asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from Glasgow district council any assessment of extra expenditure following the damage done to its housing stock during the recent severe weather.

While it is still not possible to give a firm figure for the expenditure involved, I understand that the council now estimates the cost to be about £13 million. This includes both the estimated cost of repairing damaged property and other additional expenditure incurred by the council as a result of the weather emergency.

Is the Minister aware that thousands of my constituents and others in Glasgow are living in appalling conditions because of burst pipes? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will provide Glasgow with extra money to ensure that repairs are carried out as expeditiously as possible to alleviate the misery?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from my main answer that the cost to Glasgow was substantially less than was originally suggested by both the council and Labour Members. The European Community is providing certain funds to the United Kingdom, of which Scotland will get its full share. The money will be distributed to those who have suffered loss as a result of the damage.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are prepared to make central funds available to assist local authorities with the cost of repairing damage caused by frost and in undertaking snow clearing operations following the recent severe weather?

I confirm that the Government have repeatedly offered help to local authorities following weather damage in the same way as the previous Labour Government offered assistance. Regional councils that suffered damage to their roads as a result of the emergency will receive help in the way that has been determined.

Does the Minister accept that, although the sum may now be substantially less than was feared, £13 million is still a substantial sum, and that if the Glasgow district council has to meet the bill the impact on its budget will be horrific? Does he agree that any help from the European Community is likely to be inadequate when measured against the need? In the circumstances, will he not stand on the niceties of what is insurable and what is non-insurable but take a sympathetic view of the genuine need for help? Many properties are derelict and many tenants have suffered great hardship. I am sure that the Government will be judged on the sympathy of their approach.

The help from the European Community will be directed to individual householders and not to local authorities. My officials and Glasgow district council officials have been discussing the expenditure involved, especially the proportion that would have been insurable if the council had followed the advice of the Labour Government. It is clear that a significant proportion of the expenditure may not have been insurable in the normal course of events. If that is confirmed—we do not yet know what the figure will be—that sum will be eligible for grants in the normal way.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what request he has received from Cunninghame district council for a meeting with him; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend shares Cunninghame district council's concern about unemployment in the district and has agreed to its request for him to meet a delegation on 17 March.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He knows that one of the questions that the district council will wish to raise with the Secretary of State is the future of the Scotboard factory at Irvine. Will he confirm that a party from the People's Republic of China recently visited the chipboard factory at Irvine with a view to inspecting and purchasing the machinery? Is Caberboard, the company that the Government are pushing, more concerned with asset-stripping than with providing work for the many unemployed in Irvine?

A company that is not Chinese is distinctly interested in the Scotboard premises to create new products and jobs in Ayrshire. Details are still being finalised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be among the first to welcome the project if, as we believe, it gets off the ground in the near future.

rose—

Order. I thought that this was a constituency question. Does it involve the hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Cunninghame district council, will he discuss with them the possibility of including ASSET—the Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenson Enterprise Team—in the new enterprise allowance scheme? Is he aware that there are three pilot schemes in operation in England, but as yet there is not one in Scotland? Surely ASSET would be ideal.

We are following closely the success of the pilot schemes in England. As soon as we have evidence that they are working well, as we expect, we shall be happy to take the earliest opportunity to introduce such a scheme in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made and is being made towards designating lorry routes in cities in Scotland; and whether he will issue any guidance to local authorities in this connection.

Surveys aimed at identifying lorry routes within their areas have been carried out in all the regions. Traffic regulatory orders relating to lorries have been made for Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee, but not for Glasgow.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by countless residents who hope that lorry routes will be designated in major cities, especially if lorry weights are to be increased marginally?

The power is available to local authorities, and we are anxious that, where appropriate, it is used to the advantage of local communities.

Does the Minister recall the reply that he gave to me that there would be no extra bypasses, or no advancement of proposed bypass development, following the recommendations of the Armitage report? If the Government agree to 40-tonne lorries, will he ensure that they stop at the border?

I am not clear about the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are considering a large number of bypass proposals. Indeed, 11 bypasses are either being constructed or are at a very advanced stage of preparation. The Government believe that bypasses are an important part of the roads programme.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, although we must bear in mind proper environmental control, commercial firms in Scotland in general, and in Grampian in particular, are losing out financially and commercially because of their inability to use larger lorries?

My hon. Friend is correct in relation to Scotland. Because it is further from the markets and sources of supply, Scotland might benefit more from heavier lorries. I emphasise that no final decision has been taken. My hon. Friend's point is relevant.

When considering the question of heavier lorries, will the Minister bear in mind the problems of parking in towns, such as Hamilton which is just off the main motorway, because greater aggravation will be caused if more and heavier lorries are on the roads?

Yes. I emphasise that the use of the powers to which I referred in answer to the original question can be initiated by the local authorities. The orders to which I referred can by promulgated by the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman should put the merits of his case to the relevant local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that over 35,000 houses in Glasgow suffer from dampness, he will make special additional resources available to Glasgow in order to tackle this problem.

I am aware of the serious problems facing Glasgow and other authorities. The cost of treating houses affected by dampness was a factor to which special weight was given in setting the provisional allocations for 1982–83.

The Government treat the matter so seriously that the Secretary of State and the Minister would not meet representatives of the Glasgow anti-dampness campaign or visit damp houses in Glasgow. Will the Minister now give the problem the priority that it deserves and come to Glasgow to see for himself the extent of the problem and the way in which housing standards are being undermined by dampness? Will he provide the extra money needed for Glasgow?

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely unfair. We were unable to meet representatives of that organisation on the day that they were in London. I visited one area of Glasgow, as the guest of the Glasgow district council, to look at the problems of dampness. That was one of the first duties that I undertook when I became a Minister. When we calculated Glasgow's supplementary allocation a couple of months ago we included an extra £2½million specifically to deal with dampness.

If the Minister wishes to experience real dampness, he should come to Orkney and Shetlands. Does he agree that one way of dealing with the problem is to make extra social service payments available to the poorer people who have to sleep in damp houses in an extremely damp and cold climate?

The right hon. Gentleman does the House a service by pointing out that the problem is not limited to the major conurbations. Government funds are available to help people to pay their heating bills.

I accept what my hon. Friend said about the 35,000 houses in Glasgow, but is he aware that there are more than 150,000 houses in Scotland, covering all the local authorities, that are built to Parker Morris standards? Does he agree that the stage has been reached when there should be a complete investigation into the problems of dampness in Scottish houses so that local authorities may give help to relieve the misery?

A number of investigations have taken place in the last few years. They have provided a great deal of useful technical information on the best means of tackling the problem. In response, the Government have not only taken major steps to make the information available to local authorities, but have, for the first time, made it a major consideration in determining allocations to local authorities for housing programmes.

The Minister has acknowledged that we are discussing a serious problem which affects the whole of Scotland, not just Glasgow. Is he aware that the Glasgow district council has already announced that, unless there is a generous settlement by the Government to deal with freeze damage, a large proportion of the money set aside for remedial work to cure dampness will have to be used to repair freeze damage? Is he further aware that the people now living in extremely insanitary conditions will have to live in those conditions for that much longer?

That was said by the Glasgow district council when it was thought that the cost of the damage would be between £20 million and £30 million. The latest estimate is that it will cost only £13 million. Government help depends upon the proportion of expenditure that is non-insurable. The evidence that we are now receiving from Glasgow shows that a proportion of its expenditure is likely to have been non-insurable and will, therefore, be eligible for Government grants. We have made it clear all along that if it was not insurable, consistent with the circular it would be possible to give help.

What percentage was non-insurable?

The matter is being discussed by Scottish Office officials and the Glasgow council. It is not possible to give a specific figure, but it will be a significant proportion. I cannot say what the precise amount will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a Command Paper setting out the Government's policy for Scotland on the recommendations made by the Energy Committee on the Government's new nuclear programme.

No, Sir. The Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Energy is set out in Cmnd. 8317 and includes comments on the Scottish issues involved.

Where was the Secretary of State when the House debated the Select Committee's report? Will he now make a statement on the increasing excess of generating capacity over demand in Scotland, caused partly by a drop in demand resulting from the Government's disastrous economic policies? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something to reassure my constituents whose jobs depend on Cockenzie power station?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten those whose jobs depend on the construction of Torness power station. The hon. Gentleman seems to be somewhat ambivalent towards that aspect. The overcapacity in the Scottish electricity system is caused by many factors. The closure of the Invergordon smelter has made a considerable difference. I was interested in the points made in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I read his contribution with great interest.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that his absence from that important debate was a contempt of the House? The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister in charge of one of the biggest electricity generating bungles in the United Kingdom. That being so, what are his plans to deal with over-generation in Scotland? Does he realise that the consumer has to pay for the extra power stations that are not required because of Government policy and the inability of the industry to accustom itself to the drop in demand over about eight years?

The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong in his assessment. The consumer principally will benefit from Torness power station, which, when completed, will produce cheaper electricity than any of the other stations in Scotland. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased about that.

Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend accept that the present over-capacity in Scotland is costing the consumer more than it needs to cost? May we have an assurance that in future decisions on power stations, such as Torness, a closer assessment will be made of the demand and cost implications in the interests of the consumer, instead of allowing the South of Scotland Electricity Board to go ahead on the ground of prestige rather than of practical necessity?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The greatest care was taken to make an assessment of the financial implications of going ahead with the Torness power station. Indeed, as I have already said, it is because it should make electricity cheaper for the consumer that the building of that station has gone ahead.

The right Gentleman referred to the closure of the Invergordon smelter. Does he agree that the principal issue involved in that closure was the cost of energy to British Aluminium? As the scheme announced by the Chancellor in last year's Budget has not been extended by the Secretary of State to cover Scottish industry—because the right hon. Gentleman does not think that Scottish industry is at a disadvantage in respect of energy costs—may we have an assurance that in the Budget a week next Tuesday the discount scheme for industry will be extended to Scottish industry?

The hon. Gentleman is talking about two completely different things. On the one hand, he is talking about the cost of electricity to industry in general. On the other, he is talking about the cost of the special arrangements for the smelter. Both are important but quite different matters. We have clarified the point about the general electricity discount scheme and have pointed out that, on the whole, Scottish electricity prices are lower than those in England. I have made it clear that we are doing everything in our power to find someone new to operate the smelter, and a new power contract will be very much part of that operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were arrested at football matches during 1981.

Information on the total number of people arrested at football matches is not collected by my Department.

The lack of statistics probably explains a lot about the Government. Does the Minister accept that many of those arrested at football matches have religious differences and, regrettably, attend specifically not to watch football? I am thinking particularly of Rangers and Celtic supporters. Is it not a disgrace that the Rangers football club employs no Catholics either in the club or in its playing team? Is it not about time that that was made illegal? Is it not time that the Government said something about it? It is discrimination—

Order. The hon. Gentleman can question the Minister only about those matters for which he is responsible.

The Government introduced legislation on drink at football grounds. Does the Minister agree that the Government could more responsibly monitor the working of that legislation by keeping statistics on the number of football fans arrested at football matches?

Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is seeking. We do not have information about the number who have been arrested, which covers a whole series of different circumstances, but we do have information about the number of new offences under the Criminal Justice Act. There were 231 offences for being drunk in, or attempting to enter, designated sports grounds; 12 offences for possessing alcohol travelling to or from a sporting event; and 186 offences for the possession of controlled containers or alcohol when attempting to enter designated sports grounds. Those statistics are collected and are essential for the monitoring exercise.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to my earlier question about the policy of Rangers football club indiscrimination against Catholics. May I ask you to whom I should address a question about discrimination? Should I address it to the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Secretary-General of the United Nations or perhaps to God? To whom do I address it?

If I may make a constructive suggestion to the hon. Gentleman—I am trying to be helpful—I advise him to go to the Rangers football club. There is no answer here to the problem. We are not responsible for what either Rangers or Celtic—I want to be impartial—does.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reverse the continuing upward trend in unemployment in Scotland.

We are taking firm steps to control inflation—the main reason for the loss of markets and of jobs—and to encourage the expansion of existing firms and the starting up of new ones.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will share my disappointment that the Minister has trotted out the same stuff as he trotted out in the Scottish Grand Committee. Is not unemployment in Scotland getting worse primarily because of the Government's present policies? Will the Minister and the Secretary of State show some backbone, throw off the shackles of the monetarist policies of the Government and take the initiative to release the strictures placed on local government public spending? If that were done, the building industry in Scotland would perhaps start to expand before it disappears altogether.

Such policies cause inflation and, therefore, unemployment. The upward trend in unemployment will be reversed only by improved output per man and woman in employment in Scotland. There is no magic solution to the situation. Nevertheless, job prospects are encouragingly good. The hon. Gentleman will know that in recent weeks, on Clydeside alone, Scott-Lithgow, Govan Shipbuilders and Yarrow have announced orders worth more than £200 million, and other Scottish companies are competing well in a difficult international situation.

What is the Minister doing to speed up the decision from his Department and the SDA on the imaginative proposals of Messrs Elias and Robertson to reopen the pulp mill at Fort William, which would create much needed jobs? In particular, what is he doing to prevent the sale of essential machinery by Wiggins Teape?

We are still in close consultation with Mr. Robertson and his proposed partner. This is a difficult and complex issue. Frankly, I think that they were a little over-optimistic to begin with as to their chances of finding private capital. We are trying to help on both counts—to raise private capital and to make public funds available for a viable project. As to the equipment in the pulp mill, we are in close consultation with Wiggins Teape, which will move nothing out if, by doing so, it would destroy any prospect of a viable operation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly anomalous that, on the one hand, the Government lash out a large amount of public money to encourage employment and, on the other, do not allow someone who wishes to employ on a personal basis to make the wages tax deductible?

I am not sure that I follow my hon. Friend's point. I thought that he was going on another tack, so I shall answer the point that I thought he was making. Local authorities agreed with the Government to make grants available in their areas to provide jobs, but they then taxed those jobs away with high rates increases.

Is the Minister aware that, whether there is an upward or a downward trend in unemployment as a result of yesterday's figures, the majority of us think that unemployment is still too disastrously high? During the next few weeks will he talk to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and indicate, as the CBI has done, that Scotland requires extra money to improve its infrastructure, particularly in the industrial belt? The new infrastructure would create new jobs and make Scotland a more attractive place for inward investment.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must always try to make Scotland more attractive to investors, both inward and indigenous. The most attractive thing that we can provide is improved productivity. There are areas in Scotland, not least in the public sector, where productivity is lagging behind that not just in Europe but in other parts of the United Kingdom. If we want to attract jobs, we must prove that we can produce the goods at least as well as anyone else in Europe.

I do not wish to usurp the function of my hon. Friend who is responsible for education, but I return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles). A serious situation affects Scotland particularly, because people who pay out of their own income for their own employees are taxed twice. In other words, they pay for the gross income out of their taxed income. Can there not be some understanding so that the position in rural Scotland might be relieved?

I shall certainly look into that point.

Does the Minister appreciate that he is the last person to lecture industry on productivity, when we examine his productivity? How can he be so abysmally complacent against the background of these disgraceful unemployment figures? Will he stop deceiving the people of Scotland about an upturn in the economy when he and the Secretary of State know that the figures will get worse? When will we get some positive action to deal with the disgraceful unemployment situation in Scotland?

There is no complacency by the Government about unemployment in Scotland or its economy. It is reasonable to remind Labour Members that in the past few weeks shipbuilding orders worth more than £200 million have been achieved on the Clyde alone at a time when competition is severe. The Government accept the criticisms that are made when unemployment figures are as high as they are, but we believe that we have a right to point to the good news about jobs and orders in Scotland. That is what my right hon. Friend and I are doing.

Stewart asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now raise the level of grant and loan for the building of crofter housing.

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 18 February. As I said then, I am currently reviewing the levels of assistance available under the present scheme, but it is too early to say what the outcome will be.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that four years have gone by since the figures were last raised and that there have been considerable increases in the costs of materials and labour? Ought he not, in fairness, to make adjustments along these lines? Does he also accept that this scheme is still a fair bargain for local authorities, that might have to expend £30,000 on providing a local authority house when a crofter might require accommodation?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comment, and these are some of the matters that I shall take into account in my review. However, as I am sure he will know, the scheme as it stands still represents a good deal for the crofters, too, considering that the maximum amount of aid that can be got for a house is £4,000 and that the rate of interest is 3⅛per cent., which must be an advantage in present conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the state of the Scottish economy.

Against a background of considerable national and international economic difficulty, the Scottish economy has experienced a fall in activity and employment which has been slightly less severe than for the United Kingdom as a whole. The trend in most of the major economic indicators is now more encouraging than for some time.

What hope is there for the Scottish economy and for the 350,000 unemployed Scots after that depressing drivel by the Prime Minister last night when she made a cheap attempt to put the blame for mass unemployment on the unemployed? As even some Tory MPs are now demanding a £6 billion reflation of the economy in the forthcoming Budget to alleviate unemployment, will the Secretary of State back, within the Cabinet, even that modest proposal, or will he continue forever his dumb subservience to that demented woman who is wrecking the Scottish economy?

I detected no such remark or implication in the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made last night. It was extremely well received by those of the engineers who were there. With regard to the major problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, not even he can alter the fact that this country has been going through one of the most difficult recessions in his lifetime.

The right hon. Lady has made it worse.

The hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge the vast amount of help and aid, at great expense, that the Government have put into saving people from losing their jobs, notably in the steel industry, British Leyland and throughout private industry as well. I should have thought that he would be grateful for that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best permanent export that Scotland could make would be the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)? Does he also agree that in January Scottish-based firms gained export orders worth £62 million and Scottish-based firms achieved contracts for £32 million for expenditure within Scotland? Is this not a very encouraging sign?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, although I cannot agree that there is any great probability of our being able to export the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) as I do not detect a g-eat deal of demand for the product.

Is the Secretary of State aware that far from the Prime Minister's speech being extremely well received, it will be extremely badly received by the 3 million unemployed, including the 325,000 jobless in Scotland? What we need in the coming Budget i; a massive boost to the economy. As previous Tory Budgets have been disastrous for Scotland, if the Secretary of St ate has any influence in the Cabinet will he use it to prod ice for once a Budget that is good for Scotland?

The right hon. Gentleman should take the time to read the whole of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last night, because in it she made it clear that the Government's top priority has to be to enable people who have lost their jobs to have some chance of obtaining new ones. The only way to do that is to stop people pricing themselves out of jobs as they did with many of the disastrous policies that he and his right hon. Friends followed for many years.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your exalted campaign to preserve the standards of Parliament, is it in order for an hon. Member to describe a right hon. Member as a "demented woman", even if it comes from the hairy lips of a demented man?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it pleases the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall change the phraseology and call her the "right hon. demented woman".

Order. Very often it is a matter not of order but of taste. I leave the matter there.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to visit the offices of the Scottish Development Agency in Glasgow.

My right hon. Friend's next visit to the agency's office in Glasgow is likely to be sometime in March, when he will chair a meeting of the Locate in Scotland steering group.

When the hon. Gentleman visits the offices will he take to task the people at the SDA who are reported to be spending £700,000 on refurbishing and expanding those offices? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is a downright scandal, bearing in mind the numbers of employers who look for an advancement from the SDA? Does he realise that reports yesterday said that the construction industry is in the worst state that it has ever been in the history of Scotland? Is it not time to do something?

Proposals to improve the accommodation at Bothwell Street in Glasgow are at an early stage, and my right hon. Friend will be consulted before any decision is taken. As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, like Government Members, fully support the SDA in its work, they must agree that it must have proper accommodation to carry out the duties that both sides of the House consider to be most important.

When my hon. Friend visits the SDA will he take the opportunity to discuss with the officials there the defence 'expenditure that will arise from the Trident base and ensure that the SDA is ascertaining properly and fully from the Property Services Agency that Scottish consultant engineers and contractors will be given the opportunity to quote for the many jobs in the development?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but that is a matter not for the SDA but for the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the numbers of students who will leave Scottish schools in the summer of 1982 possessing university entrance qualifications.

Entrance qualifications vary between universities and between departments. I therefore cannot make an accurate estimate of the figure which the hon. Gentleman is seeking.

When the result becomes clear post hoc will the Minister concede that there will be a demand for places in Scottish universities that will not be able to be fulfilled because of the cuts in the university education brought about by the University Grants Committee and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Will he examine the position by which grants for technological universities and other universities are being cut at a time when universities on a collegiate basis in England are expanding, thereby making the apportionment of UGC funds unfair to Scotland?

I deny the last point. Scotland has come out of the UGC's reappraisal better than any other part of the United Kingdom. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman's interest in technology and subjects of that kind, I presume that he will welcome the fact that the UGC, in carrying out its strategy, has aimed at a policy of a shift in the balance of university places so that student numbers will increase in the subjects with which he is concerned.

As there will be a substantial fall in the number of people who will reach the age of 18 in every year from next year to 1990, together with more money being spent per pupil in Scotland than ever before, can we hope for a significant improvement in the proportion of children who achieve university qualifications?

At present, the numbers who are achieving university entrance type qualifications is on the increase. As my hon. Friend will be aware, not every school leaver who achieves those qualifications wishes to go to university. Some wish to enter employment immediately and others go to colleges of various sorts.

Is the Minister aware that the institute that the Government are trying to starve of resources—Stirling university—is experiencing an increase in applications of 9 per cent., whereas in the United Kingdom as a whole the increase is only 3 per cent.? Is he satisfied that he is giving adequate backing to that institution, which needs the support of everyone in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the allocation of funds to universities is entirely a matter for the University Grants Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the current state of Scottish agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

The facts are fully set out in the White Paper "Annual Review of Agriculture 1982", Cmnd. 8491, published on 17 February. There are encouraging signs of improvement in farming income from last year's very low figure, though I remain very concerned about the level of borrowing and the drop in investment.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is aware of the great concern in Scottish farming about the proposal for a possible revaluation of the green pound during the forthcoming European price review? Can he assure us that he will do everything in his power to withstand any such proposal?

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It is an early stage of the CAP negotiations, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made our position clear in the opening stages of negotiation and rejected the Commission's proposal for a revaluation of the green pound.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the massive and unprecedented slump in investment in tractors and other equipment by agriculture in Scotland is a direct cause of the loss of thousands of jobs in the British engineering industry? Will the Government take a leaf out of the book of the French Socialist Government and introduce national aids to support our agriculture?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from a touch of amnesia. He should remember that the main reason for the disastrous state of investment in the agriculture industry was the persistent refusal of the previous Government to allow the green pound to devalue to a reasonable level which would give a fair deal to our farmers. If he does not realise that, I assure him that all our farmers do.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in recent years the percentage return on capital investment in agriculture has been falling? If so, will he do what he can with his right hon. Friends in the Government to change that state of affairs?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is a reflection of the difficult times and falling incomes that farmers have been experiencing for several years. I assure my hon. Friend that the extra aid that the Government have given to farmers has so far managed to reverse that process. We hope that argriculture can look to the future with more confidence.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the fall in incomes has now, in the words of the National Farmers Union, rendered them totally inadequate to stimulate investment? Further, is he aware that the incomes are now at a level below that of 1979 when the Labour Government left office? It is not good enough for him to say that investment fell under the Labour Government. Incomes were high enough to allow that investment. They are now much too low to afford it.

The hon. Gentleman has presented a completely false picture. As he should know, the Labour Government doggedly refused to give our farmers a square deal by devaluing the green pound. What is more, the Government have given far greater aid than any previous Government, especially on hill livestock compensatory amounts, the new suckler cow premium scheme and the new arrangements for the sheep meat regime, all of which have been major and favourable changes in the treatment of farming.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he is having with the Scottish Development Agency and the local authorities about the changes in assisted area status later this year.

There is close contact with the Scottish Development Agency on matters of this sort, and the proposed changes have been discussed on a number of occasions with local authorities. The points made in discussion will be taken into account in the review of those areas which are due to become non-assisted on I August as a result of being downgraded by more than one step.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that he has discussions this summer, before a final decision is taken, with the local authorities so that they can explain their local problems and bring to his notice their wish to retain their present status?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. Of course I shall be anxious to hear any views that local authorities or others wish to put to me on those points.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is now some evidence that firms may be considering moving out of places such as the Borders to areas where development assistance will continue? Would it not be cheaper for the taxpayer, and more sensible in the long run, for the Secretary of State to come up with a scheme before 1 August to encourage industry to expand where it already is in Scotland?

I agree that encouraging industry to expand is desirable, wherever it is. However, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the point of regional policy is to concentrate resources where they are most needed. A regional policy that fails to do that is not doing the best possible job for the areas in greatest need.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was a member of the Government that took the decision about which he now complains? If the hon. Member for Dumfries feels that the Government of which he was a member got that decision wrong, does it not concern the Secretary of State that the decision is wrong, and does he agree that the question of assisted area status should he examined in more detail before irreparable damage is done to what is left of a very depressed Scottish economy?

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my hon. Friend's question. My hon. Friend was part of the Government who decided to make the changes and also to have a review this year. My hon. Friend was asking for information to be received as part of that review, which he was right to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he can give of the new jobs created, or which have been promised, in Scotland so far in the current year.

Records of new jobs created cannot be accurately kept as they are the result of numerous decisions by many companies throughout Scotland. However, announcements made public during the past few months alone cover over 6,000 new jobs. My Department has made 130 offers of selective financial assistance during the current financial year to projects involving more than £410 million of investment and over 14,500 jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the House will be glad to hear that there are 6,000 new jobs and that his Department is offering so much money? However, that is not a large contribution in the light of the level of unemployment in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his undoubtedly great influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that he reduces the taxation on employing people, through the national insurance contribution, and also reduces the cost of energy to industry?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assessment of my great influence with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I shall make sure that those points are fully represented to the Chancellor. The difficulty is not that of finding money to support new projects, but that of finding the projects in the first place. All our attention is turned to that.

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last night, in which she played down the advantages of North Sea oil in previous years against the disadvantages now, when the price has dropped? How many new jobs were created last year when we were in the advantageous position of having North Sea oil?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read the full version of my right hon. Friend's speech, but that is not a proper reflection of what she said about North Sea oil. She made it quite clear that if the price of North Sea oil continues to fall it will pose some problems in balancing our budget, as we are major producers. No one, least of all my right hon. Friend, is in any doubt about the benefits of North Sea oil. We now have 90,000 to 100,000 jobs in Scotland because of it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the prospect of bringing new jobs to Scotland is not helped by the constant talking down of Scotland by Opposition Members? If they are concerned about bringing new jobs to Scotland, can they not be more constructive?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. Although I am not surprised that Opposition Members share our great concern about the difficulties in the economy and unemployment, it is a mystery why no Opposition Member seems capable of welcoming any good news.

In the interests of objectivity, will the Secretary of State give, for the period when the 6,000 jobs have been created, the figure for those that have been lost? What steps do he and his colleagues in the Government intend to take constructively to refurbish and change the system of regional incentives, as the present system seems to be collapsing?

I do not accept that. The present system of regional aid is competitive with what is provided in other countries with which we compete for inward investment. Now that the system is concentrated in the Locate in Scotland office, we are able to do a thoroughly professional job in attracting new industry to Scotland. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received to amend the provisions of section 1(2) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, as amended by the Rent (Scotland) Act 1974, which exempts tenancies where the rent includes payments in respect of board from the general provisions regarding rent regulations, so as to make any such lettings to students attending full-time courses at a university or college of further education liable to regulation.

We have had representations very recently from a number of hon. Members, to which replies will be sent shortly. As indicated in the reply that was given on 10 February to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), legislative provision relating to the private letting of houses introduced by successive Administrations in the past has been consistent in not applying to tenancies of this kind, and we have no proposals for amendment.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that many students are denied the protection of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 for the fair fixing of their rents because they have signed bed and breakfast agreements with unscrupulous landlords? The landlords get round the rule by delivering bread rolls and milk to some flats and requiring other students to travel some distance to obtain their food. What steps does the Under-Secretary propose to rid us of those Rachmans?

I accept that the problem exists. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that successive Governments have found it difficult to discover a definition that would provide protection where it was required but would not extend it to boarding houses or hotels that provide board and lodging. Such problems have been difficult to accommodate when we have tried to find proper protection for those who can reasonably expect it.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has studied the report by Lord Hunter on the Meehan case in so far as it affects the Crown Office.

I am presently considering these aspects of the report along with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

As I am the first to address a question to the Solicitor-General since his appointment, may I congratulate him on his elevation to the Front Bench, even if it may be a step towards a judicial bench after the next election? How long do he and his noble and learned Friend intend to take to consider the Meehan report, which has now been under wraps for several years? What were the shortcomings of the Crown Office, which have been reported in the press, and what steps have been take to improve the position in the Crown Office in view of the recent Glasgow rape case, which has also undermined confidence in that office?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take to be a back-handed compliment. The report by Lord Hunter has been before the Secretary of State only since August last year. A number of legal matters have been referred to my noble and learned Friend by the Secretary of State. Those are presently being considered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeated the statement that was made by the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, that it is his intention to publish the report in due course.

May I add my congratulations to those made to my hon. Friend on his elevation and give him my good wishes? I wish to ask him about the Meehan report by Lord Hunter, with is complications. In view of the award of £77,000 to Mr. John Preece, who was released from prison after some eight years imprisonment, and regardless of when the Hunter report may be published, will my hon. Friend use his influence to ask the Secretary of State to review the award of a mere £7,500 which was rejected by Mr. Meehan for serving an equivalent term and when, after all, he was pardoned?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his gracious remarks on my taking on this office in his steps. The question of compensation awards following on the release of Patrick Meehan from prison is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that he is aware that the specific terms of reference to Lord Hunter to examine the matters arising out of the Meehan affair and his conviction specifically exclude any consideration of compensation.

I also welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I appreciate that when he first announced the reference to Lord Hunter he said specifically that the report of the inquiry would be published in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has repeated that assurance. However, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a number of legal matters must be considered carefully with regard to publication. Accordingly, it would be premature for me at this time to give any indication of whether the report will be published in its entirety.

Is not the implication of what the hon. Gentleman is now saying that the report may not be published in full? However, the Under-Secretary gave us an assurance on television just a fortnight ago that the report would be published in full. What is the answer?

The implication of what I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is not connected with whether the report will be published in its entirety. At this stage it would be premature for me to give any indication. In any event, the matter of publication is for the Secretary of State for Scotland. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that report was ordered by the then Secretary of State. It was delivered by Lord Hunter to the present Secretary of State.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has now received the report of the procurator fiscal on the fire that took place at Kirkcaldy Victoria hospital; and what action he intends to take.

For the reasons given in my letter of 19 February to the hon. Gentleman, the procurator fiscal at Kirkcaldy has still to submit a full report on this tragic fire, but it will be submitted to my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, in the near future. It is the intention of my noble and learned Friend to request that a fatal accident inquiry be held unless some unexpected information is received in the report from the procurator fiscal.

I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman for having joined such a dreadful Government. I thank him for his letter. When does he expect to receive the report from the procurator fiscal, and when will the fatal accident inquiry be held?

As I told the hon. Gentleman in my letter, the procurator fiscal has been seeking reports from such experts as the Fire Research Station at Borehamwood. The Health and Safety Executive is looking into the cause and the seat of the fire and why it appeared to travel so quickly. For that reason it has taken some time to make the investigations, but it is expected that the full report from the procurator fiscal will be available in the near future. Arrangements are already being made, but if my noble and learned Friend should apply for a fatal accident inquiry it would be a matter of weeks before it would commence.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for trading standards offences were mounted by the Crown Office for the most recent convenient period.

There were 484 prosecutions in 1980 for consumer protection offences and for contraventions of the Food and Drugs(Scotland) Acts that can be said to fall into the category of trading standing offences.

In taking up his office, on which all my hon. Friends join me in congratulating him, has my hon. Friend noticed that the Director General of Fair Trading has drawn attention to the fact that the fines for such offences in Scotland are less than half those in England? Does he agree that that is typified by the case in Fife recently when a licensee was fined only £5 for seeking to pass off a whisky of unknown origin as being a famous brand, which would certainly raise the spirits of the Scottish Bar?

My hon. Friend is correct to point to the report from the Director General of Fair Trading, which established that fines in Scotland were lower than those south of the border. However, the Government's responsibility is not to see what fines are imposed, but to ensure that the statutory penalties are kept under review. The Criminal Justice Bill allows for increases in the statutory penalties. I can understand that the character of the particular case that my hon. Friend referred to outrages him, but I should point out that it was only a single whisky.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission to consider the issue of warrant sales.

The Scottish Law Commission is already working on a report covering those aspects of the law of diligence, including warrant sales, covered by the five consultative memoranda published in October 1980. I welcome the priority that the Scottish Law Commission is according to this report. In view of the priority already being accorded to the preparation of the report I do not consider there to be any need for me to meet the Scottish Law Commission to urge that any greater attention be given to the issue of warrant sales.

May I also warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General on his first day of questions? May I request him to inform the Scottish Law Commission that the report's early completion would be very welcome?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the completion of the report is the Scottish Law Commission's first priority. It is also important that there should not be piecemeal reform of the law of diligence in Scotland. I hope that we shall see a complete report by the Scottish Law Commission on this very important matter in the near future.

Although I accept that the report has now been given high priority, will the Solicitor-General accept that since time immemorial Ministers have said that it is top of the Scottish Law Commission's shopping list? Will he give us some idea when the House will have a substantive comprehensive report on which it can consider action? Otherwise, we shall return to the subject month after month at Scottish Question Time. That is not in the interests of any hon. Member.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I assure him that the report is at the top of the list. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the law on incest was being investigated by the Scottish Law Commission, and the report has now been completed. The law of diligence and its reform in Scotland is definitely the top priority for the Scottish Law Commission.