asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the recommendations contained in the Age Concern Scotland working party report on retirement education in Scotland; and whether he proposes to implement any of the recommendations.

The recommendations addressed to my right hon. Friend are being considered, and it would be premature for me to comment upon them at this stage.

That is a disappointing reply. Does the Minister accept that in reality it will be extremely difficult either for the Government or, more important, local authorities and voluntary organisations to carry out any of the recommendations because of the cutbacks that We Government are imposing on the education budgets and community education budgets of regional councils and, above all, their effects on the voluntary organisations?

The introduction to the report says:

"We hope that all the organisations to whom the report is addressed will give it careful consideration".

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to respond to replies from local authorities as a result of his request to them to cut their spending; and when he intends to report to the House the action he intends to take.

On 10 July I laid before the House reports proposing reductions in rate support grant of £47 million for Lothian regional council, £2 million for Dundee district council and £1 million for Stirling district council. I intend shortly to lay a further report proposing grant reductions in respect of Dumbarton, East Lothian and Renfrew district councils. I do not propose to lay a report in the case of Cumnock and Doon Valley district council. Replies from authorities to my general request for revised budgets are not yet complete, but I have indicated that it may also prove necessary to reduce grant generally if present budgets are not substantially reduced.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is a disappointing reply? It articulates the unyielding attitude of the Government towards the problem of local authorities. Does he accept that it is the responsibility of not only his Government but all Governments to subscribe to strengthening local democracy in local government? How can he reconcile the Government's determination, because they have a mandate, to implement their election manifesto with his and the Government's attitude of wishing to prohibit a Labour-controlled council in Lothian from implementing its manifesto?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, especially when he suggests that I have been unyielding. Throughout the controversy during the past two years I have, on every occasion, bent over backwards to try to moderate any difficulties for Scottish local authorities. The hon. Member will especially recall that I made some savings in my budget to reduce the abatement on local authorities. I am asking local authorities to contain their spending to a level that is higher than that approved by the Labour Government. That cannot be unreasonable.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he remains prepared to meet the Lothian regional council to discuss proper areas where savings can be made? Does he agree that its intransigence in refusing to see him simply underlines that its action is partly political and is working against the interests of those that it was elected to serve?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. I wish to make it clear that I am only too willing to discuss expenditure and expenditure reductions with any local authorities. I have made that clear all along.

Is it not now—

May I just put this on the Table, Mr. Speaker?

Order. I name Mr. Ron Brown for gross disorderly conduct. I call upon the Minister to move the appropriate motion.

I beg to move, That Mr. Ron Brown be suspended from the service of the House.

rose—

Out.

The point is valid.

I name the hon. Gentleman. The question is, That the hon. Member be suspended from the service of the House.

The point is relevant, Mr. Speaker.

As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Aye.

To the contrary "No"—[Interruption.] Clear the Lobby. [Interruption.] Order. I am advised that there were no "Noes". I shall put the Question once more. The Question is, That the hon. Member be suspended from the service of the House. The "Ayes" have it.

May I now put my question, Mr. Speaker? Is it not now absolutely clear that the way in which the Government have dealt with Scottish local authorities during the past couple of years, and the attitude that they have displayed towards them, has now produced—as we said it would—the inevitable confrontation? The hit list of authorities produced by the Secretary of State cannot possibly be sustained on the justice of the cases that the authorities have produced.

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's description of the effect of the reductions. Perhaps, on reflection, he will agree that it is not strictly fair, because the level to which I am trying to reduce the authorities' budgets is above that which he thought was sufficient some years ago when he was in office.

Will the Secretary of State talk to the authorities before proceeding with the orders?

There is no time for me to do that. However, I am already arranging discussions with at least two of the authorities, and they will take place before the order is made. If others wish to see me before then, I shall be happy to arrange it.—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please call for some order in the House so that Scottish Question Time can proceed in an orderly fashion?

We have had enough disorder this afternoon, of a most unusual character.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposed cuts in rate support grant will hit areas of multiple deprivation? Does he dare risk the consequences in view of recent events in England?

If I were in any local authority in Scotland and I were trying to implement these very reasonable reductions, I would not make any reduction in areas of multiple deprivation. I hope that local authorities will not do so either.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have the right to raise a point of order. I object to Conservative Members trying to anticipate what I might say. Mr. Speaker, I drew your attention to the fact that there were many related questions. I condemn the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) because it was sheer gimmickry. It will not have escaped your attention that the Secretary of State has given the names of more local authorities. If questions had been linked, pertinent questions could have been asked. I know that it is for the Government to decide whether questions are linked. I beg you to understand why some of us are a bit annoyed this afternoon.

With every respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall be able to call many more hon. Members whose local areas are affected if we are allowed to proceed. I hope to call as many hon. Members as possible from both sides.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the competitive position of the poultry sector of the agriculture industry in Scotland.

In the free Community market which applies to eggs and poultry meat, I am concerned to ensure that the Scottish industry—which is undoubtedly efficient—is able to compete against imports on a fair and equitable basis.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that although a poultry processing plant in my constituency received a FEOGA grant from Europe of £39,000 recently, it is finding it difficult to compete with the level and cost of imports?

I appreciate the problem that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are concerned about reports that we have received about overseas subsidisation in this sector, which is affecting our home industry. We have raised the matter with the Commission and hope that it will look into it urgently.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food maintains that there is no mechanism by which the Government can police imports of poultry meat? Not only poultry factories, but hatcheries, feed mills and everything else in the industry are closing. What action will he take, other than simply asking the Commission to investigate the matter?

That is the first step open to us. We expect the Commission to take the point seriously and to take action. We operate within Community law, and we intend to continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the recovery of the Scottish economy.

My right hon. Friend and I have met representatives of the STUC several times since taking office and have made it clear that we are prepared to meet them whenever that would be useful.

When my hon. Friend mext meets them, will he emphasise that their Stone Age intransigence about the reform of apprenticeships and training schemes will be a major impediment to the creation of new employment when we emerge from the recession?

There is no doubt that the apprenticeship system is obsolete. It restricts employment opportunities for youngsters, as do the wages that trade unions demand that youngsters should earn, which take no account of the fact that youngsters are inexperienced and require training. If those two matters could be tackled by the STUC and the CBI, there would be better prospects for youngsters in Scotland.

When the Minister meets the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will he remind him of the request that came from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors for more public expenditure? Will he also remind him that we require 20,000 houses in Scotland and that there is a need for a modernisation programme that will bring men back to work? Will he do something positive for Scotland for a change before the country goes into liquidation?

Reflation would worsen inflation, and that would do nothing for the unemployed or for job prospects in Scotland or anywhere else.

When my hon. Friend next meets the general secretary of the STUC, will he congratulate him on the important contribution that the trade union movement has made to youth opportunities schemes in the widest sense and ask him to use what influence he has to encourage the unions to make available their valuable co-operation, which is greatly appreciated, in apprenticeship training and the payment of young people?

I shall certainly do that. As I said earlier, real jobs are more valuable to young people than even the best efforts of the youth opportunities programme.

The unemployment figures for Scotland will be published again on Tuesday of next week. How many more job opportunities will be denied not only to youngsters but to all working people in Scotland as a result of the Government's disastrous policies? When will the Minister and the Secretary of State stop being the Prime Minister's poodles and start trying to protect the interests of Scotland inside the Cabinet?

I am happy to repeat that the priority given by the Government to reducing the rate of inflation is the most important thing that can be done to improve job prospects in Scotland and elsewhere in Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make additional resources available to Glasgow, as a special case, in order to reverse the present decline in its population.

The special needs of Glasgow are already being recognised by such measures as the assistance given through the urban programme, the particular priority accorded to the GEAR project, the distribution formulae for rate support grant and housing support grant, and its special development area status where maximum financial incentives to incoming or expanding industry may be available.

Is the Minister aware that his answer is most unsatisfactory? Does he appreciate the social consequences that will confront Glasgow? Will he agree to convene an early meeting between Glasgow district council, Strathclyde regional council and himself to tackle this problem, which cannot be solved without Government assistance, which is not forthcoming despite what the Government say because they are biased against Glasgow?

The suggestion that the Government are biased against Glasgow does not tally with Glasgow having 20 per cent. of local authority housing and receiving 27 per cent. of total public expenditure on housing. In the current year it will receive 42 per cent. of the SSHA budget. In the last year for which figures are available it received 49 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's budget. The needs element of rate support grant now paid to the Glasgow district council is £42 per head, which is nearly twice the average sum received by all the other district councils.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this and previous Governments have poured hundreds of millions of pounds into the East End of Glasgow, often with no obvious returns? Is it not time for a more balanced programme for the whole conurbation, with appropriate priority for areas such as Barrhead and Milton in my constituency?

The House generally will recognise that Glasgow's problems deserve special attention. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that we must give even greater attention to the way in which available resources have been used over the years. Enormous resources have been poured in by successive Governments, but Glasgow's problems remain acute.

Is the Minister aware that, despite his great claims a few minutes ago, his capital allocation for Glasgow district council for the coming year will be insufficient for it to maintain its present stock of housing, which means disaster for those who live in council houses in Glasgow?

I have already said that Glasgow receives a substantially greater proportion of housing resources than its population merits. I do not say that in criticism, because it is a justifiable allocation. However, it reveals that any suggestion that the Government are discriminating against Glasgow is at variance with all the available facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect he estimates that his request to local authorities to cut their spending commitments will have on employment and services within the areas concerned.

If authorities complied fully with my right hon. Friend's request to revise budgets, the resultant levels of expenditure and staffing would be broadly in line with those which prevailed in 1977–78. Priorities among services are a matter for the individual authorities to resolve.

Has the Minister made no serious estimate of the number of job losses that will occur in local government and through natural wastage or redundancy? Is he saying that he has not made that calculation?

I am saying that there is little doubt that in the authorities that have been identified by my right hon. Friend many millions of pounds could be saved without compulsory job redundancies or any significant effect on the vital services that are provided to the local community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the claims about redundancies by Socialist spokesmen, especially by those representing the Lothian council, are ridiculously exaggerated and irresponsible? Will he remind the House that Tory councillors in Lothian have identified £28 million-worth of cuts that could be made without any job being lost?

My hon. Friend is correct. I understand that the Conservative group on the Lothian district council announced this morning that, after discussions with the officials of the Lothian region, it can identify savings of £28 million that could be made without any compulsory job redundancies and without any effect on vital services.

The Secretary of State has announced that he will take punitive action against East Lothian district council as well as Lothian regional council, in spite of the assertion of East Lothian Tories, among others, that he is asking the impossible of them. As East Lothian will get a double dose of these mad cuts, will the Minister say exactly what effect the cuts will have on employment, services and everything else in the area that I represent?

The Government are willing to have discussions with the East Lothian district council—

Horse trading.

I acknowledge that it has already identified certain savings that could be made in its budget. If sufficient effort is made, considerably greater savings can be identified.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour that we saw earlier this afternoon is fairly typical of the far Left? Is he aware that if Dundee district council were to follow the example of Perth and Kinross district council there would be substantial cuts in its spending and a small reduction in manpower levels?

I will not comment on the conduct earlier this afternoon. Dundee district council has requested a meeting with the Government. I am meeting a deputation from the council tomorrow morning. Stirling district council has also requested a meeting, the date for which has still to be arranged. Lothian regional council has not so far requested a meeting.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the bitter vendetta that he is waging against Scottish local government and local democracy is being conducted regardless of the social consequences? Will he comment specifically on the COSLA estimate that if the cuts were implemented in full there would be a loss of about 6,000 jobs in the teaching profession alone? Is it not a matter for regret that the Government are intent on creating not employment but misery?

The hon. Gentleman is absurd in his accusations. He will be aware that when the previous Labour Government were in office his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), as Secretary of State for Scotland, presided over a substantial reduction in staffing in local authorities in Scotland without redundancies. If local authorities are prepared to co-operate with the Government, as in the past, the same achievements could be made.

rose—

Order. I have not called the right hon. Gentleman. I will call him, but it will be at the expense of his Back-Bench colleagues.

Will the Minister say whether the figure of 6,000 teachers is correct? He knows that it is an accurate COSLA figure. Why does he not have the guts and decency to admit it?

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on education matters within the Scottish Office. We are well aware that if local authorities respond to the guidelines proposed by the Scottish Office in respect of staffing they will still be able to maintain a higher pupil-teacher ratio than has been possible in Scotland in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland against how many local authorities in Scotland he intends to act under the terms of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). My right hon. Friend is now considering whether action of this kind should be initiated against other authorities.

Is the Minister aware that, by acting and continuing to act in this unreasonable, dictatorial fashion, he and his Government are endangering the principle of local democracy and of local accountability and responsibility for local decisions? If the consequence of the Government's actions in this area is the damaging of local services and the sacking of thousands of staff, the blame will lie with him and the Government.

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that in every authority that my right hon. Friend has identified, it has already been proved possible to identify millions of pounds of savings which could be made without compulsory redundancies. If local authorities wish to discuss with my right hon. Friend the savings which can be made and if they are anxious to identify the savings which can be made without compulsory redundancies, we shall consider the matter closely. I have said that in the Lothian region alone £28 million has already been identified. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had better appreciate that, when savings and rate reductions can be made for ratepayers, it is bounden upon local authorities to make a response to the flexible attitude that my right hon. Friend has always taken on this matter.

When my hon. Friend meets Dundee district council tomorrow, will he say that some of the extravagant claims that it has made about the number of redundancies that will be necessary are patently nonsense, as the number that has been mentioned would mean that it was operating with a staff smaller than that operated by the former Tory-controlled Dundee district council without having to impose a 150 per cent. rates rise?

My hon. Friend is correct. Not only can the figures which have been given be the subject of discussions with the local authorities concerned, but in Dundee, as in Lothian, major savings can be made with no job losses. The allegations which have been made amount to little more than scaremongering in order to get support from employees where otherwise support would not be forthcoming.

Has none of the hon. Gentleman's constituents told him that there will be local elections in Lothian region in barely nine months' time? Why is he not prepared to leave it to the judgment of the Lothian electorate whether services are excessive and unreasonable? Is he aware that, in seeking now to pre-empt that essential local democratic right, he is seeking powers which will lead us towards a much more centralised, authoritarian State than has been sought by any Government in peace time?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the £63 million by which Lothian is above the Government's guidelines is many millions greater than for any other local authority in the United Kingdom. That figure has national as well as local implications, which a Labour Government would not have ignored and which this Government will not ignore.

Now that the Secretary of State has tabled orders against a number of local authorities, is there any opportunity for the local authorities involved to avoid a reduction in rate support grant by further discussions with the Government?

My right hon. Friend has already said to the local authorities concerned that, in the event of the House approving the report which has been tabled, he will allow a short period to ascertain whether the local authorities are willing to discuss with the Government what economies they can make. In the event of local authorities refusing to have discussions with my right hon. Friend, he would then have no option but to implement the report, if that report is approved by the House.

Why does the Minister try to pretend something which he knows to be completely untrue—namely, that the cuts can be achieved without serious redundancies affecting tens of thousands of local authority employees in Scotland? Why will he not admit what he knows to be true: that in the teaching profession alone there will be a reduction in the number of teachers of no fewer than 6,000? Why does he not come clean with the House and with the local authorities?

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the figures proposed by my right hon. Friend could not in full be achieved without many redundancies, perhaps he and his hon. Friends will inform the House of a maximum figure that they believe can be achieved with no redundancies at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to announce a decision on a road equivalent tariff or alternative methods of assistance over freight and transport to islands.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), in the Scottish Grand Committee on 18 June 1981, said that we hoped to make an announcement before the Summer Recess.

I am grateful for the assistance offered to further companies trading with Orkney, but it is becoming urgent that the general policy should be made known so that it can be discussed. May I take it that there will be an opportunity for debate when the Secretary of State makes his announcement?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. The reason why this matter is taking rather longer to straighten out than we had hoped is that there are varying opinions about whether RET is desirable. I am anxious to take into account all representations before making a decision. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the right hon. Gentleman's view that we must have some time to debate the matter. I support that view.

Before rejecting the RET formula, if that is what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, will he bear in mind the suggestions from the Highlands and Islands Development Board that adjustments and variations within the formula are possible? Will he also bear in mind that the main thing is to extend the excellent start on assistance which has been made to ensure an economic transport system for the Scottish islands?

I am taking into account all factors, including those which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. As he suggested, our main contribution in the last two years has been to increase the grant to Caledonian MacBrayne from £3·7 million in 1979 to £5·8 million in 1981. I believe that that is real help for those in the islands.

When my right hon. Friend announces his decision, will he consider adding some riders about what happens in Norway, where, contrary to the widely held belief, RET does not operate? Will he accept from me that the most important help that he can give is to commercial traffic from the islands? If we cannot have RET because of the various complications that all the bodies have pointed out to him, can we concentrate the help on commercial traffic?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I agree that it appears that there is not, as people thought there was, a uniform and neat system of RET in operation in Norway. We are trying to work out such considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from those local authorities whose rate support grant he has threatened to cut; and what action he intends to take.

Representations by Lothian regional council, Dundee district council and Stirling district council are incorporated in reports under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, as amended by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981, that I laid before the House on 10 July. Representations by Dunbarton, East Lothian and Renfrew district councils will be incorporated in a further report that I intend to lay shortly. Representations by Cumnock and Doon Valley district council clarified and revised the budget estimate, and I propose no further action under these provisions in that case.

Is the Secretary of State aware that every apprentice who finished his time last week with the property maintenance department in Stirling district council was paid off, including one young lad who won a national apprenticeship award? Is he further aware that the reason for the council being unable to afford to employ those young people is the cuts which the Tory Government have already imposed on the district council? How many more essential jobs and essential services will be destroyed as a result of the Secretary of State's proposal to go ahead and try to rob the people of Stirling district of another £1 million?

If I were a member of Stirling district council, that is not the way that I would have chosen to make reductions. I would have looked for economies in the extra expenditure that that new council has been incurring since it came to office.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the councils against which he is acting that one of the purposes of the 1981 Act was to allow them to reduce rates? Will he confirm that that option is still open to those against whom he has laid orders, and will he urge them to reduce rates for the sake of Scottish ratepayers?

That option is open. I hope that all those authorities mentioned in the orders will feel that they have an open invitation to discuss the matters in the best possible way with me or my representatives in the Department. If they have a reduction in grant, it is open to them to return that in the form of a rates reduction to their ratepayers. I should have thought that that would have been the preferable option for them.

Will the Minister explain what happens if negotiations take place? If a concession is offered by the local authorities under threat but a sum less than the total is ultimately agreed, will the shortfall be deducted from the total that the Treasury is looking for, or will that saved sum be clawed back from the other local authorities which are not the subject of specific action under the 1981 Act? We need to know that if we are to have any idea of the prospects for realistic negotiations. Will the Secretary of State please answer?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Both rebudgeting—reducing budgets on reflection—and reductions negotiated by the authorities will make it easier to avoid taking the full £100 million, which I suggested was the sum that I needed. Reductions by either method should make it easier for everyone.

Is it not scandalous, untrue and grossly unfair to ratepayers in Lothian to say, for example, that no cuts can be made in local authority spending when this week literally hundreds of pounds are being spent flying Socialist councillors back from holiday in Spain and Greece and from cosy trade union jaunts in Czechoslovakia? Will my right hon. Friend look at the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act to see whether it needs changing to prevent those scandalous abuses?

I note what my hon. Friend says. If there are such abuses, it is open to ratepayers to raise them with the local authority accounts commission, and I have no doubt that they will do so. On general expenditure, one of the strangest things is that some authorities maintain that it is impossible to make reductions of any kind. I do not know of any business, commercial or local authority organisation that could straightforwardly say that. It simply is not realistic.

Since the Under-Secretary of State has made repeated references to the cuts proposed by Conservative councillors in the Lothian region, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many jobs on the Lothian regional council would be lost through natural wastage this year as a consequence of the package? Where does he believe that it is possible to cut an additional £19 million to make up the £47 million without compulsory redundancies?

I have not had the opportunity to study the proposals that were announced this morning by the Conservative members of the Lothian regional council, but I understand that they reckon that they could make savings of about £5 million through natural wastage, which is something that I have been pressing on the authority for two years. The point is that it is much better to make economies without redundancies than to spread scare stories about redundancies that may never occur.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of tenants who have applied to buy their homes under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

The latest available information about applications under the right to buy is that local authorities, the new towns and the SSHA have received more than 22,000 applications from tenants. This figure does not include the 10,000 or more applications made under voluntary arrangements.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Will he comment on the recent opinion poll in Scotland that showed not only that 85 per cent. of tenants supported the right to buy but that 12 per cent. were extremely interested in buying? Does that not show how out of touch with the wishes and aspirations of ordinary working people the Labour Party is in its continuing doctrinaire opposition to the right to buy?

My hon. Friend is correct. The opinion poll also showed that 75 per cent. of Labour voters believed in the right to buy.

Is the Minister aware that in Glasgow only about 2,500 people have applied to buy their houses, which is less than 3 per cent. of the total number of council tenants in Glasgow? Is he also aware that the other 97 per cent. are suffering from higher rents, poorer repairs and problems with dampness, which are not being helped by the lack of money as a result of the Government's policies?

The whole purpose of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act is to allow those who wish to do so to buy their homes. We have no objection to tenants not wishing to purchase their homes. Indeed, through the tenants' charter, we have given tenants security of tenure and greater rights than they have had before.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Kirkcaldy district council carried out a detailed analysis of the results of its policy of selling council houses, which it carried forward until the council elections, and found that no particular kind of house was being sought, all were in demand, tenants wanted to buy and the council, tenants and ratepayers benefited substantially from the sales?

My hon. Friend is correct. That is the experience not only in Kirkcaldy but in many other parts of Scotland.

Has the Minister read the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the sale of council houses in England? If so, has he pondered its finding that the sale of council houses has increased the housing shortage in parts of England, put at risk future housing for the elderly and reduced choice in the public sector? Does he accept that the same is almost certainly happening but to an even greater extent in Scotland? Therefore, will he consider reversing the policy before too much damage is done?

As the hon. Gentleman said, the report of the Select Committee on the Environment was based on English evidence. He asked whether I had read the report. I do not believe that he has read it, because he said that the conclusions were unanimous. The Committee has 11 members, and six either voted against or did not take part in the vote.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what replies he has received from local authorities in response to his request to cut their spending; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has had from local authorities to his request that they should cut back their public expenditure still further.

My right bon. Friend has had detailed representations from seven authorities which received notice that he proposed to reduce rate support grant. In reply to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), my right hon. Friend has indicated the conclusions reached on these representations. Since replies from authorities to my right hon. Friend's general request for revised budgets are not yet complete, it is premature to make a statement.

In view of the Secretary of State's answer and his continued unbending attitude towards democratically elected local authorities, will he at least commit himself in a statement to the House that he intends to fight for the people of Scotland and to get more money for local authorities, so that we may open up the many facilities that are being closed, particularly for the unemployed, in an effort to stop the civil unrest that we are seeing throughout the country spreading further?

Far from being unbending, my right hon. Friend constantly says that if local authorities are prepared to discuss their overspending with him that factor can be taken into account. Certain local authorities have not yet responded to the invitation, but we hope that they will.

Instead of manipulating youngsters in apprenticeships, as has been mentioned, if there are to be redundancies, will my hon. Friend tell Labour authorities that are employing political advisers for the first time that those people could certainly go, in the ratepayers' interests?

My hon. Friend is entitled to make that remark. It is extraordinary that a local authority, such as Dundee, which maintains that it is having an impossible time because of Government cuts, is still able to employ someone full-time purely as a political adviser to the: Labour group.

Is the Minister aware that we cannot avoid noticing the pleasure that particularly the Secretary of State derives from causing suffering and hardship to countless numbers of people? In view of the: constant reference to conditions that prevailed in 1977, will the Minister reconsider his approach to the Stirling, problem against the background of the decision announced last week to slaughter Stirling university and the impact that that will have on employment prospects in Stirling?

I am competent only to comment on local government spending in Stirling at the moment. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the greatest damage done to the local economy was the 150 per cent. rate increase imposed by the district council.

May I assure my hon. Friend that the general thrust of the Government's policy to make spendthrift authorities face the consequences of their profligacy is warmly welcomed? Will he reassure the House that he will persist with the policy and, so far as possible, protect efficient and prudent authorities from the extravagances of others?

First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing). I did Stirling district council a disservice by saying that its rate increase was 150 per cent. In fact, it was merely 100 per cent. That should be made clear.

If the Minister is so worried about public spending, will he reconsider the Scottish Office decision to ask Strathclyde to become an agent to build the Step's bypass, which will cost several million pounds and require the local authority to take land from Ellenacre Ltd., which got it for a song in the first place? Is he aware that if the bypass goes through, good communities will be destroyed? Is that not an area where savings can be made?

Before any road can be built, all the planning procedures must be completed, including a full public inquiry, where that is appropriate. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed this matter with the regional council. We would, of course, wish to take into account the views of Strathclyde region on the question of roads affecting its locality.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions he will lay down for resumption of herring fishing in the North-West.

Although the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has now decided to recommend a resumption of this fishery, no firm decisions on management arrangements can be taken until the timing and extent of any fishery have been discussed by the Council of Ministers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the masters of two West German vessels appeared in Stornoway sheriff court in connection with a catch of herring valued at £61,000? Local boats are not allowed to take a single fish. Does he agree that this pinpoints the necessity for the regulations, the rules and the control requested by fishermen's organisations if herring fishing is not to end up with the same chaos and illegal fishing as mackerel fishing?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and express my congratulations to our fishery protection service on catching these vessels and bringing them into Stornoway to face British justice.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what effect the Civil Service dispute has had on prosecutions in Scotland; and what criteria will determine the introduction of emergency legislation.

Strike action is confined to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Since its beginning, 42 High Court cases have been dealt with in Edinburgh and Glasgow, including 25 which had previously been delayed. In Glasgow, 189 sheriff and jury trials due to have been called or gone to trial have not been dealt with; some 204 cases are awaiting sheriff and jury dates; and approximately 6,000 summary cases have been delayed. In Edinburgh, 125 sheriff and jury trials have not been dealt with; some 68 cases are awaiting sheriff and jury dates; but the sheriff court is dealing with one-third to one-half of its summary criminal work load.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that he has read out a frightening catalogue? Does he agree that in the two biggest cities in Scotland there is likely to be a breakdown of law and order? In view of the effects that that would have in those cities, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend to take some action either to arrange for the settlement of the Civil Service dispute or to introduce emergency legislation? Does he also recognise that many people are now beginning to feel that, had this kind of juridical dislocation taken place at the Old Bailey, action would have been taken by now?

I am not responsible for the Old Bailey. The situation does not result in a breakdown of law and order in Scotland. The result is that some summary cases are dropped rather than prosecuted.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem is one of individuals not facing their responsibilities and that the Government should perhaps be looking at ways and means of ensuring in future that they are not able to strike?

As I have said before, there are moral duties upon those involved in running the courts to do their duty and ensure that justice does not suffer.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is also a moral duty on the Government to introduce the necessary emergency legislation? How can they justify their continued refusal to do that when, among other things, a large number of cases are not being proceeded with at all—and this from the party of law and order—and people who otherwise should be charged with serious offences, such as carrying offensive weapons, dangerous or drunken driving, will escape scot-free? Why do the Government not introduce emergency legislation?

References to the party of law and order come ill from the party of the trade unions responsible for the present dispute. Those not being prosecuted are very few. Emergency legislation would have the same effect. It would merely postpone the results.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland on how many occasions the Crown Office called on Dr. Alan Clift, senior forensic scientist at the Home Office, to give evidence at prosecutions in Scotland.

Dr. Alan Clift has been called by the Crown to give evidence as a forensic scientist in Scotland in only one case: that of Her Majesty's Advocate v. John Preece.

In view of the recent case of John Preece and all the other cases, whether north or south of the border, in which Dr. Clift's evidence has been discredited, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland consult his legal friends the Law Officers south of the border with a view to an inquiry about all the cases in which this man's evidence was heard? Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Preece was wrongfully convicted of murder and that Paddy Meehan, for example, was also wrongfully convicted of murder and that both had as their defence counsel the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is as fanatical a believer in capital punishment as the Ayatollah?

Answer.

I am happy to answer, but I cannot answer for the Ayatollah, and I have consistently voted against capital punishment. If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) ever requires, as he may, my services as a defence counsel, I shall probably not be in a position to supply them and he is unlikely to be in a position to afford them. Of those whom I have defended on murder charges, very few were convicted and both have been pardoned.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been brought so far in 1981 involving charges of vandalism.

When the Scottish Office computer is functioning again, I shall be in a position to give these figures; but I can say that section 78 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 is being used quite extensively.

In spite of the rather thin information in that reply, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nevertheless a useful criminal offence in the hands of the courts and, perhaps more particularly, in the hands of the police in their battle against criminal hooliganism?

I certainly confirm that. Between the beginning of April and the end of May this year, 18 cases of vandalism were subject to compensation orders, in which the compensation ranged from £5 to £400.

Despite the fact that when the Government introduced that crime it was heralded by the Opposition as being merely a cosmetic matter and of little value, has my hon. and learned Friend read an editorial in the Scottich Legal Action Group's magazine pointing out that the introduction of this crime in Scotland has made it clearer to petty hooligans and vandals precisely what they are doing?

I have seen that report. I trust that the Opposition will now repent and understand that it is an important and useful category of crime.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many statutory offences he estimates have been time-barred by the six-months rule as a result of the disruption to Scottish courts resulting from the civil servants industrial action.

It is estmiated that at the end of June 1981 the cases of some 6,000 persons accused of statutory offences had been time-barred as a result of the disruption to Scottish courts resulting from the industrial action of civil servants.

Do not those horrifying figures make the complacent answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) scandalous? Will the Solicitor-General explain to the House why the Government are living with a situation in which in the same week a person may be prosecuted for drunk driving in Aberdeen and, if he is found guilty, be banned and face a heavy monetary penalty, while in Glasgow the same person would get off scot-free because of the Government's failure to bring in emergency legislation? Does that not bring the whole fabric of law and order into disrepute, and, as a professional man, is not the Solicitor-General ashamed of himself?

To answer the last part of the question first, no, I am not ashamed of myself. If there are any drunk drivers in Aberdeen, some are caught and acquitted, some are caught and convicted and some are not prosecuted. I greatly regret that the action of the civil servants results in a greater unevening of justice. That is a matter for which I should like them to have some moral responsibility and to return to work at once.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the case of the most serious statutory offences, such as causing death by dangerous driving, it is possible to proceed by way of petition and that such serious crimes will not be allowed to go unpunished?

I assure my hon Friend that no serious cases have been lost, although some have been delayed. In the High Court, I am glad to say that all the cases that were delayed in Glasgow have been, or are being, prosecuted.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will review the guidance given by Crown Office on the non-harassment of travelling people.

I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the instruction which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate issued in January 1980 requiring procurators fiscal to report to the Crown Office any case reported by the police involving unauthorised encamping by travelling people, so as to enable my right hon. and learned Friend to consider each case personally. That instruction remains in full force.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that if a local authority provides a camp for the local people whom those of us from country areas prefer to call tinkers, others who come into the area and encamp by the roadside can be moved on, instead of riding on the back of a local authority that is doing its best by its travelling people but does not want to be burdened by outsiders?

I confirm that that is so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increased the grant for the provision of such sites to 100 per cent. If there are suitable sites, those who insist on parking in other places are prosecuted.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I delayed raising this point of order until the end of Question Time, because I did not want to lessen the time available to my hon. Friends for raising supplementary questions. As you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the questions on the Order Paper concern one issue—namely, the savage cuts in local government expenditure that are being perpetrated by this Tory Government. All of those questions relate to Labour-controlled local authorities. It may have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that more than half of the Scottish constituencies are represented by Labour Members. Many of us have had great difficulty in raising this question on the Floor of the House. When such orders are debated on the Floor of the House, will you bear in mind the Government's discriminatory attitude and the way in which they pick on Labour-controlled authorities—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no intention of changing the long-established custom of calling hon. Members from alternate sides of the House. Any Speaker would be placed in an impossible situation if he were to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appeal to you again—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not pursuing the same point, because I have finished with it and given a ruling.

The point that I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is that of the 36 questions tabled to the Secretary of State for Scotland, only seven were tabled by Scottish Conservative Back Benchers—

Order. Clearly, that is not a point of order.