asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase in employment he expects in Scotland in the fiscal year 1983–84 as a result of the Budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the consequences on job and industrial investment prospects in Scotland of the recent Budget proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the likely effects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget proposals on the prospects for future growth in the Scottish economy.

Given the extent to which the Budget proposals will benefit industry, directly and indirectly, they will improve the prospects for economic growth, industrial investment and jobs in Scotland.

Is it not plain that that is not the case and that the Government's policies offer no opportunity to reduce unemployment? Will the Secretary of State be direct with us instead of leaving the matter to his surrogate undertakers, MacGregor and Atkinson, and say categorically whether Ravenscraig is to continue as a fully integrated steel plant?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the reduction in the national insurance surcharge, the extra help for small businesses, the construction industry and the oil industry and, what is more, a further reduction in the bank rate, are bound to be helpful for jobs in Scotland.

Will the Secretary of State admit that there will be a further dramatic increase in unemployment in Scotland in the rest of the current financial year and that that will not allay anxiety about the future of the steel, coal and railway industries? Moreover, does he recognise that the number of bankruptcies of small firms has reached an all-time record since the Government took office?

There will be no dramatic increase in unemployment during the current financial year, because it finishes in about five days' time. With regard to the more serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, no one in any Western European country can forecast in present circumstances that there will not be an increase in unemployment of some type, even in the months ahead. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Budget and all the other measures that the Government have taken have made massive efforts to ease the difficulties of unemployment.

Will the Secretary of State come clean about young people being unemployed? What hope can he give that important sector of the population who, come a year's time, will find that jobs are not available for them, even if they have undertaken strenuous educational and training activity? They want real, purposeful jobs, riot the phony economic prospectus that the Government are offering.

I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about unemployment among all people, and especially among young people. However, he cannot shrug of his responsibility, as he supported a Government who did a great deal to destroy the companies on whose markets we depend for our jobs and have found recently that competition from overseas has taken many of their markets. Surely the hon. Gentleman is able to tell young people that not only are there better training facilities for them than there have ever been, but that there are tremendous opportunities in high technology industries in his own area, for example, in which they can take jobs from now on.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best prospects for secure and long-term employment in Scotland lie not with the high-spending proposals of the Labour party, but in creating the right climate that will attract new and lasting industries to Scotland, and that that is what the Budget has done?

I agree that even a cursory reading of the document that the Labour party produced yesterday makes it quite clear that the increase in taxation and interest rates that its vast spending programme would require would probably put a large number of Scottish companies out of business because of the burden on them.

s the Secretary of State telling us that the Budget provisions for an increase in unemployment of about 300,000 will not affect Scotland and that we shall not suffer an increase in unemployment, or is he saying cautiously that there will be an increase in unemployment?

I did not say that cautiously. I said it plainly a few moments ago. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise, because his knowledge of economics is much better than that of many hon. Members, that the way to deal with unemployment is to ensure that our businesses can recapture the markets that they lost while under the control of the Government of which he, alas, was a member.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he made a statement earlier this week, with which we all agree, that the MacGregor plan for Ravenscraig, with its loss of 2,000 jobs,

"is an extraordinarily unattractive proposition"?

The right hon. Gentleman calls for my resignation about three times a week. I am happy for him to continue to do that for the next five years. I have made it clear that any major departure from the instructions given by the Government to the British Steel Corporation on 20 December must come back to the Government. No such proposal has been put to me by Mr. MacGregor or by anyone else, and during my discussions about steel during the past week no one has suggested to me that I should refuse to consider any plan produced for the future.

We know what is in the MacGregor plan. Does the Secretary of State stand by his statement that the plan

"is an extraordinarily unattractive proposition"?

Those words were put into my mouth. If the right hon. Gentleman knows the MacGregor plan details, he is one up on Mr. MacGregor, who does not know either. It was made clear to me by Mr. MacGregor that he has no specific plan arranged with anyone on the other side of the Atlantic. If and when he has, both the right hon. Gentleman and I must consider it.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the "no hope" document published by the Socialists yesterday, and has he considered the likely rise in unemployment should that document be implemented, because of increasing taxation, interest rates and inflation?

I have made an initial study of that document, which is amazing in its ignorance of the basic requirements for the success of the Scottish economy. I agree with my hon. Friend's examples, but a much greater one is that the Labour party's commitment to withdraw from Europe would put thousands of Scottish jobs in mortal peril of being destroyed for ever.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

On 10 February 1983, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood provisionally at 316,900 persons, an unemployment rate of 14·6 per cent. The rate of increase in unemployment has slowed down during the past year, which shows, with other evidence, that our economic strategy is having effect. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech announced further help for the unemployed as well as various measures to assist industrial growth.

Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that while he has been in office 192,000 more people have joined the unemployment queue in Scotland, representing for every miserable day of his existence, including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, 260 people with no hope of work? For how long will he preside over the shamful destruction of the future of Scottish people, and when will he adopt an alternative policy of hope and expansion?

My right hon. Friend and I have said several times that we deplore the high rate of unemployment in Scotland, but, unlike those of the Labour party, our policies are aimed at reducing unemployment. The Labour party policy document published yesterday would increase unemployment in Scotland by several hundred thousand, because of the withdrawal from Europe and further nationalisation.

Does the Minister agree that as the consumption of whisky is falling and unemployment in distilling is increasing, this is an especially lunatic moment to increase whisky duty?

The increase in duty is well below the level of inflation during the past two years. The whisky industry has not been treated badly in this respect, and more recently it has benefited by about £100 million through measures agreed by the Chancellor.

Is it not true that since the end of the second world war every time a Labour Administration held office unemployment was higher when they left office than when they entered? Does my hon. Friend see any reason why that should change in the foreseeable future?

My hon. Friend is correct. The policy document published yesterday shows that Labour has learnt nothing from its mistakes.

Does the Minister agree that the only word that can apply to the impact of the Government's economic policies during the past four years is "disaster"? If he is criticising the Labour party for planning to spend many billions of pounds that it does not have and must borrow from abroad, would it not be appropriate for him to press the Treasury to give back the £7 billion or £8 billion of oil revenues that Scotland needs and deserves to have attributed to it?

Scotland benefits a great deal from the nation's oil revenue.

Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Lanarkshire is now almost one in four of the adult population, and that leaflets are circulating in my constituency claiming that the saving of Ravenscraig was a triumph for Lanarkshire, Scotland and the Conservatives? Will he now answer my right hon. Friend's question? If the MacGregor plan comes before Ministers and it suggests the destruction of the strip mill at Gartcosh as part of a deal with the Americans, will the Secretary of State reject that plan, or will he resign?

As my right hon. Friend said, if a proposal comes before the Government it will be considered carefully, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) said he would do. He believes that no Government could refuse to consider any proposal to increase the performance of the British steel industry. However, Ministers must decide the future of Ravenscraig, along the lines of the MacGregor plan that is currently being discussed in the newspapers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed that treatment for all types of diabetes will be provided in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The treatment of diabetes, in all its usual forms, is provided in Scotland at teaching and district general hospitals and, where appropriate, by family doctors.

Is the Minister aware that my question refers to a 23 year-old constituent who suffers from a form of diabetes that is, as far as we know, the only such case in Scotland? If my constituent does not receive this treatment, which has already been tried unsuccessfully in Scotland, in Vienna, the cost to the health board will be thousands of pounds, because she will require regular hospital treatment costing £600 a week? Will the Minister reconsider this case and provide the money necessary to enable my constituent to live a normal life?

This patient suffers from an extremely rare form of brittle diabetes, where only the new method currently being assessed in Vienna has any likelihood of controlling her insulin-sugar balance. National Health Service facilities are limited to the United Kingdom, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 does not enable the NHS to pay for a Scottish patient going abroad for treatment. I understand that funds are being provided by the friends of the hospital, the local rotary club and Fife health board endowment funds to allow the patient to go to Vienna. I hope that the treatment that she receives there will work.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some distress has been caused to those who suffer from diabetes because of the non-availability of disposable syringes? Will he consider this problem, because many youngsters find it difficult to handle glass syringes and would find disposable syringes much easier?

I have considered the problem on more than one occasion. For youngsters, disposable needles that are essential on medical grounds can be supplied through a hospital. If they were not, we would not be justified in diverting the necessary expenditure from other Health Service priorities to give disposable needles to every diabetic.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to alleviate unemployment in the engineering and fish processing factories in Fraserburgh and Peterhead.

A wide range of incentives are available for industrial development. These include tax incentives, schemes to back innovation in product development and numerous measures to assist small firms. Moreover, the fish processing industry may be eligible for grant support from the European Community under its FEOGA provisions.

That is a most unsatisfactory reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that 26·1 per cent. of the employable male workers in Fraserburgh are unemployed and that in the fish processing factories shifts are being laid off because there is no work for them? With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the facilities may be available, but they are not being used. Will he instruct his officials to do something in my constituency so that we can have action rather than words?

My hon. Friend is aware that action is being taken in his constituency, and I have to disagree with him about the FEOGA grants, because considerable sums are being invested in fish processing. For example, during 1982–83 applications for grants from FEOGA involved planned expenditure in Scotland of £10·5 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, just along the coast from Fraserburgh, in the town of Buckie, a fishing boat building yard, after being closed for two years, has reopened with orders for new vessels, and also that two fish processors in that town, Cox Fish and Moray Fish, are each taking on 50 or 60 extra employees?

It would seem that my hon. Friend's constituents are faster on the draw than the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie).

Is the Minister aware that just along the coast, in the other direction from Buckie, the Government's settlement of the common fisheries policy has done nothing to help fishermen and that throughout the whole of the north east of Scotland there is great dismay, shared by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), over the disgraceful way in which the Government have treated the economy of the Grampian region?

I am rather confused about the question. However, the fishermen fully supported the agreement reached with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet the principals of colleges of education in Scotland to discuss the future of teacher training in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for such a meeting. My Department is, however, in constant touch with the principals about all aspects of teacher training.

What assurances can the Minister give to the principals of Craigie, Dunfermline and Dundee colleges of education that they will not be closed, as each of the colleges recorded costs per student in 1981–82 that were higher than those per student at Hamilton college and Callendar park college, both of which had to be closed for economic reasons?

The reason for the closure of the colleges was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the unit cost, but that there was, as the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, lessening demand for school teachers. We have no proposals to close the colleges to which he referred.

Will the Minister take into account, when looking at the future of the colleges for further education, the working party that he has set up on primary pre-service training? Will he tell the House that he will appoint a member from the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland to the committee, as it represents all the lecturers and principals in colleges of education? As they are the people who have to teach these courses, do they not have a right to say how the courses should be set up?

We believe that the colleges are properly represented on the committee.

In view of my hon. Friend's reply that there are no proposals to close colleges of education, will he confirm that no further colleges of education will be closed?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's words. I said that we had no proposals at present for any colleges closures, but we cannot tell what the position might be in five or 10 years' time.

Will the Minister include in the colleges of education, colleges of engineering, and ensure that every support is given to them to ensure that apprenticeships are given and kept up to date with the changes in industry and technology?

Much change is taking place in the engineering industry and in apprenticeship training, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. These matters are being revised.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to start the construction of a new laundry in north Ayrshire for the Ayrshire and Arran health board; and if he will make a statement.

The board is considering a number of alternative methods of providing laundry facilities in north Ayrshire. I hope to receive its proposals shortly.

Why has the offer from Irvine development corporation to rent or sell one of its many empty factories to be completed as a laundry not been accepted by the Ayrshire and Arran health board? Is it because the Minister's right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has an interest in Ayrshire and wishes one of his political industrial friends in north Ayrshire to provide laundry services to the hospitals of North Ayrshire as a first step in the privatisation of health services in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question was unworthy of him and was an unwarranted slur on my right hon. Friend. I deplore the time that the health board has taken over this matter. It has a number of options to look at and I hope—I have made my view clear to the board chairman—that its proposals will come to me soon.

Will the Minister come clean and admit that he and his right hon. Friend are pushing the Ayrshire and Arran health board into privatisation, not just of the laundry service, but of the meal and cleaning services? Are not these three services in hospitals far too important to leave to private enterprise when so many of the companies which might carry them out are going bust because of the Government's economic policy?

The health board is considering various options, including the building of a special laundry and the option mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), and contracting out laundry work. It must be obvious to any sensible person that if contracting out is the most economic way to carry out the services it is for the benefit of the patients and the taxpayers that that is done so that as much of Health Service resources as possible are directed to patient care, or, in the words of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to help with much needed facilities for psychogeriatric and geriatric care in south Ayrshire. I should have thought that that was the sensible way, unlike the dogmatic approach of the Labour party.

If a private company offers a laundry service, will my hon. Friend support that company in doing the work for the health board?

I assure my hon. Friend, and I have made it clear, that sound common sense is needed in the use of public money. I should expect the health board to look at all the options available, and if contracting out is the most economic way to deliver the service, common sense would tell us all that that is how it should be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many geriatric beds there are in Glasgow.

In March 1981 there were 2,262 hospital beds for geriatric patients in the Greater Glasgow health board area. In addition, 2,566 beds for the elderly were provided in residential accommodation by local authorities and voluntary bodies.

What assurances can the Minister give me that the geriatric hospital that has been shelved for three years in Rutherglen will go ahead with the 240 proposed new beds? Does the Minister realise that in the south eastern district of Glasgow there are nearly 230,000 people, 20 per cent. of whom are over 60, but only 350 geriatric beds to serve them?

The most recent estimates show that Greater Glasgow has slightly more beds than set out in the formula of 40 beds per 1,000 for people aged 75 or over. I agree that there is a problem of both the quality and location of beds in Glasgow. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that my Department has approved schemes at both Rutherglen and Gartloch hospitals for 120 beds at each, which will lead to an improvement in geriatric and psychogeriatric provision in the area.

In assessing provision for the elderly in the Glasgow area, how closely does the Minister liaise with his housing colleague in the Scottish Office on the provision of sheltered accommodation?

Sheltered accommodation is an important part of the whole spectrum of care for the elderly. The Government have given money to the housing associations, which has allowed them to build sheltered housing at a faster rate than ever before. I very much hope that that progress will continue, because sheltered housing is a splendid way of keeping the elderly active and in the community.

Will there not be a frightening shortfall of provision, not just in the hospital service, but in the geriatric service in the community? Is the Minister not upset and distressed by the fact that there have been so few jointly financed projects between local government and the health boards in Scotland? Would it not be better to do something about that scheme—thus getting away from the disadvantages met by local authorities in relation to the financial attractions of such a scheme, as against their counterparts in England—than to threap on about the ideological advantages of privatisation in the Health Service, as the hon. Gentleman has been doing for the last three or four minutes?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, at a meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities I discussed the whole question of the support finance scheme. I am considering ways in which that scheme can be improved. I am pleased to tell the House that in the coming financial year we are allocating £3·6 million to that scheme—a considerable increase over last year and a huge increase compared with the figure under the Labour party.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of forestry has been planted in Scotland by the Forestry Commission and by private forestry groups over the past two years where figures are available.

In the year ended 31 March 1981, 10,481 hectares were planted by the Forestry Commission and 7,074 hectares by private growers. In the year ended 31 March 1982, 10,094 hectares were planted by the commission and 10,743 hectares by private growers. These figures are for new planting only and do not include restocking. Separate records are not held centrally of the planting undertaken by the forestry groups.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which vindicates Government policy. To make absolutely sure that jobs are kept in this country, and to make use of all the timber grown both now and in the future, will he ensure that any major developments for the processing of timber will be located in Scotland, so that jobs can be developed there to support this vital industry?

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, although the interesting new development at Shotton in north Wales is of considerable benefit to the general timber market and should have beneficial effects on the market in Scotland. It is good to report that Messrs. Caberboard Ltd. is running its timber-using plant near Stirling well and has also reconstructed the firm in Irvine—previously Scotboard—which is now making a useful contribution to the use of timber in Scotland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is a future for a pulp industry in Scotland?

There is a great future for a timber-using industry in Scotland. The Government are doing a great deal—including the commissioning of the Arthur D. Little study through the SDA—to make sure that Scotland is ready to take full advantage of that.

What area of forestry land has been sold off by the Forestry Commission in Scotland since the Forestry Act 1981 came into force? How much money has consequently been siphoned out of Scottish forestry and into the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Between the passing of the Act in 1981 and 21 February 1983, approximately 1,034 hectares—775 hectares in Scotland—of land awaiting planting were sold by the commission, and the total amount of land that has so far been sold is about 90,000 hectares—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Let me correct that figure. The total is 9,300 hectares being planted for the current year, with more than 8,000 hectares being planted in Scotland. It is expected that in future the private sector will do considerably more planting than the public sector. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all the money is ploughed back into the forestry industry.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, at about £10 million a day, timber and timber imports have virtually become the United Kingdom's largest import bill? As Scotland can make a major contribution, will he do everything to ensure a far greater planting effort in both the private and public sectors in Scotland?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is for that reason that the Arthur D. Little study has been put into effect. As a result of that, the Scottish Forest Products Development Group has been established to seek and encourage investment in future forest products in Scotland. That is exactly in line with what my hon. Friend suggested.

How much in excess of the undertakings given at the time of the 1981 Act are the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman? Are they not greatly in excess of what we were led to believe would be the maximum level of privatisation of forestry land?

Not at all. The figures are pretty well on target with the undertakings given to the House when the sales programme went ahead. I am confident that that will continué over the rest of the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to privatise or sell off any of the activities currently run or owned by the Scottish Development Agency.

It is the Government's intention that the agency should continue to secure private sector participation in its activities and dispose of assets in accordance with its guidelines.

Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that private enterprise money introduced into SDA ventures, such as the construction and letting of industrial estates, will not become a Trojan horse, whereby once the estates are fully let they will be sold off to the private enterprise partner at rock-bottom prices?

There is no suggestion of anything being sold off at less than market value. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the funds coming to the agency from private disposals help to generate new investment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the main purpose of the SDA should be to promote and assist industry to stand on its own two feet and that it should not be a backdoor method of nationalisation and state monopoly?

On the contrary, the agency's functions are to work in partnership with the private sector, as I think my hon. Friend is suggesting, and to secure the maximum amount of private sector participation in its activities.

Will the Minister allow the SDA to take over the Bonnington mills rather than John Smart and company, which has a vested interest in the area and supports the Tory party, having given it £30,000 in 1981 and £40,000 last year?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a private housing development, in which the SDA does not involve itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in the construction industry in Scotland in each of the past four years.

The number of people employed in the Scottish construction industry in September of each of the past four years was 163,800 in 1979, 157,200 in 1980, 137,600 in 1981, 127,300 in 1982. These figures are estimates and do not include the self-employed, for whom information is not available.

In view of those disgraceful figures, may I ask how many unemployed construction workers appeared in the pre-election poster whose caption was "Labour isn't working"?

I shall endeavour to answer the serious issue which I think underlies the hon. Gentleman's question. Although the industry has been through a difficult period, there are now definite signs of recovery. Housing starts rose by over 20 per cent. in the first nine months of last year compared with the same period in 1981 and new construction orders rose by a similar percentage. Construction output has clearly begun to recover.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be better prospects still for the construction industry if local authorities spent more wisely on current account so that more money was available for capital investment?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is deplorable that Scottish local authorities are forgoing so much capital expenditure on housing in the current financial year because of their expenditure under current headings.

On a previous occasion the construction industry mounted a campaign called CABIN, in which it expressed great support for the Conservative party and claimed that a Conservative Government would offer the only means by which the construction industry would be saved in Scotland. Has the Minister received any approaches from the industry along those lines and, since mounting the CABIN campaign, has it expressed any regrets that the promises made by the Government have not come to pass?

No, but I am confident that at the next general election the majority in the construction industry, as in other industries, will vote Conservative.

Does the Minister accept that it has been his controls over revenue spending which have, in effect, strangled the construction industry's prospects of development through capital spending? As the distinction between revenue and capital is not necessarily very effective in public terms, will he review his policies and allow capital spending to go ahead?

No. There has been constraint because local authorities have chosen to forgo substantial amounts of capital expenditure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that public expenditure on construction in Scotland this year will be about £1,000 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of capital expenditure in the housing construction industry? Will he assure the House that adequate funds will be made available for any requests that are made by local authorities for the removal of dampness from local authority houses, this being a great problem in Scottish housing?

The Government are keenly aware of dampness and condensation problems and the hardship that they can cause. We very much welcome the interest that has been shown by the Select Committee. The responsibility is primarily with housing authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that individual housing allocations for 1983–84, which I expect authorities to receive tomorrow, will take full account of representations on dampness and condensation.

The Minister has talked about local authorities having chosen to forgo certain moneys in their capital programmes. Surely that is an unacceptable euphemism. In fact, local authorities have been viciously penalised and fined for refusing to increase rents to unacceptable and arbitrary levels that have been chosen at the whim of the Secretary of State. At a time of increasing housing need, high unemployment in the construction industry and a tidal wave of bankruptcies, is it not an insult to Scotland that over the past two years £80 million should have been taken from Scottish local authorities, which could have been put to good use in the house building programme?

I uttered not a euphemism, unacceptable or otherwise, but a statement of fact. The hon. Gentleman should be encouraging his friends in Socialist authorities to put capital expenditure first.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he plans to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss the recovery of Scottish industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Confederation of British Industry to discuss economic prospects in Scotland.

I have no plans in the immediate future to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, though, of course, I do frequently meet confederation representatives both formally and informally to discuss Scottish industrial and economic matters.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the latest survey of industrial trends, which shows clearly that Scotland is pulling out of the recession and that the Scottish economy is growing at about three times the rate of the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole? Does he agree that the only two things that can damage Scotland's chances are, first, a continuing and cynical misadvertisement by Labour Members that Scotland is an industrial wasteland and, secondly, the nonsensical and inflationary policies that were published by the Labour party yesterday?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the CBI has already had time to make some devastating comments about the document that was produced yesterday. I noted that in the CBI's latest survey of industrial trends in Scotland it is stated that the Budget is seen as broadly favourable to industry and that the changes in North sea oil taxation are likely to be greatly beneficial to industry in Scotland generally.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had a stimulating meeting with the chairman of the CBI in Dumfries this week? Will he accept that the chairman was extremely confident that the Budget would do a very great deal for small industries and small businesses and provide much hope for the future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not surprised that he gained that impression from the chairman of the CBI. Its survey of the latest trends shows an expected increase in output over the next four months, which is the most optimistic survey since June 1979. It expects an improvement in export order books that will be stronger than at any time over the past three years, and a decline in the rate of destocking. This shows that there are better times ahead.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Scottish CBI, will he explain the posture that he has taken on the Anderson Strathclyde takeover? Will he explain to it how his views conform with its views that we should keep decision-making centres in Scotland?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. However, by far the most important thing for us all to do now is ensure that the company has every encouragement to continue prospering and that jobs are safeguarded. I find his concern about the matter somewhat interesting, when he supported a Government who, as a matter of policy, removed from Scotland the headquarters of many firms—Colville, Stewart and Lloyd, Yarrows, Scott-Lithgow and Fairfield, for example—and placed them in London. They were all deliberately moved from Scotland to London by the Labour Government. They have that wrapped round their necks.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of the CBI the possibilities that will arise out of the creation of free ports in Scotland? Does he recognise that there is a case for a free port in the Forth estuary and for more than one free port in Scotland?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in free ports. As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget statement that consideration would be given to the establishment of free ports. I am looking forward to receiving bids from places in Scotland which think they are suitable sites.

In view of the sensitivity of the Anderson Strathclyde issue, may I ask what representations the right hon. Gentleman has made to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the effect that he was not consulted on such a vital Scottish issue?

If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the debate he will know that my right hon. Friend made it clear that under the statute the decision is taken personally by the Minister for Trade. My hon. and learned Friend did so and he explained it to the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming that he was not even consulted about what happened? Does he accept that what happened on Friday was an example of City interests behaving in their most squalid fashion? The right hon. Gentleman, who has agreed that the takeover by Charter Consolidated is against Scotland's industrial interests, should be ashamed of himself for voting for the takeover last week.

As I said to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), the right hon. Gentleman should think carefully before he poses as the great champion of keeping headquarters in Scotland. He has taken more of them away from Scotland than all of us put together. He should be ashamed of that. He knows his legislation well enough to be aware that under the statutes my hon. and learned Friend is obliged to take the decision himself and to take into account the views of the Director General of Fair Trading as well as those of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My hon. and learned Friend clearly declared what he had done and the right lion. Gentleman should be aware of the procedure perfectly well. I am not taking any lectures from him about moving headquarters from Scotland. He has a black record on this score and he had better learn to live with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the introduction of information technology in Scottish schools and colleges.

Good progress is being made in the introduction of computers and other new technology into schools and colleges. The production of good quality software is a priority of the Scottish microelectronic development programme and in-service training is available. I announced in December 1982 the indefinite extension of SML)P and its development into a software house, information centre and research and development facility. Considerable sums have been made available this year for the provision of hardware in schools and colleges and for the development of high quality software.

How does the position in Scotland compare with that in England? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to compliment those teachers who have enthusiastically grasped the opportunities, and at the same time encourage those who have not yet become as friendly and at ease with microcomputers as so many of their pupils have?

I do not know the exact comparison with England, but Scotland certainly got off to a smart start three years ago. I know that teachers are enthusiastic about the developments, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that in many cases pupils are ahead of them.

Is the Minister aware that there is not much point in having information technology if the information is false? Is he aware that, contrary to Mr. MacGregor's statement to Ministers that the increased demand for steel is just a blip, the ordering rate for steel strip is being maintained and that already three strip mills in the United Kingdom can be profitably loaded?

I am pleased to note the hon. Gentleman's views.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many offences under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 have been prosecuted by his Department in the last six months; and how this compares with the previous six months.

The statistics for the number of persons against whom proceedings were taken in 1982 for contravening section 3 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 are not yet available. However, I can give details of the number of offences made known to the police in that year. In all, some 2,293 such offences were made known to the police in 1982, while the comparable figure for 1981 was 920.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing anxiety in Scotland about the working of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, both among the police and public and those who work in that area? Is it not time for a review of the criteria under which bail is allowed?

I am aware that several chief constables in Scotland have expressed their anxiety about the operation of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, but, as has been said, it is important to separate from that the working of that Act and the criteria to be applied when people are granted or not granted bail. That Act does nothing to alter those criteria and recently the Lord Justice-Clerk clearly laid down the circumstances under which people would be allowed bail.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree that one of the aims of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 was to try to cut down the number of accused being held in custody awaiting trial, but that that has not happened? Anyone who looks at the figures will see that the number of prisoners on remand has increased. Is that not as genuine a worry as some of the more flamboyant claims that are made in certain chief constables' reports?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. In 1981, 664 people were on remand, while for 1982 the provisional figure is 649. It is important to understand that, while we want to allow bail wherever possible, we cannot allow a set of circumstances to exist whereby those who are on bail take that as an opportunity to commit further offences. That is why we gave a direction to procurators fiscal in Scotland last May.

In those cases where accused persons appeal to the High Court of Justiciary to obtain release from prison, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland say whether he has found any mechanism to allow those whose appeals are successful to be released immediately rather than have to wait until the next public day for release because of the problems caused by the non-money bail system?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) also raised. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is currently examining that matter and we hope that it will be possible to bring about some change in the arrangements to prevent that.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy to discuss prosecution policy.

I have no immediate plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kirkcaldy. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I do, however, from time to time visit the offices of procurators fiscal to discuss matters with them.

When the Solicitor-General for Scotland does, perhaps some time in the future, get round to discussing prosecution policy with the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy, will he consider discussing with him the extension to Kirkcaldy of the tape recording of interviews of suspects? Will he also make a statement on why, after two years of experiments elsewhere, no report has come from his Department to explain to the House what is happening? Is that not a disgrace?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. As he will appreciate, tape recording and the experiments that are conducted by the police on that are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are closely observing those cases and trials where tape recordings are used before the courts. Recently there was an interesting decision on tape recording in the High Court at Aberdeen.

In his contacts with the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy, will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to scotch the somewhat ill-informed rumours that have been going round that there might be some diminution of the activities of the sheriff court at Cupar?

Yes, I am glad to do that. There is no truth in the rumour that there is an intention to close the sheriff court at Cupar. Much business is still being conducted there and it and the other sheriff courts in Fife are intact.

When the Solicitor-General for Scotland meets the procurator fiscal for Kirkcaldy, will he ask him to take a cheap day return to London and explain to the civil servants in the Home Office, and the Home Secretary in particular, the virtues of an independent prosecution system and ask the Home Secretary to include in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that excellent system for England, as recommended by the English Royal Commission on criminal procedure?

From my limited experience in the House I know that from time to time one receives accolades from unexpected quarters. I shall certainly tell the procurator fiscal of the hon. Gentleman's respect and high regard for the system of independent public prosecutors that we have in Scotland. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that public prosecutors in England are being considered by the Home Secretary.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has any plans to meet procurators fiscal to discuss prosecution policy and the administration of justice.

I have no specific plans to meet procurators fiscal to discuss prosecution policy and the administration of justice. These are, of course, matters that I would discuss with fiscals as and when we meet.

When the Solicitor-General for Scotland eventually meets procurators fiscal what advice will he give to them in view of the persistent rise in crime figures in Scotland, which has been underlined by the official figures for the third quarter of 1982? Is not that record one of which he should be ashamed, in view of the promises on law and order made by the Conservative party during the last election campaign?

No, that is not a matter of which the Government should be ashamed. Not only have the Government significantly increased the number of police in Scotland, but we have put on to the statute book the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which anyone who is truly concerned about the issue of law and order in Scotland will appreciate was a most important step forward.

In view of the recent prosecutions of people involved in peaceful demonstrations against nuclear weapons and the recent wise remarks of the learned sheriff, which were unfairly criticised by the unlearned chairman of the Scottish Tory party, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to resist the clamours of his warmongering friends in the Tory party and encourage all Scottish sheriffs to make regular peace-loving statements from their benches?

As, in the course of the year, the hon. Gentleman has thought it appropriate to make particular criticisms of sheriffs principal for the political views that he alleged they have shown in the decisions that they have had to take, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was truly the last person to make any comments on this issue in the House.

Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland satisfied that the public interest is adequately protected where complaints against the police are made involving allegations of criminality and where the appropriate method of inquiry is by means of reference to the procurator fiscal? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether some other means of independent investigation of complaints against the police ought to be on the agenda?

Complaints involving criminality against the police are not referred only to the procurator fiscal. They are also referred to Crown counsel and to either my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate or myself to make a final decision. It is interesting that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, when considering this issue involving England and Wales, made the recommendation that those south of the border should follow the procedure followed north of the border.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what representations he has had from the Law Society for Scotland and Scottish law agents on clauses 53 to 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has received three letters from the secretary of the Law Society of Scotland. I have received a letter from the secretary of the Scottish. Law Agents Society.

As a result of these representations, clause 53 of the Bill no longer applies to Scotland. I welcome the Solicitor-General taking account of those representations, but was there not a total failure on his part adequately to consult Scottish legal opinion before these measures were included in the Bill?

No, I do not accept that at all. I am surprised that some of the representations that I have received have made no reference to the Criminal Evidence Act 1965, on which clause 53 is largely based, although it does not apply to public records. It is more appropriate to await the report from the Scottish Law Commission. It was against that background, and because of the representations that were received, that the Government sought to disapply this clause to Scotland.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw it to your attention that, while we have now passed the last Scottish Question Time before the House rises for the recess, the Secretary of State for Scotland has not yet made clear the Government's intentions with regard to the budgets of those local authorities which are in excess of the guidelines for the financial year which starts in a few days' time? There is immense concern in my constituency that we still do not know whether the Secretary of State intends to enforce further job cuts and reductions in services? May I put it to you—

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) knows that that is none of my business. It is a matter for the Minister.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not so far submitted a point of order. Perhaps he will try to hang his remarks on to a point of order.

My point of order is to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be utterly reprehensible if an important announcement of this nature were made other than in the House of Commons?

That is another matter, on which I shall not comment.