asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made an estimate of the likely job loss among local authority employees as a result of the cuts in local government finance for the year 1982–83.

No, Sir. It is for each local authority to consider its staffing policies in the light of all the resources available to it.

Surely with 3 million people unemployed in the United Kingdom—347, 000 in Scotland—the Secretary of State should not be considering making cuts in local government expenditure, thereby causing more unemployment. In view of the recent unemployment figures, should he not tell the Prime Minister that he does not want to be responsible for the misery and suffering that is being experienced in Scotland by the unemployed and be prepared, because of unemployment and cuts in local government in Scotland, to follow the example of the Solicitor-General for Scotland and resign?

Local authorities know that they can reduce their staff without compulsory redundancies. When the Labour Government called on the Scottish local authorities to reduce their staffing, they claimed that they could make 10, 000 redundancies. They reduced staffing over 18 months by approximately 12, 000, with hardly any compulsory redundancies.

I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said is true of Scottish local authorities. Despite any economies which are necessary on the financial side, there are adequate numbers of administrative staff employed in local authorities.

My hon. Friend is correct. It is regrettable that Scottish local authority staffing is still 11, 000 greater than it was in 1977. At the same time, local authorities in England and Wales have managed to reduce their staffing levels, without compulsory redundancies, to the lowest figure since the reorganisation of local government. If it can be done in England and Wales, it can be done in Scotland.

How many jobs have been lost as a result of the so-called natural wastage that the Minister has imposed on local authorities? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such wastage is far from natural and that all it does is to deprive thousands of young people of jobs and the community of urgently needed services?

If the hon. Gentleman were to consider his remarks for a moment he would realise that one of the significant causes of job losses in his area and elsewhere in Scotland has been excessive rate increases. These have had to be paid by small and large businesses irrespective of their profitability. Therefore, they have had to pay by reducing their manpower.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of agreement has now been reached in negotiations for a common fisheries policy.

Agreement has been reached on a revised marketing regime, on important areas of the external regime and on a further interim scheme for the construction and modernisation of fishing boats. Agreement in principle has also been reached on a comprehensive range of conservation measures.

I know that my right hon. Friend is fighting strongly for those acceptable access and quota arrangements, but will he ensure that any necessary conservation measures are taken after due consultation with the industry so that no undue damage is done? Will he also make a categoric statement that, if no agreement can be reached this year, there will be no fishing up to the beaches after the end of 1982?

I assure my hon. Friend that in any conservation measures that are taken we shall do our best to consult the industry beforehand and to take it with us on all points.

I thank the Secretary of State for his final remark that the Government will look carefully at the interests of British fishermen. Will he set a time limit on the negotiations and inform our colleagues that unless agreement on access and quotas is reached by a certain date we shall take our own measures to conserve our fisheries?

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We have made it clear to our partners in the Community that, as we have been near to agreement, it would be tragic if it were missed at this stage. We shall be pressing as hard as possible to get an agreement as soon as possible

Is the Secretary of State aware that failure to reach agreement means that Common Market countries will have the same rights at the end of this year as our own vessels? Therefore, will the Government make it clear that, failing an acceptable agreement within that time, we shall revert to our rights over a 200-mile limit?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not part of the treaty obligations. I assure him that there are good reasons for the other countries concerned, without exception, to want a common fisheries policy agreed. There is a strong incentive on everyone to try to reach agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best way to achieve our aim on conservation is to proceed with local fishing plans and the licensing of boats that can operate in those areas, with preference being given to boats from the local area?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That concept has found favour with the Commission in the past. We have been pressing strongly for such fishing plans, where appropriate, with particular reference to The Hague agreements, which give special preference to local fishing communities that depend on fishing for their living.

What are the Government's minimum conditions for an acceptable CFP? Do those conditions still include an exclusive 12-mile limit? What are the Government's views on the 12 to 50 miles zone, or have they abandoned that concept?

The Government's objectives in the negotiations have not changed. We intend to proceed with them in close negotiation with the fishing industry at all stages. Our objectives remain to provide for a broadly exclusive 12-mile zone, taking account of some essential historic rights of other countries, and further measures of preference to protect coastal communities that depend heavily on fishing.

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

On 12 January 1982, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 307, 900, or 13·6 per cent. The Government's main priority is to reduce inflation, which has been the main reason for the loss of markets and jobs.

Does the Secretary of State realise that, as the unadjusted seasonal figure is 346, 500, the whole of Scotland will be outraged by his pallid apology and his abject failure to protect employment in Scotland? Will he stop acting like a quivering jellyfish? Will he show some courage, stand up to the Prime Minister, say that enough is enough and demand action to arrest this inexorable slide to total disaster?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that unemployment is a matter of extreme concern to everyone in Scotland, including myself. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to note that his local area has an unemployment level of 7·1 per cent., which is approxiamately half the Scottish average. What I have to stand up against are policies which, over many years have weakened British industry and forced it to lose markets and jobs. That is what the Government are trying to reverse.

In regard to unemployment in the Moray Firth area caused by the closure of the Invergordon smelter, I recognise that the Secretary of State may not wish openly to indicate the precise terms that would be acceptable to the Government for an incoming operator, but has the right hon. Gentleman empowered the Highlands and Islands Development Board, in its approaches to companies, to be completely open-ended about the terms that can be offered relating to power and the acquisition of the site and plant?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "open-ended". I assure him that the Highlands and Islands Development Board, in conjunction with the Scottish Office, has been encouraged to do everything that it can to find another operator and to discuss with such an operator a power contract on the best terms that can be achieved. The same applies to the acquisition of the site. The Government are pressing ahead with the board as strongly as possible on these points.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is some hope for Scotland, in that the seasonally adjusted figures show a rate of increase in Scotland of only about half the rate of increase for the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he accept that there is genuine concern on the Conservative Benches about the human problems encompassed by unemployment, in sharp contrast to the largely synthetic and politically motivated protests by Opposition Members?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I repeat that no one in any party in Scotland can be anything but extremely concerned about the level of unemployment. My hon. Friend is right to contrast the present situation with what has prevailed throughout my lifetime. The whole of Britain has suffered severely, but on this occasion Scotland has not suffered so severely as the rest of the United Kingdom. That indicates some recovery in the relative position of Scotland, and that we must work upon.

Is the Secretary of State saying that a record figure of unemployment in Scotland of 347, 000 demonstrates that Scotland is not suffering severely under the present Government? Does he not appreciate the wave of anger and bitterness that swept Scotland following yesterday's figures—a bitterness that was added to by his pathetic attempt yesterday, as on earlier occasions, to pretend that things are getting better when they are obviously continuing to worsen? Does he realise that the need now is not for tiny doses of reflation but for massive reflation in terms of help to industry and public expenditure if we are to get people back to work? The sooner this happens the better. Otherwise, he does not deserve to be in office.

The right hon. Gentleman has invented his own version of what I said a few moments ago. That version bears no relation to what I actually said. If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet appreciated the real reason for the rise in unemployment, he occupies a much stranger position than I thought. He should know that the real reason is that too many of our companies and firms have lost markets through being uncompetitive. The Government are working successfully towards reversing that situation. That has been needed for many years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the state of the small business sector of the economy in Moray and Nairn; and if he will make a statement.

As in other parts of the country, the small business sector in Moray and Nairn is facing difficulties from the effects of the world recession, but it is benefiting from the various financial and other incentives introduced by the Government since 1979 and is currently being promoted under the business opportunities programme. The Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency are active in support of small firms in their respective areas.

I note the terms of my hon. Friend's reply. Will he confirm that one of the most pressing worries in the constituency is the continuing threat of the withdrawal of assisted area status later this year? Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no such withdrawal until there has been the fullest and most careful consideration of all the representations in favour of retention?

Yes, Sir.

Are not small businesses in Moray and Nairn suffering to the same extent as all small businesses in Scotland from high energy costs, high interest rates, the doubling of value added tax and the slump, caused not by world recession but self-induced by the Government? Is it not time that the Minister followed the example of the former Solicitor-General for Scotland and resigned?

There is no justification for saying that the recession applies only to Scotland and not to the rest of the Western world. The hon. Gentleman has listed some of the problems. I agree that there are serious problems. I should, however, like to mention some of the 70 measures introduced by the Government since 1979 to help small businesses. We have amended employment legislation, we have introduced the loan guarantee scheme and the venture capital scheme, we have cut the absurdly high marginal rates of income tax and we have also cut corporation tax. These are only a few of 70 measures that help small businesses in Scotland today.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Moray district covers part of my constituency. Will he pay attention to the fact that the Grampian region scheme for expanding small businesses has a 90 per cent. success rate? Does he agree that this is a vital factor in an area where small businesses are more important than in some other areas?

I am delighted with my hon. Friend's remarks. The business opportunities programme seminars held all over Scotland, not least the seminar held in Aberdeen, have been successful.

In view of the important assurance that the Minister has just given about reconsideration of the withdrawal of assisted area status in the Moray and Nairn area and in view of worsening unemployment throughout the whole of Scotland, will he give a similar assurance to every area in Scotland, including the Central region from which assisted area status is to be withdrawn? Will the most serious reconsideration be given to every area before the Government go ahead with their decision?

Yes, Sir. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles), I was referring to areas which have been downgraded by more than one step.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the contact between his Department and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on matters relating to the sale of British Leyland assets at Bathgate.

My Department has provided all the information so far requested by the Comptroller and Auditor General's staff. The conduct of the investigation is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In view of the delicacy of the situation at BL, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State of which I gave his office notice at 10 o'clock this morning? Had the position been clear-cut, assuming that the Comptroller has been given the co-operation promised by Ministers and BL, would he not have reported weeks ago? Therefore, should not the Secretary of State—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules as well as anyone. Copious use of notes is one thing, but the hon. Gentleman should lift his eyes occasionally.

Should not the Secretary of State have used the good offices of the Government machine to help a factory which was brought to Bathgate by Mr. Macmillan? May I add—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will be unfair to his colleagues if he adds to that.

In view of Sir Michael Edwards' statement this morning that he will not be chairman of Leyland in January 1983, should not the situation at Bathgate be left until such time as there is a new chairman?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, which relates to his constituency. However, I repudiate any suggestion that my Department has not been totally helpful in every respect to the Comptroller and Auditor General. It has given every bit of information for which is has been asked as quickly as possible. It is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide how to conduct the inquiry. It is his responsibility to produce a report. However much we might wish to do so, it is not up to the Government to interfere in industrial relations at the site and the factory. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made that very clear when he appointed Sir Michael Edwardes.

Yes, but, on the last point, does the Secretary of State appreciate that an extremely worrying situation has developed not only at Bathgate but in the bus and truck division of British Leyland as a whole? The House will not forgive Ministers if they simply sit back and allow the situation to deteriorate further. I appreciate the difficulties involved in direct intervention, but will the Secretary of State at least give a pledge that he will take a personal interest and see whether Ministers can do anything urgently to try to resolve some of the difficulties? Is the Secretary of State aware that the whole business is extremely worrying?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I take the closest interest in British Leyland's affairs, including those at Bathgate. However, we do not run the company, nor do we intend to run it. It is neither possible nor right for the Government to force a company to keep open a factory that has lost markets for its products. Having said that, we do, of course, take a close interest in it and will do everything that we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the reform of the local government finance system in Scotland.

From May 1979 to date my right hon. Friend has received about 170 representations mainly concerned with the rating system. He has also had between 30, 000 and 40, 000 representations about the need to protect ratepayers against excessive rate rises, and some of them have also expressed objections to the rating system.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the present rating system is becoming increasingly unfair as it reflects less and less the ability of the ratepayer to pay? Does he agree that the system is causing severe financial hardship in regions such as Lothian and that there is an urgent need for reform? Will he urge local authorities to recognise the hardships? Further, will he urge the Lothian region to reduce its rates this year to give ratepayers a break?

On the general issue, my hon. Friend will be aware of the Green Paper, on which all interested parties have been asked to comment by 31 March. The Government will consider the representations urgently. Lothian region could reduce its rates without any reduction in spending. If it reduced its spending in line with other local authorities, the ratepayers would benefit enormously.

Has the Minister seen the report today in The Scotsman, which reveals that the Government have increased the burden on Scotland's ratepayers by £72 million by manipulation of the rate support grant? As the Government are handling the present system of local government so deviously, how can we trust them to introduce a new fair system of local government?

Any additional burden on ratepayers is the result of certain local authorities refusing to moderate expenditure. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) said that the best way to persuade local authorities to reduce their spending was to reduce the rate support grant percentage.

Pending the reform of local government finance, has my hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the Moray district finance committee's recommendation for the forthcoming year of a reduction of 2p in the rates?

I congratulate Moray district council if that is its intention. I have not the slightest doubt that many local authorities, if they have the will, can either reduce rates or impose only moderate increases.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision in their Green Paper to examine domestic rating in isolation has caused widespread disappointment in Scotland, particularly in the commercial community? Is he further aware that it would be more appropriate to review local government finance generally? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Green Paper is inadequate, because it deals only with local authorities' existing functions? Does he agree that not to consider structure at the same time as finance is to consider only half the problem?

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that this is not the time to embark upon another major reorganisation of local government. The business and industrial community should appreciate that the Government have already suggested in the Green Paper that if domestic rates are abolished it might be desirable to examine the possibility of further protection for the non-domestic ratepayer against the consequences that might flow from that.

Does the Minister agree that the Government must consider whether a two-tier system of local government is any longer viable in the sparsely populated areas of Scotland?

The Stodart committee examined a whole series of questions affecting the structure of local government. The main representations from all political persuasions, particularly from the main political groupings, reveal that Scotland does not want another major reorganisation of local government. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will adjust the rate support grant settlement for the next financial year to take account of the cost to local authorities of frost damage to local authority properties.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make special financial provision for local authorities which have incurred additional expenditure as a result of adverse weather conditions.

As my right hon. Friend announced on 12 January, a special grant will be available to Scottish local authorities which have incurred exceptional expenses in dealing with the effects of severe winter weather—mainly the additional costs of snow clearing operations and the repair of damaged roads. A circular will be issued shortly to authorities giving details of the conditions governing assistance. This special assistance will be over and above the grant that the Secretary of State proposes in the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1982.

I acknowledge that the Government are taking some action, but when Cumbernauld is faced with an extra cost of £200, 000, Strathkelvin and district with an extra cost of £500, 000 and the city of Glasgow with a bill of between £25 million and £35 million, surely the Government recognise that they alone should bear the cost and that none of it should fall on the districts.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the Government's initiative. If he believes that the Government's initiative is insufficient he should remember that the criteria under which aid will be given to local authorities in Scotland is on all fours with the response of the Labour Government when similar problems arose several years ago. We have proposed exactly the same type of help for local authorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a reasonable response by the Government.

Will the Minister confirm that, even after a levy on the rates and 75 per cent. Government assistance, there could be a minimum increase of 6p on Glasgow district council's rate for this one item alone? Does he agree that Government assistance is totally inadequate and that the Government should meet 100 per cent. of the costs?

It is an extraordinary proposition, which has not been followed by previous Governments, to suggest that 100 per cent. of expenditure should be met by the Government. The weather conditions affecting Glasgow were not significantly different from those affecting other west central Scottish local authorities. If there has been disproportionately greater expenditure in Glasgow, that may be for reasons within the control of Glasgow district council.

Will my hon. Friend remind Labour Members that there is no such thing as Government money—only taxpayers' money?

My hon. Friend does the House a service in educating Labour Members on the realities of life.

As one of the major costs, especially for district authorities, will be repairs associated with burst pipes, it is remarkable that the Minister has made no mention of any assistance to local authorities in meeting the cost of house repairs. Hamilton district council's assessment of these costs is in excess of £3 million. Are the Government to give no assistance to local authorities to meet these additional costs?

The present position was stated by the Labour Government. In a circular that they issued in 1976 they advised local authorities to insure themselves against the consequences of excessively inclement weather. Some local authorities have accepted that advice. If others have not, they may have to bear some of the consequences.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the vast number of local authority employees, especially those concerned with the roads, the water boards and the police forces, on the tremendous work that they have done during the past six weeks to make life bearable in Scotland?

Yes, I have done so already. I am happy to repeat from the Dispatch Box the unqualified praise of all who experienced the superb contribution made by local authority employees.

Is the Minister seriously saying that there will be no Government help to local authorities for the formidable costs that they will incur in repairing the fabric of housing and in dealing with burst pipes? That is a totally unsatisfactory response, which cannot be allowed to continue, especially when local government finance is being mercilessly squeezed by the Government's policies, at the diktat of the Treasury. Will he reconsider what help he can give to avoid a disastrous situation in the west of Scotland and, no doubt, in all other parts of Scotland?

I have stated the advice that was given and the recommendation that was made by the Labour Government. Scottish local authorities were informed at the time that, if they did not choose to take out insurance, it might be necessary for them to bear some of the consequences. We have received no detailed submissions from the local authorities on the issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. We shall have to consider to what extent any damage that was caused might have been covered by insurance. If it could have been covered by insurance and the local authorities failed to insure, we shall have to take that matter into account.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's hopelessly inadequate reply, I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment, with your permission.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the standard of hospital provision for mentally handicapped patients in Scotland.

Although many improvements have taken place at these hospitals in recent years, my right hon. Friend told health boards in 1980, following recommendations by the Scottish Health Service Planning Council, that services for the mentally handicapped should be in the group of services deserving top priority in the allocation of resources. We recently announced arrangements for monitoring boards' progress in implementing these recommendations.

In view of the recent SHAS report on Lennox Castle hospital, which states that over 1, 300 mentally handicapped patients are living in grossly overcrowded and insanitary conditions, some of them in huts that were built over 40 years ago and were supposed to last only 5 to 10 years, will the Minister take urgent and immediate steps to provide the additional finance and other resources? Does he agree that this background is a damning indictment of the National Health Service's inadequacies? In particular, will he take steps immediately to provide the additional 100 nursing staff necessary to raise standards at Lennox Castle hospital even to the average for hospitals that cater for some of the most underprivileged but most deserving members of society?

The Government accept that the SHAS report identified a number of unsatisfactory features at Lennox Castle hospital. In the first instance, this is a matter for the Greater Glasgow health board. We shall await its comments, although we keep in close touch with it. I understand that it is the health board's intention to phase out the unsatisfactory accommodation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of qualified qualified nursing staff at the hospital has increased by 14 percent. in the past two years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the extension of hospital building that the Government announced last year was warmly welcomed in Fife, although there is continuing anxiety about psychiatric nurse recruitment, especially among males? In view of that, is my hon. Friend surprised that letters from the chairman of the medical committee of Stratheden hospital and myself to Fife health board on this very subject since July 1981 have met a stone wall of indifference and silence from the board? Will he use his good offices to get a better response than that?

The Government place a high priority on recruiting and retaining skilled nursing staff and on increasing the proportion of male nursing staff in mental hospitals. If my hon. Friend cares to let me have the details in writing of the issue that he has raised, I shall consider them.

Will the Minister extend the review to include all the rights of the mentally handicapped? A Bill that is passing through the House deals with mental health in England. When can we expect similar legislation to cover the well-known and well-publicised shortcomings confronting mental health patients in Scotland?

I know of the Gentleman's interest in these matters. He will remember that we had an Adjournment debate before Christmas on one aspect of the general subject that he has raised. I have said that my right hon. Friend will be introducing legislation at an appropriate time to deal with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on detained patients.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the premier hospitals for the mentally handicapped is the Crichton Royal at Dumfries? Will he consider as sympathetically as possible the plans of the area health board to provide accommodation for the adolescent mentally handicapped so that parents in South-West Scotland do not have to travel to Larbert to see their children?

I accept the general point that my hon. Friend is making. There are plans for new units at Dumfries and these will be considered sympathetically.

Does the Minister accept that hospitals such as Lennox Castle and, to some extent, Larbert are far too large? Why do not the Government embark upon a programme of building new hospitals to reduce the size of existing hospitals and to provide decent conditions for patients and staff? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the only answer to the disgraceful problem that has been revealed at Lennox Castle and elsewhere?

The SHAS stated in its report that it had produced similar reports in 1974 and 1977. It referred to the absence of sufficient action by the Labour Government in the light of those reports. The current capital programme of about £20 million will provide a total of 900 new beds in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to improve the control of dogs and to provide for a means to compensate persons who suffer damage from the uncontrolled actions of dogs.

The Civic Government (Scotland) Bill at present before Parliament provides a discretionary power for local authorities to assist the police in rounding up stray dogs, and the Scottish Law Commission is currently reviewing the law on liability in relation to animals. My right hon. Friend will consider carefully any recommendations when the commission submits its report.

I acknowledge the useful step forward to which my hon. Friend has referred, which will be especially helpful in urban areas. Is he aware that there is great concern among farmers over the amount of sheep worrying that is taking place? Is he aware that a farmer in my constituency recently had a heartbreaking experience when 15 ewes were brutally savaged by dogs? Is he further aware that, although the owner of the dogs was taken to court and successfully prosecuted, my constituent received no compensation for the £2, 000 worth of damage suffered? Does my hon. Friend agree that dog owners should have insurance for third-party risks, which often arise in relation to personal injury compensation?

The whole question of civil liability for injury caused by animals is being considered by the Scottish Law Commission, which hopes to publish a consultative memorandum on the subject in the spring of this year.

My hon. Friend referred—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wag your tail, bulldog."] I am grateful for the Opposition's support. My hon. Friend referred to the Bill relating to the control of dogs that has been introduced in another place. Is he aware that under the Bill control rests with the police, who are given additional powers to deal with the matter? Before the Bill reaches this House, will my hon. Friend consider the privatisation of the control of dogs? [Interruption.] I have plenty of time, but the Opposition have not. Is my hon. Friend aware that privatisation has been most successful in England and is creating a considerable number of new small businesses?

If the alternative was to take dogs into public ownership, privatisation would certainly be attractive to the Government. I undertake to consider my hon. Friend's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance is available from his Department for the provision or improvement of community facilities in rural areas.

Capital grants are given by my Department to local voluntary youth and community organisations in both rural and urban areas to assist them in providing or improving such facilities. Grants made in 1980–81 totalled £800, 000. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply on 21 January by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro).

It has been written:

"Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons".

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. The Government undertook extensive consultation, as a result of which my right hon. Friend decided to continue the scheme, although there may be some administrative changes, as the general public had made their wishes known so well.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable pleasure and support for the decision announced to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)? Is he aware that throughout Scotland rural organisations, such as village hall committees, scouts and guides, greatly welcome the proposal to continue putting money into the rural areas rather than adding it to the already considerable sums given to urban areas?

I am delighted that there is such agreement on both sides of the House today.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been brought against trawlers fishing illegally within the three-mile limit in the last 10 years.

A total of 332 cases.

When will the Government consider repealing the law as established in the Dingwall court decision in 1979, which has had the effect of opening inland waters to the predatory attentions of trawlers and changing what had been understood to be the law since the beginning of the century in what appears to be a wholly capricious fashion?

I do not think that it would be sensible to restore the legal position to what it was thought to be prior to that decision. I think that it is widely accepted that the whole body of legislation on inshore fishing is in need of revision. I should prefer to await the outcome of current consultations with the industry before formulating firm proposals for a comprehensive new regime for inshore fisheries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the subsantial number of cases suggests that courts do not impose sufficiently stiff penalties to discourage this kind of activity?

I do not fully agree with my hon. Friend, as the number is not exceptionally large, but very much in line with the number over the years, which is a measure of the effectiveness of our fishery protection services.

Is the Minister aware that the position is exactly as described by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and that all fishing communities recognise that the decision has allowed illegal trawling to take place with impunity, as nobody can prove whether vessels are trawling at half-water depth or on the bottom? Is he aware that unless that decision is reversed, through new legislation, there will be no protection for the inshore waters?

There may be a need for new legislation once we have received the comments of all sections of the industry. However, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are conflicting interests and that we cannot make everything perfect for both the inshore mobile fishing industry and the inshore static fishing industry. We must try to take account of the interests of both.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider measures to assist J. P. Coats (UK) Ltd., in view of the difficulties it is experiencing in retaining its present work force at its Paisley mill.

Yes, Sir. My Department if already having discussions with the company about possible financial assistance for investment under normal Government schemes. My hon. Friend went into this in detail when he met the managing director on 18 January.

Is the Minister aware that 1, 000 jobs in Paisley are threatened by the company's action? Is he aware of the present serious situation in the area? Is he further aware that figures issued by the Department of Health and Social Services on 4 January showed that there were 17, 000 unemployed, or one in four of the male population? Is he also aware that that is the highest unemployment figure ever recorded in Paisley and at 18·1 per cent. is 3 per cent. above the figure for Scotland? Will he take firm and positive action to safeguard not only the 1, 500 jobs that the company intends to save but the 2, 500 existing jobs?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. There is a threat to about 1, 000 jobs over the next two years. He will agree, however, that it is encouraging that the company concerned is investing new money to make a new, modern and up-to-date process, which should secure jobs in that process for a considerable time to come. I appreciate his anxiety about the extremely severe unemployment in the area, but I am sure that he will be grateful that some firms, such as Babcock and Wilcox and Howden's, are doing very well.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that biotechnology is introduced into the school biology curriculum to enable senior pupils to appreciate the career potential of the biotechnology industry.

The biology syllabuses for the ordinary and higher grades of the Scottish Certificate of Education already contain a number of elements designed to foster understanding of some of the fundamental processes and applications of biotechnology. The certificate of sixth year studies course in biology provides further scope through individual project work, which in some cases will involve local industry, for the study of biotechnology and its industrial uses.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he ensure that the curriculum for the ordinary and higher levels contains introductory work for biotechnology, so that, as this new and exciting industry develops in the next two or three years, pupils will leave school with some knowledge of the industry and of the career opportunities in it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this important subject. The consultative committee on the curriculum is keeping the science curriculum under review and in so doing will take account of developments in the industrial and scientific world. The use of microcomputers in schools allows pupils to simulate processes that cannot be carried out in the laboratories.

Does the Minister agree that, with such a sophisticated curriculum, particularly in senior secondary classes, it is inappropriate to maintain discipline by the barbaric use of the Lochgelly belt? Will he welcome the decision by Strathclyde and Lothian regions to phase out the belt and repudiate the neanderthal view of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay)?

I have more faith in the ability of headmasters and school teachers to maintain discipline in schools than I have in the advice of the hon. Gentleman.

We now come to questions relating to matters for which the Lord Advocate is responsible.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On whose authority has the Order Paper been changed from the normal practice regarding questions relating to the Solicitor-General for Scotland? As far as I am aware, constitutionally the Secretary of State for Scotland has no responsibility for the Law Officers. Were you consulted about this change?

The Government decide the order of the questions. Questions by hon. Members were readdressed by the Table Office to preserve the relative position in which they had originally been tabled. It is the Government's responsibility to decide who answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recent prosecutions there have been under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.

There has been one recent prosecution for a contravention of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which resulted in a trial at Edinburgh sheriff court on 17 and 18 December 1981. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is not aware of other recent prosecutions for contraventions of this Act, but such statistics are not recorded separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Are not the Scottish prosecution authorities guilty of a shameful distortion of priorities when they dig up a law more than 100 years old to prosecute a trade unionist whereas they decided not to prosecute in the recent horrific Glasgow rape case? Does not that deplorable decision by the Crown Office and the Scottish prosecuting authorities underline the need for the Crown Office—more than ever before—to be accountable to the House of Commons, and for the next Solicitor-General for Scotland to be a Member of this House, so that he can answer questions in this place?

The age of an Act of Parliament is not a relevant consideration in deciding whether a prosecution ought to be brought. If a prosecution has been brought, it is for the court to decide whether the Crown has proved its case. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the case to which he referred is still sub judice, as an appeal is presently before the courts.

To some extent the Minister has made the point that I was about to make. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is important and we may well want to return to it, but, as an appeal is pending, the less said at this stage the better.

Does the Minister accept that the use of this kind of statute in industrial relations matters does not help to achieve a settlement, and that is what happened in this case? Will he give an assurance—

Order. Both sides of the House have indicated that this case, about which I know very little, is sub judice. We should, therefore, observe our normal rules.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate has discussed with the Scottish Law Commission the legal problems of loss, injury and damage caused by animals; and if he will make a statement.

As I indicated earlier to my hon. Friend, the Scottish Law Commission is examining the law on civil liability for animals as part of its review of the law of obligations and will publish a memorandum in the next few months. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has not discussed the matter with the commission, but the Government will give careful consideration to its recommendations in due course.

Does my hon. Friend recall that appendix B of the report of the working party on dogs in 1976 gave only the implications for English legislation? Will the Law Commission report, which we are now expecting, deal with the implications for Scottish legislation?

The Scottish Law Commission's consideration of this matter will cover all aspects of civil liability regarding injury as a result of actions by animals.

A particular problem regarding dogs is the number of puppies that must be put down after Christmas. Will my hon. Friend suggest to his colleagues that the time is well overdue for a draconian rise in the cost of the dog licence, which over the last two decades is the only licence whose price has not increased? Should it not go up considerably?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that this question relates to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, but I note his comments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell, to ask Question 32.

Not moved, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate has yet received the procurator fiscal's report on the recent fire at the nurses' home at Victoria hospital, Kirkcaldy; and if he will make a statement.

An interim report of this tragic fire has been received from the procurator fiscal at Kirkcaldy. However, it will be some time before the full report will be completed and submitted to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Every effort is being made to deal with the matter expeditiously. Until such time as the full report has been considered no statement can be made.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the former Solicitor-General for Scotland gave a strong indication that he was in favour of a public inquiry and that he would probably take it himself? For reasons well known to the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman is no longer in a position to do that. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be a public inquiry? If so, will the new Solicitor-General for Scotland take it, and, if not, who will?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, no final decision on an inquiry can be reached by the Lord Advocate until he receives the report submitted to the procurator fiscal. Having said that, I would not dissent from the general principle of what the former Solicitor-General for Scotland said.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is grave concern in Fife about the circumstances surrounding this fire? Against that background, will he impress on his noble and learned Friend the importance of my hon. Friend's point about the need for a public inquiry—either a fatal accident inquiry or some other kind of judicial public inquiry?

I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that my noble and learned Friend is fully conscious of the great public concern occasioned by this fire. He will be taking factors of that type into account in coming to a decision on this issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Lord Advocate has received about the use of the warrant sales procedure in Scotland.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has received representations on this matter suggesting either that warrant sales be abolished or that the present system be reformed. My noble and learned Friend has also received copies of the Scottish Law Commission's five consultative memoranda published in October 1980. The commission's view, with which we agree, is that it would not be right, and indeed would be misleading, for it to submit a report on warrant sales in advance of a report on the other aspects of enforcement covered by the four other memoranda. I am assured that the commission is working on its report and regards its completion as its first priority.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of ratepayers in Lothian region have been threatened and pursued by this arcane procedure for failure to pay their exorbitant rate demands? Is not that a moral abuse of this procedure, illustrating the total hypocrisy of the Labour group in Lothian region, which is always shouting about its interest in people's rights?

It is for the local authority to decide the appropriate way to pursue those who have not paid their rates. The whole subject of warrant sales, including the point raised by my hon. Friend, is now being considered by the Scottish Law Commission.

I am grateful to the Minister for not following the personal vendetta of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) against Lothian. I should like to press him about a reform of the law on warrant sales. We have been waiting for many years for the report on the law of diligence. While I welcome the fact that it is now to be a first priority, is the Minister aware that further substantial delay will bring into question the efficiency of our law reform procedures? When will the Law Commission be prepared to produce a considered statement?

I fully accept that there is concern in some quarters about this subject, and I certainly accept that there should be no substantial or unnecessary delay. The fact that the Scottish Law Commission has confirmed that the completion of this report remains its first priority should give reassurance to all who have taken an interest in the subject. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date, but, as the Law Commission will be treating this as its first priority, he can be sure that there will be no unnecessary delay whatever.

As cases of hardship have been reported to the Scottish Law Commission, will my hon. Friend inform the commission that an early completion of its report will be welcomed?

The Government are as anxious as many hon. Members to hear the views of the Scottish Law Commission. This is an important and sensitive area, and I am sure that no one would want legislation to be rushed through in an ill-considered fashion. As soon as the Law Commission has made its recommendations my noble and learned Friend will give the fullest consideration to the proposals that are put forward.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will ask electricity boards in particular and British Telecom not to use this medieval and barbaric way of securing debts in the meantime, because there are bound to be a large number of increased bills as a result of the heavy winter?

The hon. Member will appreciate that, as it was for local authorities, so it must be for electricity, boards and others to decide what means they use to pursue unpaid debts. I am sure that all public bodies and officials will take into account the effect on individuals of any action that they might take. However, the matter of the law is clearly one that must await the recommendations of the Law Commission.