asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received urging further provision to mark the International Year of Disabled People.

I have received letters from four hon. Members about the access sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and a few letters from individuals making specific suggestions as regards possible activities during the Year.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate last month's statement by his callous boss, the Prime Minister, to the effect that the disabled ought to do more to help themselves instead of relying on the Tory Government? Instead of clobbering the disabled by, for example, reducing the real value of invalidity benefit, industrial injury benefit and sickness benefit and increasing prescription charges fivefold, will the Minister give us an assurance that he will give increased resources to the health boards and to the local authorities to maintain and improve services for the disabled, including the home help service and specialist housing needs, which are under threat as a result of the reactionary policies of this Government?

I shall not refer to bosses. I have other adjectives than "callous" for the hon. Member's boss.

That is not even the Prime Minister's salary.

We are in touch with all the local authorities, and the total commitment in this area is £4·7 million.

Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) the splendid example of Grampian regional council, which has managed to keep its domestic rates increase at 11·4 per cent, but has still managed to increase the amount of money given to the disabled and handicapped? Would it not be a good idea if the hon. Member's council behaved in the same way?

It does.

My hon. Friend is right. When we meet—and when the last Administration met—representatives of the disabled, those representatives always ask that party politics be kept out of these matters.

The Minister said that there was a commitment of £4·7 million in this International Year of Disabled People. Of that £4·7 million, he said that only £25,000 was coming from the Government. Surely that means that the balance will come from local authorities. Does the Minister approve of what the Lothian region is spending on the disabled? Does he understand that we fully support the expenditure of that region? Will he take this opportunity to praise the Lothian region for its record in this area?

The less said about expenditure by Lothian region the better, but if I were responsible for spending money in that region, not only would I reduce it but I would spend it in different areas.

Since the Minister wishes to keep party politics out of the problems of the disabled, will he note that the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) about the problems of the disabled would include Scotland? If that is so, will he assure us here and now that the Scottish Office will give that Bill full backing?

I cannot say this afternoon what our position is on that Bill, which I read yesterday. It was not the Minister but the bodies that look after the disabled that asked for party politics to be kept out of this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public inquiries authorised by him were held in Scotland during 1980 to examine alleged malpractices by local authorities.

None, Sir.

Public inquiries always take place in special circumstances, but is not the time overdue for the Secretary of State to look into the well-known case of Mr. Walter Gunkel, a constituent of mine who suffered badly at the hands of Edinburgh district council? Is he not aware that the council is challenging in the courts the findings of the independent arbiter, although that arbiter was agreed to by the council as well as by Mr. Gunkel? Is that not a disgrace? Surely a public inquiry is justified and the general public are entitled to know what has been going on, because at the end of the day they will surely foot the bill for the events in this part of the country under this district council, which, of course, as we knew—

Order. I have been very fair to the hon. Member but it will stop other hon. Members being called if long questions are asked.

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He should appreciate that the Secretary of State's power to call for an inquiry arises only if a local authority fails to carry out its statutory duty. As yet, we have no evidence that that would apply in this case, but I understand that Edinburgh district council is actively considering what response it should make to the arbiter. We hope that this matter will be satisfactorily resolved.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there should be a public inquiry into the decision last night by the Labour group on Lothian regional council to make a rates increase of 50 per cent? Does he not agree that that can only lead to thousands of job losses in the region?

If that information is correct, it certainly represents an intolerable increase for the people of the Lothian region. I understand that there is a deep division on that recommendation within the Labour group in the region and I hope that more moderate counsel will prevail. However, I must warn the Lothian region that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to consider that a rates increase of that size suggested an excessive and unreasonable budget, it would inevitably result in the region losing a significant amount of rate support grant. Those concerned should bear that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pay beds currently exist in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland; and what he intends to do about this facility in the future.

There are 94 pay beds in Scotland. My right hon. Friend will consider any applications by health boards for his approval for changes in existing authorisations or for new authorisations for pay beds.

Would not the Minister consider it unreasonable if there were even one pay bed in Scotland in National Health Service facilities when we have ever-growing queues for the use of life-saving equipment and for life-saving operations? Will he consider issuing a statement to the House condemning the use of NHS facilities—beds and equipment—by specialists and consultants when they could be dealing with the queue of people in the NHS more rapidly by using those facilities to help them?

The answer to the last question is "No, Sir". On the hon. Member's claim that one pay bed is too many, this Government believe that, once people have paid their taxes, rents and rates, if they wish to spend their money on their own health, they are entitled so to do.

Will the Minister take note of the widespread reporting in the press of the incident in the area of Fife health board last year when a Mr. Spence misused facilities—the facts are not in dispute—because he was under the misapprehension that a private patient was involved? Will he take immediate steps to allay fears that this practice might have been widespread in Fife and the surrounding area? Will he meet me and my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) as soon as possible to discuss the matter?

Yes. I have had a letter from those three hon. Members asking me to meet them to discuss this incident in Fife and I intend so to do. The General Medical Council is investigating the case. However, before hon. Members get too heated, I should like to draw their attention to the letter in The Scotsman today from the honorary secretary of the Fife BMA, which begins:

"I protest in the strongest terms at the reported remarks of Fife Members concerning the medical profession. Would they not feel ill-treated were Parliament to be so abused?"

Order. It is unreasonable to read letters in answer to questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest numbers and percentage rates of unemployed (a) adults and (b) young people in the Parkhead area of Glasgow.

On 15 January 8,614 people were registered as unemployed in the Parkhead employment office area and the unemployment percentage rate in the Glasgow travel-to-work area, which includes Parkhead, was 14·2 per cent. On 9 October 1980, the latest date for which an analysis by age is available, 8,315 people were registered as unemployed, of whom 1,544 were aged under 18. Percentage unemployment rates are not calculated for individual employment office areas which form part of a travel-to-work area, or for particular age groups.

Is the Minister aware that there are only two vacancies in the Parkhead careers office for those 1,544 unemployed youngsters and that his unbelievable complacency is a recipe for disaster unless he does something now as a matter of urgency? Will he consider making special provision for tackling the problems of youth unemployment in the east end of Glasgow?

There is no complacency on these Benches. We have made special provision through the youth opportunities programme and the GEAR project in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the Scottish Development Agency has built and let over 70 factories in GEAR and that another 44 are in this year's programme. In addition, 500 new jobs are being created at Clyde Workshops Ltd. and it is hoped to double the number before the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had on the siting of the Scottish Exhibition Centre; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has not yet received a detailed proposal from the Scottish Development Agency, but when considering it he will take into account all relevant factors, including alternative sites and public expenditure implications.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling in the city of Edinburgh that the choice of a site near the city would bring much needed business not only to the city but to the region? Will he use all his influence to make sure that it is decided to site the centre as near Edinburgh as possible?

A number of hon. Members have made representations to my right hon. Friend about the siting of the exhibition centre and he will take them all into account before reaching a decision.

Bearing in mind the limits of public expenditure, will the Government also consider extending the Royal Highland Show ground rather than putting money into a completely new site?

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been some lobbying on that project, quite fairly. In considering the expenditure implications to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, my right hon. Friend will also take into account the possibility of attracting private funding.

Although the House will not be against exhibition centres, what will be left to exhibit, other than our nakedness, once this Government have finished their hatcheting?

I do not share the hon. Member's gloomy view of Scottish industry. He must know that, while there is unemployment in Scotland, new jobs have been created just in the last few weeks at a number of prominent Scottish businesses, including some in the West of Scotland.

Before my hon. Friend gives in to the grandiose pretensions of some local authorities, which seem to wish to saddle their ratepayers with an expensive white elephant, will he take into account the views of users of exhibition centres, who have said, among other things, that they would probably prefer to see the Kelvin Hall expanded and improved rather than a new venture undertaken?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In engaging consultants to survey the prospects for an exhibition centre, the Scottish Development Agency has taken that fact into account.

If the Minister does not share the gloomy prospect for Scottish industry, is he really not aware of his own record in closing down industry after industry in Scotland, of doubling unemployment in the short period of 18 months, and of the fact that there are fewer job vacancies for school leavers in the Parkhead area of Glasgow and in every other area of Glasgow? What is there to be cheerful about with that kind of record?

The question relates to Government support for an exhibition centre in order to try to improve the prospects of Scottish industries, and that is typical of the view we take of the prospects for Scottish industry, rather than the gloomy view of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on further progress regarding his intention to close Hamilton college of education.

I very much hope that discussions will begin soon about arrangements for implementing our decisions.

Does the Minister realise how disappointed hon. Members in all parts of the House will be with his wholly predictable answer? Does he also realise that if he continues with his intention to close Hamilton college of education in June of this year, proceeding willy-nilly with this newly declared intention—disrupting severely, as it will, the studies of many young people in the college, and the livelihood of many staff there—it will be nothing less than a disgraceful act of wanton educational vandalism?

I dispute the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him on one important thing, and that is that the future of the students in mid-term and the future of the staff must be a prime consideration. With that in mind, I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his best offices to speak to the college authorities and encourage them to begin discussions. It is now almost mid-February, and it was on 6 August that my right hon. Friend announced his intention. In the interests of students and staff, surely the college should now begin to discuss their future.

I welcome my hon. Friend's appeal. Will he reinforce it and underline the great need for the college people, despite their unwillingness to accept the decision, to talk to the Government about the move, in the interests of the students? Will he start those talks, whether the other side wishes to have them or not? It is not only the students who want to know what will happen to them after June. In addition, students from other colleges in West Central Scotland who are in residence at Hamilton wish to know what their position will be after the closure of Hamilton college of education.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the people who are most concerned are the students. It is now high time that discussions began, to look after the interests of the students at the college and, as my hon. Friend has said, of the other students from other colleges and universities in Glasgow who use the residential accommodation at Hamilton.

Is the Minister aware that his handling of the whole affair has been such that in the Hamilton area and in the Hamilton college of education nobody now trusts him, and that that is why people will not speak to him and will not discuss things with him?

There is no possible foundation for that remark. I can understand the disappointment of the authorities and others at Hamilton that their college has to be closed, but if anyone in this House should understand the reasons for that closure it is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton.)

Will the Minister concede that the problems which have arisen since 5 August have been largely of his creation? There was the unhelpful statement which he made to the students prior to his Radio Clyde broadcast, when he said that it would be better if they had fewer teachers anyway. Will he concede that the betrayal of the teachers and the staff of the colleges has soured the atmosphere completely? If he is to close the colleges, will he undertake the responsibility for padlocking the gates himself, as the responsibility lies on his head and not on the officials of the colleges?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are totally unhelpful to the students and staff at Hamilton. The hon. Gentleman has some responsibility, as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, to try to use his influence in the best interests of the students and in encouraging them to look after their own interests by asking the college authorities to discuss these matters with Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, following the publication of the Stodart report, if he is now prepared to look again at local government reorganisation with a view to introducing a one-tier system.

My right hon. Friend and I believe that the further unheaval, countervailing disadvantages, and the uncertain costs of further radical reorganisation would not be justified by any possible benefits.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be received with disappointment by the ratepayers of Ayrshire, including the Secretary of State's own supporters in Ayr and Prestwick, who remember his many pledges and promises before and during the last election to the effect that the Tories, if elected, would reorganise local government and break up such gigantic regions as Strathclyde? When will the right hon. Gentleman carry out his election promises and bring local democracy back into local government?

If the hon. Gentleman will do himself a favour by consulting our election manifesto, he will see that there was no commitment to a further reorganisation of local government. There was a commitment to improve the existing system of local government, and we are at the moment considering the very constructive proposals of the Stodart committee, which are designed to suggest various ways in which the existing system could be significantly improved.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Stodart committee accepted the contention that Moray district could go it alone on the basis of most-purpose status? Will the Minister therefore undertake to have a fresh look at that proposal?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall look with interest at all the reccomendations made by the Stodart committee. No decisions have yet been reached, but as soon as they are my right hon. Friend will announce them to the House.

Is the Minister aware of the unsatisfactory road conditions and the frustration caused through the operation of the social work services in Scotland due to the wrong division of functions between the districts and the regional authorities? Will he agree that the minuscule report of the Stodart committee will in no way alter the position? Will he therefore consider the appointment of a further Royal Commission to examine in depth the need for the reorganisation of local government in Scotland.

The Stodart committee was able to look into the question whether a transfer of certain responsibilities from region to district or vice versa would be appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, its main recommendations dealt with those functions for which there was a joint responsibility upon district and region. These are areas which the Stodart committee has recommended could be most sensibly rationalised.

Is it not surprising that the Undersecretary should slam the door so firmly in the face of any discussion of a one-tier system in Scotland? As he talked about countervailing disadvantages, would he care to set out a financial discussion paper showing what the supposed advantages would be?

It goes without saying that if, after such a short period since the regional and district councils have been established, there were to be a further reorganisation, that would inevitably involve very substantial cost and effort for what would be, at best, hypothetical advantages. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree with that assessment. My right hon. Friend has asked for comments on the Stodart committee's findings by the end of March, and would be very happy to look at any specific arguments or recommendations that the right hon. Gentleman might like to put.

Will my hon. Friend give particular attention to the recommendations of the Stodart committee affecting tourism? Does he agree that any move to encourage tourists away from the South-East of England and up to Scotland is to be encouraged? May we look forward to Government encouragement to this important industry in Scotland?

I agree with my hon. Friend's observation that anything that can be done further to attract tourism to Scotland is highly desirable. We shall give the particular matter that was referred to in the report of the Stodart committee the same consideration as is given to the other matters, and we shall let the House know our views in due course.

Will the Minister accept that one oral question is hardly an adequate opportunity to discuss these complicated issues? Will he guarantee that there will be a debate, or will he at least use his influence to ensure that there will be a debate upon the future structure of local government and on the Stodart committee recommendations in the very near future? Is he aware that the manifest discomfort with which his initial answer was received on the Conservative Back Benches illustrates the need for such discussion?

I am certain that at some time it will be appropriate to have a discussion and a debate on these matters. Whether it should be done before or after my right hon. Friend has indicated the Government's response is a matter that can be considered. I am sure that the usual steps can be taken by the Opposition if they wish to ventilate the suggestion concerning a debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any amendments to the rating system in Scotland.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill includes several proposals by the Government for amendments to the Scottish valuation and rating code.

Is it not part of Tory policy to abolish the rating system? Is it not extraordinary that after two and a half years of Tory Government no major suggestions have been made about helping local government finance, which is in the most intolerable muddle?

The Conservative Party indicated that for the longer term it believed that the abolition of the rating system was desirable, but that in this Parliament the emphasis must be on reducing direct taxation. That was made clear in our election manifesto. An internal review of the rating system is at present taking place, and we hope that it will lead to substantial changes and improvements but that is a matter that I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await.

Before considering any changes, will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the greatest deterrents to inward investment in Scotland is the level of rates? Does he agree that the projected level of rates over recent months has been enough to deter anyone from coming to Scotland?

My hon. Friend is correct. An unjustifiably high level of rates will not only be unpopular with ratepayers but, perhaps even more important in the present climate, will undoubtedly destroy hundreds if not thousands of jobs.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain by what authority he has set himself up as a non-elected third tier of local government in Scotland by reserving unto himself personally the power to fix rates and to engage in crucial local decision-making under the miscellaneous provisions Bill?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I neither have nor will have any such power. Nor will my right hon. Friend have any such power to prevent a local authority from fixing its rate level. However, it is justifiable that the Government should be able to indicate how much financial support they give to a local authority. That is the basis of the provisions in the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and for that we need make no apology.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's review covers the whole of the rating system? Is he aware that there is widespread concern that the Government might abolish domestic rates while leaving, or perhaps even increasing, the burden on industry and commerce?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the review to which I have referred includes the issue of industrial rating.

Will the Minister accept that there is a great deal of anxiety in Scotland about high rates? Will he acknowledge that responsibility for high rates lies with an inadequate rate support grant settlement given by him and his colleagues to local government? Will he bear in mind that if there is to be any fundamental change in the rating review, it will be necessary to make an early announcement, after the enactment of the miscellaneous provisions Bill, about the next quinquennium? When will we hear definitely whether that it is going ahead, whether it is being postponed or whether it is being varied?

The hon. Gentleman must await an announcement, which will be made as soon as possible. He has come up with a nonsensical suggestion about the rate support grant settlement. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that only yesterday the Grampian regional council was able to indicate that its rates increase next year would be limited to 11·4 per cent., which is substantially below the present level of inflation. If a local authority such as the Grampian regional council can do that, there is no excuse for any other responsible local authority having a rates increase that is substantially greater.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to section 1(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, he will seek to prevent further pollution of Scottish rivers and of the River Girvan in particular.

I am satisfied that river purification authorities take all the measures open to them to prevent pollution of Scottish rivers. On the specific question of the River Girvan, I am fully aware of the situation and am being kept in touch with developments. A solution to this problem is still being sought.

Is the Minister not aware of the anger in Ayrshire because the Secretary of State has not only refused to take any action over the issue of the River Girvan but has also refused to meet a deputation of local people? In the light of the High Court's decision yesterday and in the light of his statutory responsibility, will the Minister agree to an early meeting with the National Coal Board to discuss action to deal with the poison in the River Girvan?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that my right hon. Friend's statutory responsibilities are confined to the promotion of river purification boards and other matters of that sort. He has no specific anti-pollution powers. These are the responsbilities of the regional council. I am aware of the decision yesterday of the High Court, which upheld an appeal by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advoate against the National Coal Board. I hope that the board will be taking into account the judgment that has been made against it and will be considering its own responsibilities in the light of that judgment.

Will my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend recognise the considerable co-operation that has been given by agriculture in Scotland towards preventing pollution of rivers, especially when one bears in mind the considerable cost to the private individuals concerned?

Yes, I am happy to acknowledge that agriculture has made that contribution. It is much appreciated.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) to the ranks of the hunting, shooting and fishing brigade? Does my hon. Friend realise that salmon, which represents an important economic factor in the countryside of Scotland as well as bringing pleasure to many in Scotland, is under considerable pressure both in British waters and abroad? Will he take every possible step to ensure that when it comes into our rivers it is not killed by pollution?

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) is known for his sympathy with the interests to which my hon. Friend refers. I acknowledge the force of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on plans for provision of extra maternity beds in Glasgow following the reduction in the number of beds which will be available at the Royal maternity hospital when necessary renovation work is carried out.

The provision of maternity beds in Glasgow is a matter for the Greater Glasgow health board.

Is the Minister aware that, due to the fact that there is no starting or completion date for the proposed Royal infirmary, over £1 million of public money will have to be spent on the present inadequate facilities at Rotten Row?

I am aware of that position. The Greater Glasgow health board has not been in touch with my Department to say that there are not sufficient maternity beds available in the board's area. The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. Although phase 2 of the building of the Glasgow Royal infirmary is mooted, there are no plans for when it will be started. The hon. Gentleman knows that and so does the Glasgow health board.

Is the Minister aware that he is being hypocritical about the whole project? Is he aware that on 3 February the Scottish Development Agency estimated unemployment as being about 26 per cent.? Will he not put his money where his mouth is and give the go-ahead to phase 2 and the new maternity block of the Royal infirmary, thereby creating many much needed jobs as well as a much needed facility?

The GEAR project cannot be considered along with the plans of the health board of Greater Glasgow area or those of any other area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in Scotland.

On 15 January 1981 seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 252,300 or 11·2 per cent. The problem of unemployment will be solved by keeping to our objectives of controlling inflation and restoring industrial competitiveness. At the same time we are greatly expanding the help available under the special employment programmes.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he prepared to come to my constituency, in which the only area of expansion is the employment exchange, and speak to the unemployed in my constituency and tell them that the Government's work is successful? Is he prepared to do that, or will he have the guts to resign?

I have no objection to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency, meeting his constituents and explaining to them, if he does not, the real reason for the high level of unemployment in Britain.

There is widespread concern about unemployment in Scotland. The fact is that industrial help is particularly loaded in favour of Scotland generally. Will my hon. Friend take particular note of the dissentient view in the Stodart report, which would leave with district councils the duty and reponsibility of dealing with industrial matters?

There is one thing of which I am aware in dealing with my present responsibilities and that is that there are too many who are in on the act of industrial development in Scotland.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since he became a Minister there has been a catalogue of catastrophe all along the line? Does he realise that there is a factory in my constituency that will close in June? In addition, there is the Talbot catastrophe. Does he not think that it is a travesty of justice and a downright disgrace that the Secretary of State is not present to answer these questions from the Dispatch Box?

I do not think that Scottish fishermen would agree with the hon. Gentleman's last comment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in Brussels today defending the interests of Scottish fishermen, and he is doing that to the very best of his ability. The hon. Gentleman's complaints about unemployment in his area are well understood on this side of the House, but he should also know that the Government have given hundreds of millions of pounds to the British Steel Corporation and to British Leyland and are planning a gas pipeline into Scotland from the North Sea. There are 1,400 new jobs at Torness, and in recent weeks private enterprise in Scotland has been able to achieve a great number of orders against competition from overseas. Therefore, there is also good news with regard to Scottish business, and not just the appalling gloom suggested by the Opposition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is grossly misleading to paint a picture of unrelieved industrial gloom when exports are running at £1 billion per day and when more new companies are starting up than ever before? Certainly far more new companies are starting than there companies are closing down.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Anyone looking at the Scottish industrial scene today, while deploring the unemployment in traditional industries, must be encouraged by the new investment that is taking place in oil-related activities and electronics.

Does the Minister realise how ridiculously complacent are his answers today, given that we have the worst unemployment figures since the 1930s and we have had the calamitous announcement today about the closure of Linwood, which is another betrayal of the West of Scotland? Does he not realise that there is now an air of desperation in Scottish industry and that only a wholesale reversal of Government policies can hold out any hope at all for the people of Scotland who are desperately anxious and worried about the lack of effective action by the Government in relation to Scottish industry?

The only desperation that I note is on the Opposition Benches. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of worry and concern in Scotland, I find that the reasons for this, and the fact that the whole of the Western world is in recession, are better understood and accepted among the people of Scotland than by the Opposition.

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

The Government recognise that the industry continues to face considerable difficulties. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend on 5 February, we have brought forward the review of the industry's economic position which was due when the present aid scheme ends in March.

Does my hon. Friend accept that all reasonable people fully understand the importance of my right hon. Friend being in Brussels today to fight for Scottish and British fishermen? Does he further accept that all sides of the House will fully support the strong line that my right hon. Friends are taking in rejecting out of hand the French proposals and the Commission's so-called compromise proposals? Can he say how long the current talks are likely to continue?

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing to the attention of the House what reasonable people feel on this matter. At the present moment the Council of Fisheries Ministers is still in session. The Ministers will be going out to meet their own delegations, the council will meet again later this afternoon, and there will possibly be a statement tomorrow. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friends are fighting extremely hard on behalf of the British fishing industry.

Have the Government received any information from the Dutch Government in response to the inquiries that we understand they are making there about the allegations that the Dutch are dumping fish in this country, contrary to Common Market regulations?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am, of course, an expert on the subject of fishing. These negotiations are still continuing, but until we settle the CFP the only quotas are those being applied voluntarily by each country. There is, therefore, no action that the Government can take in this respect at this moment.

Will the Minister take note that the reports coming out of Brussels so far are in no way reassuring about the nature of the settlement that the Government may be contemplating? Is he aware that the Opposition expect the Government to keep to the pledges that they have repeatedly made in the House and that, if they do not, any agreement reached will be completely unsatisfactory and, I believe, will be rejected not only by the fishing industry but by the House?

I do not think that there is any evidence at all to suggest that the feelings coming out of Brussels at the moment are not reassuring. The right hon. Gentleman knows the position as well as any of us. He knows the political difficulty that we have with the French Government and their elections, but I assure him that the Government will not sell Britain's fishermen down the river—if I may put it in that way.

I am sure that the Minister, who is answering for my right hon. Friend today, will be aware that the real problem in the fishing industry, which has arisen in Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my constituency, concerns the import of certain fish as against the prices that are being obtained on the quay. Will he take active steps to ensure that the only fish imported is that which is required for the processing factories and ensure that any other white fish imports are banned completely?

I accept what my hon. Friend says, up to a point. Investigations are taking place on this matter at this moment. With due respect, however, I do not think that the correct response is for our fishermen not to go out and fish.

Is the Minister aware that there is great anger and concern in the fishing industry over the reported remarks of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the effect that he was seeking to minimise the demands of the French within the 12-mile limit? Is he aware that if that was conceded in any way, apart from the other aspects of the settlement, it would be regarded by the fishermen—and their view would be shared by me—as sheer treachery?

Some of those views would be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it would be wrong to anticipate negotiations that are going on at the moment and about which my right hon. Friends will probably be speaking to the House tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware of the enormity of the disaster facing the Scottish inshore fishing industry? Will he make it clear to his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if the talks break down we shall expect, not just a statement outlining the talks, but a plan of national measures to save our own industry?

I am surprised that the hon. Member should make such a statement. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that as an earnest of the Government's intent towards the fishing industry in the present financial year we have given £17 million to the industry, over half of which went to Scotland.

Despite some of the comments made by Opposition Members, I am sure that the whole House will wish my right hon. Friends success in the present talks in Brussels. Will my hon. Friend ensure that if, by chance, the talks break down, unilateral conservation measures will be undertaken to make certain that there are fish stocks to be fished in the future?

Again, it is not for me to anticipate the decisions of my right hon. Friends in Brussels. May I say, however, that we are very fortunate, particularly in Scotland, in having two such competent Ministers arguing Britain's case. As regards the question of a breakdown in the talks, may I say that there will either be a breakdown or a satisfactory solution for Britain.

The Minister seems to be implying that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not competent, but perhaps we should not go into that. Will he comment on the allegations that fish which has been officially withdrawn from the market in the Netherlands is appearing on the market in the United Kingdom at throw-away prices? How does he propose to stop such illegal trade?

As I have said, and as the hon. Member knows full well, the whole position is currently being investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make special provisions for the economic regeneration of the city of Dundee.

We have already done so. Dundee receives the highest priority in terms of its special development area status, and the Scottish Development Agency is concentrating substantial resources there under its £6 million development scheme.

The Minister says that he has made special provision for Dundee. However, will he kindly explain to the citizens of Dundee why the Government's economic regeneration has led to 14,000 people being unemployed and an increase of 1 per cent, in unemployment in one month? Does he not accept that the Government's present arrangements for regional development are not working in the city and that something more is needed to break the cycle of decline that is now taking place? It is his responsibility to do something. When will he act?

Every possible action is taking place with regard to Dundee. But, clearly, Dundee cannot be isolated from the economic situation which exists throughout the rest of Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. The main recipe for the success of employment and other measures in Dundee is the revival of the British economy, which our policies are aimed at bringing about.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what increase there has been in the number of High Court sittings in Edinburgh in the last 12 months.

In 1979, the High Court sat at Edinburgh on 19 occasions for the purpose of hearing criminal trials and on 25 occasions as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The corresponding figures for 1980 were 22 and 29 respectively, but the court days in 1979 were only 74 and in 1980 were 108.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that that is a quite unacceptable increase in the number of days spent in the criminal courts in Scotland? On the Edinburgh side, is that not something of a failure to indicate how serious the problem is? Is he aware that if one looks at the figures for the Glasgow High Court one will see that the increase in the number of trials and days spent in court have been significantly greater?

Yes, I agree. No one is more anxious than I am to demonstrate how serious the criminal situation is. In Glasgow, the number of court days in 1979 was 269, and it went up in 1980 to 338. There is a large increase in the incidence of crime and it is something that we are determined to master. I hope that as a result of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act we shall succeed.

I congratulate the Solicitor-General on answering the question which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) meant to ask but did not ask. Is it not strange that the crime figures are rising so fast under a Conservative Government, who stood on such a blatant and shameless law and order platform? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look not just at the number of sittings but at the organisation of High Court sittings to try to get away from the present ludicrous situation—with which he will be familiar—in which it is impossible to tell when a case will start, whether it will be delayed, or whether it will be brought forward, with the resultant inconvenience to solicitors, counsel, members of the public, witnesses and jurymen and at an enormous cost to the public purse in terms of legal aid and waiting days?

No one is more anxious than I am to prevent inconvenience to witnesses, solicitors and judges. I think that I have reversed the order of inconvenience mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I want to make it absolutely clear that under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act there are now provisions which enable those who are instructed to take instructions to act on those instructions and to give timeous pleas which will prevent the attendance of witnesses and inconvenience. If solicitors are responsible in that matter it will make a great difference and result in a great saving.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland to what extent the increase in police strength has affected the reporting of crime to Procurators Fiscal.

In 1979,288,203 cases were reported by the police to procurators fiscal. In 1980, this figure rose to 327,204. This was undoubtedly due in part to the increase in police strength.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he not agree that as a result of the implementation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act as it affects sports grounds, there has been less crime to report, as evidenced by last Saturday's events at Murrayfield? Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that that was the second most satisfactory outcome of those events last week?

I am delighted to say that last Saturday was a great event, not only at Murrayfield but in Dundee. There were three reports from Murrayfield, one of an attempt to get drink into the ground and two of breach of the peace, which is the lowest that there have been for a long time. There was no trouble at Dundee and no missiles were taken into the ground.

Will the Solicitor-General explain why the designated area did not include the car park at Murrayfield, when assurances were given by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, during the Committee proceedings on the Bill that it would be so designated?

I am delighted with the results in Dundee, where there was peace on the day. Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act can be effective only if we have adequate policing, which means police on the beat?

Is the Solicitor-General aware that a constituent of mine was detained by the Strathclyde police for three days before he stood trial and was refused bail? If I submit the details of my constituent's problems to him, will he be prepared to investigate the matter?

I would be delighted to investigate the matter. It is not competent for someone to he detained for three days.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the present number of administrative staff employed by the Crown Office.

The total strength of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service is 855. Of these, 315 are in grades within the administrative group.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that this is an increase on the figure which he inherited at the general election? If that is so, will he explain why?

Yes, I can explain exactly why this is so. It is an increase of 4½ per cent. The increase in the number of cases with which the staff have to deal is 13½ per cent. That is productivity.

I extend my sympathy to the Solicitor-General for that exhibition of disloyalty from the chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland. May I ask about the rather strange situation which I understand exists in the Court of Session administrative department, where Lord Cowie's recommendations on divorce law reform are not being implemented purely and simply because two administrative officers cannot be appointed? Is that true? If so, what will the Solicitor-General do about it?

I doubt whether it is true. If it is, it is not my responsibility.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases on indictment were pending in December 1980 involving the use of offensive weapons.

In December 1980, 19 High Court indictments for crimes involving the use of offensive weapons were served pending trial. The weapons allegedly used included an axe, broken bottles and knives. In so far as indictment cases to be heard before a sheriff and jury are concerned, no separate records are kept.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that these figures are disturbingly high? Does he agree that they reinforce the wisdom of the Government in introducing special measures in last year's Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act to deal with that rising menace?

I agree entirely. If that measure prevents one assault or one death it will have been worth it.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many of those people charged with an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 in Scotland during 1980 were subsequently convicted of an offence under a different Act.

No one was so charged on indictment or complaint and convicted of a different offence.

Is not it the case that the "Glasgow Two", namely, Michael Duffield and Kirsteen Crosbie, were charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and were later convicted under a different Act? Is that a sign that the Government intend to harass people on the Left such as those who sell newspapers at football grounds? That is patently obvious to me. The Solicitor-General must explain why this case came about in the first place.

I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I did not hear the end of his question. I welcome the fact that he is here today to listen to the answer to the question he tabled for our last Question Time, when he was present but did not care to ask it.

Private notice question. Mr. Stewart.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there a precedent for a private notice question to be put to the Secretary of State for Scotland and for the Secretary of State to refuse to turn up to answer it? The question involves the loss of 5,000 jobs in Scotland. Therefore, is it right for him to use as an excuse the fact that he is away on business with the Common Market, an institution that has sold Scottish car workers and Scottish fishermen down the river?

There are such precedents.