deny their tenants their rights by failing to carry out the duties which Parliament has placed upon them.

Has my hon. Friend any evidence that members of NALGO are dragging their heels on the sale of council houses? If he receives such evidence, will he remind them that they exist to serve the public, not to decide what the public should or should not do, and that many of their colleagues in local government are first in the queue to buy their local authority houses?

It is true that NALGO, particularly in Glasgow and perhaps in one other authority area, has refused to help process the applications. It is a matter for Glasgow district council, which has decided to implement the Act, to ensure that its statutory obligations are carried out. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be unacceptable and deplorable if members of a union in a particular area sought to deny the rights which Parliament has provided and which many of the union's members wish to exercise.

What help can the Government give to island authorities that are housing authorities when teachers in the outer islands quite properly ask to buy their houses, especially in view of the restrictions on new house building, which are putting island authorities in great difficulty?

The position of the island authorities, about which the right hon. Gentleman has written to me, is clear. Where a teacher occupies a house under the terms of his or her contract, clearly the house would not be required to be sold by the authority to the teacher. However, if the teacher is simply occupying a house in the same way as any other tenant or employee of the authority, he or she must be entitled to the same rights under the Act as any other person occupying an island house.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it shows 300 how out of touch and ideologically isolated so many 189 Labour councillors are in desperately trying to stop the sale of council houses when it is clear that the majority of people in council tenancies want to live in their own homes? As proof, can my hon. Friend tell the House how many applications have been received by Labour-controlled councils?

I can tell the House that, for example, in Aberdeen, which my hon. Friend helps to represent, 900 completed application forms have already been returned to the local authority. In the few weeks since the Act received Royal Assent, more than 3,000 application forms have been returned to Labour-controlled local authorities.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern throughout Scotland about the effect of compulsory sales on the housing stock of local authorities, especially at a time when the Government's expenditure cuts mean that there will be virtually no new council house building and virtually no modernisation of old council houses, leading to a negative growth in council house stock?

The "widespread concern" is restricted to members of the Labour Party, who have seen one of their ideological fixations destroyed by the Act. The tenants have demonstrated in the most obvious way possible their support for the legislation, and in a way that the Government are delighted to have seen.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will guarantee that the agreement made by the last Government on firemen's pay will be honoured in the present pay negotiations.

The Government have indicated the limit on their contribution through rate support grant for local authority pay increases generally in the coming year. It is for the national joint council to decide on firemen's pay, and I understand that it will meet again tomorrow.

That is an unacceptable reply. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made it clear in the past that they supported the existing agreement for firemen, and they should now honour their word.

All that we have done is to make clear to local authorities how much money the country can afford to allow for local authority pay increases generally. It is our duty to make that clear, and we should have been very remiss if we had not done so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we now have a situation of free collective bargaining in which the amount of money available in the private or public sector determines that which is available for pay? It is up to the negotiating body to determine how that pay is to be allocated.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. It is surely of the greatest importance that everyone in the country should realise as quickly as possible that there is not a bottomless pit of money that can be used for any purpose. It is essential to know what the country can afford when negotiating pay agreements in the public sector.

How can the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Bo with such impertinence and insult the firemen in the way that he has done today? Is he not aware that his right hon Friend who is now Home Secretary gave an unqualifed guarantee to the firemen before the election that a new Conservative Government would honour the commitment that was given? In view of the conversation that is going on, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does not take advice from the Under-Secretary on anything. Is the Secretary of State not aware of the commitment given by the Home Secretary to the firemen? This whole Question Time is an examination of one pre-election promise betrayal after another.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman tries rather too hard and spoils his case. It is true that my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking similar to that which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but that does not exonerate me from my responsibility to tell the country now what it can afford to pay for the support of local authority pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any conveniently available statistics of kidney donation in Scotland since the broadcast of the BBC "Panorama" programme on 13 October purporting to cast doubt on the criteria of death applied by British doctors when deciding whether to ask relatives for use of kidneys from a potential donor.

In the five weeks since the programme was shown, there have been eight kidney transplant operations in Scotland compared with six operations in the corresponding period last year; but it is too soon to predict the long-term effect of the programme, which falsely implied that some American patients who recovered at the eleventh hour would have been pronounced dead under the British code of practice. This was a grievously wrong and damaging misrepresentation.

Delicate though the relations between any Government and the BBC must be, would it not be proper to make representations about Mr. David Dimbleby's claim that doctors should not have the opportunity to present their case on the highly emotive and technical question of brain death, as they wish, because, according to Dimbleby, it would be a party political broadcast? Is not that outrageous?

I accept almost everything that the hon. Gentleman says. These are important issues. A leader in today's issue of The Times says:

"no serious critic has contended that it was defensible for the programme to present with dramatic prominence, in the context of the British code for recognizing brain death, four patients who had mistakenly been identified as dead in the United States, without making it clear that they could never have been so identified under the British code. It was nothing less than sharp practice to cut an interview with a British doctor in such a way that he seemed to be commenting (most lamely) on these cases when in fact he did not know that they would be mentioned".

The House will welcome the programme last night in which members of the BMA appeared and in which it was clearly shown that there was no risk to donors in offering kidneys. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will encourage the restoration of confidence in people's being kidney donors. I hope that those who tore up their cards because of that dreadful programme will put new cards in their pockets in case they can be of use to some poor person who requires a new kidney.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I believe that this is a matter of the utmost importance. May I make another brief quotation? I think that this is important—[Hon. Members: "No."] It is important. Dr. Benjamin Bradley, who is the director of the United Kingdom transplant centre in Bristol, is reported as saying:

"We think there have been about 100 operations lost as a result of the programme."

Although I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Minister for his indignant protest, is it not an indication of the impotence of this House in a matter of life and death such as this that no pressure appears capable of being brought on the BBC to put the record straight in this connection? Is it not time that in cases such as this, where, as I said previously, it is a matter of life and death, some action should be taken to convince the BBC that something must be done about implications of this kind, which are wrong?

It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the press since this disgraceful programme was transmitted, and he must be grateful to his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the matter. On this issue, the maximum pressure is coming from everyone in the country, whatever his political allegiance. I hope that it is successful and that the BBC' will put right this disgraceful wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which invitations to attend meetings to discuss unemployment in Scotland or in Ayrshire he has been able to accept.

I have accepted numerous such invitations throughout Scotland, including Ayrshire.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that, with unemployment in Scotland now running at 11·3 per cent., in Ayr at 12 per cent. and in Cumnock at 15½ per cent., everyone in Scotland thinks that his attitude is one of total complacency? It is no good his going round Scotland smiling like a Cheshire cat. It is about time that the right hon. Gentleman took some action in the Cabinet to change the policies that are causing the unemployment in Scotland.

I begin to wonder whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has given any thought to what the causes are. They are the long-term weakening of competitiveness in our industry, resulting from the policies advocated by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The whole basis of the strategy which the Government are following is to make our industry more competitive so that it can take on more people again.

I agree that the present unemployment level in Scotland is unacceptable in the long term, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the unemployment level relative between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is now moving in Scotland's favour shows that Scotland is riding out the recession rather better than its neighbours, and that this is a sign of hope for the future?

I agree that unemployment is of major concern to us, whatever its level. My hon. Friend is right when he says that it appears that Scotland-is riding out this difficult time rather better than the rest of Britain, and I am very glad about that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we do not need any more meetings to discuss unemployment in Ayrshire? We need only to go home and see every factory round about us closing down to appreciate the gravity of the position. We need action by the Secretary of State. How can the right hon. Gentleman remain in the Cabinet and as the Member of Parliament for Ayr when he sees the unemployment and the closure of factories around him? How can he justify an 18·2 per cent. rate of unemployment in my area—a so-called growth area in Ayrshire—and remain Secretary of State for Scotland?

I remain there with the determination to do something about it. That is the nature of my responsibility. The first thing for me to do, in order to do something about it, is to understand why it has happened. It has happened because policies such as those advocated by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) have weakened British industry for years. That is what we have to put right.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Dick Stewart, leader of the Strathclyde regional council, on swiftly and totally rejecting the outrageous suggestion by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that Strathclyde region should give a massive £1 million handout for jobs at Stonefield to be financed by a rate surcharge, which would threaten jobs everywhere else in Strathclyde? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that suggestion was both the height of impudence and the economics of the madhouse?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Give him a job.

If I had to choose between the views of Councillor Dick Stewart and those of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I think I know which I should choose.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman!

Is it not correct that, when the Secretary of State accepted office, he said that his first priority as Secretary of State would be to maintain employment in Scotland? Since then, has not the fall guy been his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for these matters? What proposals has the Secretary of State in mind to try to change the economic picture before factory after factory closes and there is nothing left to revive in Scotland, even if his Government's policies prove successful, which is doubtful?

It is the top priority in what I have to tackle. I was not chosen to do this job to run away from it, nor would I be thanked for doing so. My job is to do my best to put matters right. The way to do that is to get British industry competitive once more so that we do not have our goods undercut by foreigners who are able to do it because they have lower rates of inflation than we have.

When will the Secretary of State accept personal responsibility for the present disgraceful unemployment figures in Scotland instead of trying to blame everyone else? Is he not aware of the widespread despair and despondency in Scottish industry, much of which is already on its knees? Why are the Government so intent on deliberately destroying jobs and, at the same time, spending thousands of millions of pounds on unemployment benefit? Is not this economic and financial madness?

I am very surprised to be lectured by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on this matter, as he sat around in the Scottish Office while unemployment doubled during his time there. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would understand, if no one else did, the main reason why unemployment was going up. As an accountant, he ought to understand that if we go on bleeding the private sector with excessive public spending more businesses will go wrong, and not fewer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inquiries from council tenants have been received by his Department about the purchase of council houses under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

At the end of last week there had been more than 3,000 inquiries direct from tenants to the Scottish Office. In addition, my Department has received requests for a further 35,000 information leaflets for issue to tenants by local authorities and other bodies, despite the fact that 162,500 leaflets were distributed to all housing authorities only eight weeks ago.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the figures show a genuine demand from council tenants for the right to own their houses? Does he not agree also that the insidious attempts being made by certain Labour councils to prevent them from doing so resemble nothing so much as the last desperate attempt of ancient feudal landlords to keep control over their vassals?

I listen to what my hon. Friend says on these subjects with careful thought. Let me make it clear, however, that the vast majority of Labour authorities should be congratulated on implementing their statutory obligations under the Act, because they are responding to the wishes of their tenants. Unfortunately, a tiny fraction are still trying to prevent these rights from being exercised, but I have not the slightest doubt that their attempts will come to a miserable end in the very near future.

Does the Minister accept that it would be better if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) were to stick to such subjects as feudal oppression, about which he knows, and not pontificate on public opinion in Scotland? Does the Minister really believe that there is widespread support for the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act among council house tenants in Scotland? If he suffers that delusion, will he accept an invitation to come to a meeting of residents' associations in the Drumchapel housing scheme, which I think I could arrange, where he will discover what people who live in council houses think of this mean and petty legislation?

If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) does not believe that tenants want to buy, he should not object to giving them the right to do so, because if he is right they will not exercise it. It is evident already that the Government's forecast of response among council tenants will be about 50 per cent. of the actual sales in the first year.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the figures that his Department is collecting of inquiries about sales of council houses must remain distorted while one of the four major cities in Scotland refuses to give council tenants the right to buy, which this House has given them? When distributing leaflets and information about Dundee district council, will my hon. Friend tell the tenants that they have a statutory right and that the refusal by their district council to grant that right will eventually cost them and the ratepayers a considerable sum of money?

My hon. Friend is correct. In the meantime, there is nothing to stop individual tenants in Dundee from sending in their applications by recorded delivery. If Dundee district council refuses to process them, apart from any action that my right hon. Friend might have to take if the council publicly defies an Act of Parliament, there is nothing to stop tenants from having their applications processed through the Lands Tribunals.

Since the Government continue to provide us with the figures relating to council house sales inquiries, will they consider spending some of their propaganda budget on telling council house tenants about the other side of the coin, namely, the additional cost that will be attracted to the council house buyer in mortgages, repairs and insurance? Will he also tell them about the difficulties of resale? If both sides of the coin are balanced, will not the Minister have a fairer indication of the enthusiasm with which his policy is being greeted by the people of Scotland?

I notice that those factors have not prevented the vast majority of Labour Members from seeking to become home owners. I do not see why council tenants should respond differently.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the sale of council houses to sitting tenants under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.

In almost all areas applications under the right-to-buy provisions of the Act are, as far as I am aware, being progressed expeditiously, A significant number of sales are already taking place under the voluntary sales provisions of the Act, as a result of applications lodged before the Act came into effect, and I hope that sales at present being processed will begin to be completed early in the New Year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware of the forecast that members of the Tribune group will shortly take over the Scottish Opposition Front Bench? If and when that happy event occurs, does my hon. Friend believe that he will be successful in provoking the new Scottish Opposition Front Bench into saying precisely how many Scottish families will be deprived of the right to buy their homes under a future Labour Government?

The more that the Opposition promote that policy, the further away is the date that on which a Labour Government will take over. In any event, the vast majority of members of the Tribune group are home owners. I am sure that they will do nothing to prevent council house tenants from claiming their rights.

The Minister seems to be more successful as a cut-price estate agent than as a Minister. Does the leaflet distributed by the Scottish Office on the sale of council houses explain that which is explained in the leaflet issued by East Lothian district council, namely, that people who purchase their council houses will be worse off?

The hon. Gentleman should be the last person to oppose home ownership. However, since he has raised the question I shall take the opportunity to point out that the leaflet published and distributed by the East Lothian district council contains a large number of utterly misleading, incorrect and false suggestions about the meaning of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act and its implications for tenants who purchase their homes. I am delighted that that publication seems to have had no effect whatsoever on the anxiety of tenants in East Lothian to purchase their homes.

Is my hon Friend aware that certain local authorities in Scotland are deliberately delaying the processing of council house sales in order to collect additional rent? Will that additional rent be repaid to the purchaser when the transaction is completed?

I am not aware of processing being delayed for that reason. Specific time scales are laid down under the Act to ensure that there is no excessive delay by any local authority in processing applications.

Does the Minister agree that if a local authority is publishing misleading information it can come nowhere near the deliberate cheating by the Government on the question of elderly persons' housing?

We debated these matters on a previous occasion. With the record of his Administration behind him, the right hon. Gentleman should be wary of accusing anybody of misrepresenting any facts or figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an announcement on the Government's attitude towards nursery education in Scotland.

It is for education authorities to decide, in the light of their needs and resources, on the level of provision of nursery education for the area.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the best form of education for pre-primary school children is that of a voluntary nature, preferably one that involves the mothers and is organised by a body such as the Scottish Pre-School Playgroups Association? Does he agree also that that is preferable to the more costly and formal education provided by local authorities? Will he encourage local authorities to support such bodies?

My hon. Friend is correct. The voluntary part-time play groups do a valuable job. The figures suggest that more Scottish children attend such voluntary groups than nursery schools.

The Under-Secretary of State referred to voluntary bodies. Will he take cognisance of the plight of the Scottish Council for Spastics? Is he aware that under his Administration it has had to sell its investment to pay the penal amount of VAT levied on it and other similar organisations?

That matter does not come within the scope of the question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear from him.

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

The fishing industry is facing formidable problems as a result of rising costs and the decline of many important fish stocks. This underlines the need for a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy, and the Government are working urgently to this end.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern amongst fishermen about the use of the 35 per cent. figure, which is the amount that they are supposed to get out of EEC waters? Does he accept that that is a somewhat phoney figure since it is not on the same basis as that for which the fishermen originally asked, which involved 45 or 65 per cent. of the fish that we contribute to EEC waters? Does he accept that the current EEC offer is worth only 26 per cent. on the normal basis of calculation? Will he continue his robust fight to increase that percentage?

I appreciate the figures that my hon. Friend has spelt out. They formed a large part of the discussions that my right hon. Friend and I had with our Community colleagues last week. We shall be examining the figures. We made it clear to the Commission that we considered them unsatisfactory. We shall do our best to achieve a deal which the fishing industry can accept.

When does the Secretary of State expect discussions in Brussels to come to an end and a decision to be taken?

We are all working towards a 31 December deadline for an agreement. There is modest hope that the current rate of progress will enable us to achieve that. It certainly is our aim.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still Government policy to adhere to the four points mentioned by the Prime Minister before the general election in relation to exclusive and preference zones?

There is no change in our basic negotiating position. We are still trying to achieve a full settlement that is acceptable to the industry, including an exclusive zone and preference in a zone beyond the exclusive zone.

If it is possible to reopen the herring fisheries next year, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure a 15 per cent. tariff on third country imports, in order to keep the market stable?

We shall certainly press that upon our colleagues. We have made it clear in negotiations that if there is to be an agreement on quotas firm arrangements must be made for when herring can be caught safely once again.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the Government's position in the negotiations? Will he confirm that he and the Government will not accept any common fisheries policy unless there is a 12-mile exclusive limit and dominant preference within the 12 to 50-mile zone outside that?

That is a general description of our objectives. There is no change in our position. We are in the middle of negotiations and I do not wish to make any statements here that will make them more difficult.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that if the CFP is not agreed by 31 December this year we shall take the necessary unilateral action to safguard the interests of our fishermen?

We have always made it clear that the interests of our fishing industry must come first. I hope that that eventuality will not arise, but if it does we shall have to consider seriously what we can do to protect our industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread fear in the fishing industry in Scotland that during the course of the year the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will sell out our vital interests? Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish fishing industry is relying on him to prevent that? We welcome the precise incorporation in the Government's motion tonight of the wording of the Opposition amendment on the share-out of fish stocks that we debated last August. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clearcut undertaking, however, that the Government will stand by not just the 12-mile exclusive limit, but a dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile band?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that there is concern throughout the industry in Scotland. I do not accept, however, that that concern is that there is a danger of my right hon. Friend or myself selling out the industry's vital interests. We are determined to secure an agreement that the industry can support, and we are keeping in the closest touch with it to ensure that it is fully apprised of the progress of the negotiations.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will consider advising police forces in Scotland on a general policy regarding action concerning persons alleged to be illegally broadcasting on open channel radios.

I do not think that there is any necessity to advise police forces on a general policy regarding action concerning people who allegedly illegally broadcast. The police are well aware that the use of 27 MHz citizens band radios is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and offences are reported to the procurators fiscal from time to time when they are detected.

Is the Solicitor-General aware of the wide variety of practices adopted throughout Scotland on prosecution on this matter, which causes great resentment among the fraternity who meet regularly on the topic? In view of the impending legalisation of citizens band radio, will the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his announcement?

There is a wide variety of practices in Scotland, but it must be understood that those who broadcast on that waveband interfere with ambulance and other essential services. That is the reason for prosecution. A Green Paper is being considered, and representations upon it must be in by November. The impartiality of prosecution is in no way prejudiced between one part of Scotland and another.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many legal radio operators suffer considerable interference from the Kirk o' Shotts transmitter, with foul language and music being transmitted with the sole aim of perpetrating airways vandalism? Will my hon. and learned Friend advise the police to consider whether there is any way in which this behaviour can be stopped? Is he aware that those who are responsible for it are not those who would seek to use citizens band radio?

I deprecate foul language in any circumstances—

Remember the picket.

I did not know that the word "picket" was foul language, but if it is I include it. If my hon. Friend is aware of specific breaches of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, I hope that he will report them to the police so that the procurator fiscal can take action.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that this problem will disappear if the Government introduce legislation to legalise the use of citizens band radio? Will he confirm that, after receiving all the representations on the Green Paper, the Government intend to introduce such legislation in this Session of Parliament?

No, I cannot give that assurance The document is directed at genuine consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his position clear. In the meantime, I hope that people will not take pirate radio into their own hands and upset those who broadcast legally.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions of travelling people have been referred to his office by the Perth police in the period August, September and October 1980.

In the months of August, September and October 1980, the procurator fiscal at Perth has referred to the Crown Office six police reports involving 31 persons in connection with unauthorised encampments by travelling people. One of these reports—involving seven persons—related to encampments on the A9 slip road leading to the bridge over the River Almond just north of Perth; three reports—involving 13 persons—related to encampments at Morningside layby, Balbeggie, on the A94; one report—involving seven persons—related to encampments at Balhomie, Cargill, on the A93 Perth to Braemar Road; and one report—involving four persons—related to an encampment on the Muir of Alyth. These reports were considered personally by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who, having regard to all the circumstances, instructed that no proceedings should be taken.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this problem is causing great concern in my constituency? May I have his assurance that these individuals, who now believe that they are above the law and are openly saying so, will be prosecuted as and when suitable alternative sites are shown to be available?

Yes. I understand that the local authority has now identified two sites which we hope will be approved shortly. Of course, anybody who commits a criminal offence will be prosecuted, but there is little purpose in moving a person from one site to another if he is merely to recommit the offence by being moved.

Will the Solicitor-General at least congratulate his hon. Friend on getting his language right this time? Is he aware that the main problem arises from the persecution that emanates from the minds and temperament of people like the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker)? Is not the right solution for the Government to commit more funds to local authorities, so that they might provide proper sites for travelling folk?

I rind that comment strange, coming as it does from one of the principal paranoiacs in the House. The hon. Gentleman, however, will remember that the local authority gets a 100 per cent. grant. It is not possible, therefore, to provide more money. No doubt the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), like all good members of the Labour Party, is anxious to spend more than 100 per cent. of other people's money.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)? I am not aware of having used unparliamentary language at any time.

The hon. Gentleman should raise the point of order after Question Time.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he intends next to meet the dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh.

I have no plans to meet the dean of the Faculty of Advocates in the meantime.

That is a startling answer, in view of the great welcome that the Faculty of Advocates has given to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 which the Government have put on the statute book, especially in respect of the amendment made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on proscriptions and limitation? Can he tell the Faculty of Advocates and the House when that important measure will be getting a commencement order?

The order will be brought in to give effect to the measure on 22 December 1980, which happens to be my eldest daughter's birthday.

Will the Solicitor-General make a report to the dean about the disgraceful behaviour of one of the members—a very unlearned member—of the faculty who recently made a disgraceful exhibition of himself in this House by making a mad rush and abrasively attacking a peaceful picket line of Members of Parliament who were trying to defend council house tenants against a savage attack by the "Mace bearer" of the Tory Party?

I certainly believe that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who knows more about madness and rushing than anybody, should continue elsewhere his career as a merchant of discourtesy.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases of violence or hooliganism arising out of or associated with games of football have been reported to his Department or to procurators fiscal since August of this year.

There is no separate record kept in fiscals' offices of offences which arise out of or are associated with games of football, and it is not possible within the short period available to give a totally accurate answer for the whole of Scotland. Approximately, there have been 500 cases reported since August as a result of incidents at or near football matches. The majority of these reports concern breaches of the peace and assaults.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the current procedure of charging in such offences? Has he, along with his noble and learned Friend, considered the possibility of using the charge of mobbing and rioting for the sort of behaviour that we saw at the end of the previous football season?

I think that the whole House takes extremely seriously the appalling distress that arises from football hooliganism. I sincerely trust and believe that the new Criminal Justice Act will have a considerable effect upon the sale of alcohol at football grounds. We all want there to be reasonable behaviour at football matches.

I question the hon. and learned Gentleman on a much more constructive matter than that raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), namely, whether it is still the practice of his office that all these offences are prosecuted in the sheriff courts and none in the district courts.

On balance, yes, as we take a serious view of these matters. From time to time much more serious offences arise, which may be prosecuted in the High Court. People should understand that any misbehaviour associated with a public gathering such as a football match will be viewed in the most serious light.