asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce further training initiatives in Scotland in respect of people who have been unemployed for more than two years.

The Government have just received from the Manpower Services Commission proposals on the training and retraining needs of adults, both in employment and unemployed, following the publication in April of the commission's discussion paper "Towards an Adult Training Strategy". The commission's proposals, which will apply to Scotland as much as to other parts of Great Britain, will obviously merit the most careful study.

Is the Minister aware that many employers involved in the North sea oil sector cannot find coded welders capable of working to high standards and who can undergo the Lloyd's safety test? Would not many of the unemployed welders with a reasonable amount of training be capable of reaching the required standards? Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme to help overcome the shortage of skilled workmen?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are spending a great deal on various training schemes in Scotland. However, I shall examine his proposals in detail.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some provision is being made by the private sector to meet the need referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)? Does he welcome the intitiative by Shell Expro of Aberdeen and Grampian regional council to provide 50 training places over a four-year period for technicians in the North sea sector?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right to emphasise that training must be a partnership between the public and private sectors.

Is the Minister aware that the industrial training education centre at Bellshill industrial estate, which was opened recently with a great flourish by the Strathclyde regional council, could fall flat on its face because of a lack of funds? Will he make inquiries to determine what assistance he can give to that scheme?

I shall inquire into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have opened one ITEC and have a great regard for what they can achieve.

Does the Minister agree that the major problem in training is that many companies have had to cut back on their orders because of the Government's economic policies? Is the aware that those companies are no longer in a position to train new apprentices? For example, the Weir Pumps company, which has had such a splendid record in training, can now take on only four or five apprentices rather than the 400 or 500 that it used to take on a few years ago.

We all recognise that a number of companies have had to cut back because of the recession, but I emphasise that the Government are putting immense resources into training. For example, the modular approach in the action plan for 16 to 18-year-olds will demonstrate how training can be made relevant to the changing needs of the Scottish industrial scene.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding dangers from radioactivity arising from discharges in Scottish coastal waters.

Over the last year I have received five representations concerning radioactivity arising from discharges to Scottish coastal waters and from the discharges at Sellafield.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is genuine anxiety among many people on the west coast of Scotland about the possible link between the increased level of radioactivity in the coastal waters off the west coast of Scotland and the apparent increase in the level of leukaemia among young people? That anxiety has been exacerbated today by the finding of seaweed off the coast of Scotland that is one thousand times more radioactive than the normal level. Therefore, why have the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for health and social security questions turned down my reasonable request that there should be a systematic investigation by the Scottish Office into this matter?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern, but we should all be careful that we do not say anything to increase peoples' concern needlessly. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a principal medical officer from my Department attending all the meetings of Sir Douglas Black's committee who can and will be able to monitor this work carefully. We carefully monitor all the time what evidence there is of radioactivity off the coast of Scotland, and the evidence is that the maximum amounts are small and well within international safety standards.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his answer to my question yesterday has been warmly welcomed and has allayed any fears about radioactivity in the Solway firth and other waters? Will he advise the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to stop making exaggerated statements that cause alarm in Scotland and ask him to await the results of Sir Douglas Black's inquiry, which will give the answers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and particularly for what he said about being careful not to raise unnecessary alarm about the matter. I can add to what he said by saying that the total amounts of artificial radiation that have so far been found in the careful monitoring off the coast of Scotland do not amount to more than 3 per cent. of the radiation from natural sources that we experience anyway. Therefore, there is no cause for immediate concern, but the matter is being watched carefully.

The right hon. Gentleman's attitude is far too complacent, and that is proved in the letter that I received on the subject from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. There is a good deal of alarm, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has shown, and, for that reason, the people on the west coast of Scotland have a right to be assured that these levels are not dangerous. The Secretary of State has said that the levels are minimal, but they are now 30 per cent. higher than they were three years ago. Where will this end, as ingestion over a period is just as serious as having radiation all in one go?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, and a line has to be drawn between, on the one hand, being over-alarmist and alarming people unnecessarily, and, on the other, being, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, complacent. I have assured him and the House that we take these matters seriously and are watching the position all the time. However, it does no service to anyone to suggest that there are dangers, as that may cause needless alarm, when all the facts are to the contrary.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he is not in the best position to lecture anyone about spreading fear and alarm, after his conduct at the time of the proposed boring in the Mullwharcher hills, when he led public demonstrations throughout Ayrshire and frightened half the people in Ayrshire to death?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to my point of view at last, as he will be aware that it was this Government who decided not to proceed with that foolish proposal.

We should welcome an independent investigation into and report on this issue, but may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the findings by his principal medical officer will be made public, and how soon does he expect to have that information available?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have a high-powered inquiry looking into the major source of these discharges in the Sellafield area, and a Scottish principal medical officer involved in those discussions. That is a good safeguard for the Scottish position, and if there were to be any major findings or findings of importance from the inquiry we would know all about them and be able to take action quickly.

Does the Secretary of State realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) will be widely interpreted as giving substance to the view that there was some danger in the events that led to the demonstrations in which he participated? As a matter of history, will he set the record straight?

I am not certain of the point being made by the hon. Gentleman. The point that I was making at the time has been met by the change of policy by this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will be taking to promote rural development in Scotland.

We shall continue to direct Government assistance in appropriate ways towards rural communities in respect of agriculture, economic development and the provision of social services.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but he did not mention the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the role that it can play in rural development in Scotland. Is he aware that the chairman of the board recently said that, because of the increase in applications, new applications might have to be delayed and financial aid to others might well fall short of normal levels? Is the Scottish Office prepared to back success? If so, what immediate plans does it have to mitigate the consequences of the severe pressure placed on the board's financial resources?

Had the hon. Gentleman been in his present position a little longer he would have realised that the Government put a high value on the work done by the board. It has been well treated by the Government in the past, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that funds granted by the Government have risen each year, from £12·7 million in 1978–79, to £29·8 million in 1983–84. I hope he will welcome the fact that the activity generated by the board has caused the circumstances that he described.

What are the hon. Gentleman's plans?

Is my hon. Friend aware that in rural areas one of the great concerns is over public transport? Will he initiate further studies into what can be done to help with this problem and the possibility of making a distinction in rate support grant treatment between concessionary fares, which are often extremely beneficial to many people, and free fares, which use a lot of ratepayers' money to benefit those who have public transport, but not those who have none?

I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. As he may know, I met COSLA recently to discuss these matters, and in coming to a decision I shall take into account what my hon. Friend and COSLA have said.

Will the Minister address himself to the question of the Highland and Islands Development Board? Is he aware that although his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said clearly in the House that if there are viable projects money will not be denied to them, that is what is happening now with the board?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that the level of support will have to be considered in the light of public expenditure constraints. The provision for 1984–95 will include the final £4·5 million of the £10 million committed to special measures in the Invergordon area following the closure of the aluminium smelter.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the HIDB has poured millions of pounds of public money into projects that have gone bankrupt, and has then given additional money to similar firms that have become bankrupt for the second time? Now that the Government have decided to give aid to the north east coast of Scotland, through the services of the Scottish Development Agency, will this not be welcome, and is it not time that these areas were given assistance, rather than wasting millions on the Highlands and Islands?

I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Surely the Minister should condemn the sentiment expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). Will he take the opportunity to do so, and, further, given his previous reply, take the opportunity to explain how it is that a constituent of mine, who wrote to me this week with an interesting proposal to set up the only double glazing producing factory of its type in Inverness, has been rejected by the board because the money is not available? Is that the Conservative initiative in economics?

Having given the hon. Gentleman the figures of what the Government have provided, I am surprised that he is not prepared to welcome the assistance that the Government have been giving to the Highlands. I repeat that the level of uptake from HIDP resources is a sign of the activity going on in that area.

Are there not plenty of sources for funding venture capital in rural areas, and is it not the case that what is needed are fewer taxes and rates, which are the biggest disincentive to growth? In his discussions on rural transport, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider reducing the restrictions and regulations which prevent private individuals from running minibus services, which could provide much-needed services in those rural areas?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I note his comments.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated conversion to supporting the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Will he assure us that he will not completely neglect that board, bearing in mind the fact that it has refused to support the EC's agricultural development plans for its area, as there is a feeling abroad that the Government have turned their back on the region?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that we have belatedly recognised the needs of the Highlands. I have already given details of the increasing sums of money that are being made available. The Opposition should hang their heads in shame when they consider their record in government. I suspect the hon. Gentleman was referring to Highland farmers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was pleased to announce on 17 October an enhancement of the rates of the hill livestock compensatory allowance on hill cows and sheep in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area, which will be introduced in parallel with additional assistance for marginal farming areas. The new rates will be warmly welcomed by the farmers concerned as tangible recognition of the disadvantages of farming in the Highlands and Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now permit payment by the Crown of expenses to accused persons in cases where the verdict is "not guilty" or where there is a formal verdict that there is no case to answer.

No. This matter was considered by the Thomson committee on "Criminal Procedure in Scotland", Cmnd. 6218, which concluded that the award of expenses to persons acquitted in criminal proceedings was neither necessary nor desirable. The committee had in mind the existence in Scotland of an independent prosecution service, the wide availability of non-contributory legal aid, and the assistance often provided by motoring, trade union and other organisations. I remain persuaded by its assessment of the matter.

I am fully aware of all that the Thomson committee said 10 years ago. Will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that, according to his own information, last year there were almost 9,000 cases of crimes and offences—about half of each—in which the suspect was found not guilty, or the charge was withdrawn or it was found that there was no case to answer? Is he aware that there was great hardship in many of those cases?

I appreciate the right hon. Lady's point. However, I must observe that any cases of genuine hardship are covered by legal aid. For people who are otherwise affected, there are other sources of aid. The Thomson committee went into the issue extremely carefully and I do not believe that it would be worth while trying to second guess by having a full review of the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Edinburgh district council to discuss the effect in Edinburgh of the cut in home improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.

I met an all-party delegation from Edinburgh district council on 21 November to discuss capital allocations for the next financial year. I shall take account of their representations in considering the council's allocation for 1984–85.

Is the Minister aware that plans to improve tenements in Edinburgh are being abandoned and that many of the people who live in them, some of whom are elderly and have modest means, have been encouraged to spend money on the assumption that they will receive a 90 per cent. grant? Is he further aware that they are now confronted with bills for surveyors' and architects' fees and that no improvement will be carried out? Is he also aware that cutting the grant from April next year will force local authorities to renege on their undertakings? Is that not utterly unacceptable?

I must explain yet again what the Government have done. We announced that the end date for the enhancement of the rates of some types of grant would, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget statement last year, be 31 March 1984. We confirmed that the open-ended commitment which allowed councils to go beyond their allocations for such grants this year would not be in practice next year. Neither of those announcements was new. Indeed, they were merely confirmation of old ones. I appreciate that some people are disappointed. That is inevitable when a temporary scheme comes to an end. As to fees, there is always a risk of incurring such bills when making an application, because there is no guarantee that such an application will be approved.

Is the Minister aware of the great and growing despair in the cities of Scotland about the cuts in improvement grant? What future can he now offer housing association? Is their funding to be maintained? If not, much of the improvement that has been made in the past few years will be nullified, as such tenements will be adjacent to other blocks of tenements which are falling down. What possible economic justification can the Secretary of State have for his policy, in view of his complacent statement about the Scottish economy?

I am not sure how that matter arises on a question about discussions with Edinburgh district council. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that announcements about the resources that are to be made available to the Housing Corporation will be made soon. It would not be proper for me to say now what those resources are likely to be.

Is the Minister aware that the home improvement grant system has been abused in Edinburgh, as the greatest benefits have been reaped by speculators, who are the best financiers and supporters of the Tory party?

I suspect that that is the nearest that we shall get to Opposition Members admitting how successful the scheme has been. One has only to look round Edinburgh and Glasgow to notice the work that has been done as a result of it. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome that improvement.

As this issue has considerable implications for the rest of Scotland, may we have an assurance that, because so much repair work that is in the pipeline is affected by the moratorium, the Government will ensure that funds will be made available next year to continue the repairs programme?

I have already made it clear in the House that all expenditure legally incurred before 20 October this year will be covered by the allocations that are made. We are committed to that. Opposition Members might say that that is not the question, but it affects work that is in the pipeline.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will declare St. Andrew's day a public holiday in Scotland.

I have no authority in this matter as public holidays in Scotland are fixed locally by district councils.

Why is today a public holiday in Barbados, the Philippines, Benin, Vanuatu, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, while it is not in the Thatcher undemocratic satellite of Scotland? Is it significant that the Prime Minister's governor-general of Scotland has the same name as the patron saint of England, especially when, according to some historians, St. George was a purely mythical figure who did not even exist?

I imagine that there are public holidays in the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred because the district councils in those areas fixed them.

The French revolution.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion for additional and expensive public holidays in Scotland will be greeted with dismay by Scottish industry as it struggles to become competitive so that jobs can be protected and created?

No doubt my hon. Friend is right. Most people who are engaged in Scottish business are much more interested in getting business on its feet than in having extra public holidays.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, more important to Scotland than any public holiday, would be recognition of the Scottish dimension in the government of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that a sprig of heather and twist of tartan, no matter how bravely worn, are no substitute for an adequate devolution policy? Will he examine Lord Home of Hirsel's suggestion that to vote "No" in the referendum was to allow an improved Conservative model to be introduced? Will he now unveil that unlikely beast?

I think it is generally agreed in Scotland that there is very little interest in the recreation of a Scottish Assembly along the lines suggested by the Labour party when it was in office. However, if the Labour party is still interested in devolution, it could take a major step by appointing the hon. Gentleman to the shadow Cabinet.

If it is possible for Westminster abbey to fly the saltire above the looted stone of destiny, will the Minister issue an order that all public buildings in Scotland, at both national and local level, should display the St. Andrew's flag on this day of all days?

I understand that it is up to individual bodies to decide which flag to fly. The saltire is flown at the Scottish Office, New St. Andrew's house, on public occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals are being considered regarding salmon fishing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and noble Friend is discussing a number of issues with representatives of salmon interests, including local management structure and finance, conservation and exploitation of the stocks and sales control.

Does the Minister, as he is a bit of a fisherman himself, welcome the return of salmon to the Clyde? Will he urge his hon. and noble Friend to recognise that there is an urgent need for consultations with all the interested parties concerned with the Clyde, including the United Clyde Angling Protective Association, which is a responsible and well-regarded body?

I add my welcome to the return of salmon to the Clyde, and I look forward to casting a fly in that river one day and, perhaps, even catching a salmon.

As a salmon fisherman, albeit an English one, may I put it to the Minister that if effective action is to be taken to save our national salmon stocks before it is too late we need close and urgent co-ordination between his Department and those who are responsible in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Can my hon. Friend assure us that we can expect comprehensive Government legislation before it is too late?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the south about this issue. Unfortunately, there are many differences between the various bodies interested in salmon protection and conservation. That has made it difficult for us to proceed and devise a legislative structure to preserve the salmon.

Has the Scottish Office been consulted during the lengthy review by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on inland waters and coastal estuaries? In view of the fact that this review established a salmon sales group and recommended a salmon tagging system to curb salmon poaching, what are the reactions of the Scottish Office to that recommendation? If that recommendation is adopted in England and Wales, will Scotland follow suit?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), we are in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the situation in England. We are considering with interest the salmon tagging proposal. One of the main differences between Scotland and England that would make it difficult for us to undertake salmon tagging in the way that is suggested for England is that we do not require salmon anglers to have rod licences. In Scotland it is necessary to look more deeply into the problem than in England to find a way round the omission of rod licences for salmon fishermen.

Is the Minister aware that it was in my constituency, at Blantyre weir, that the historic return of the salmon to the Clyde was first noticed? [Interruption] I am encouraged by hon. Members who cry that that is a good line. Is the Minister aware that there is genuine concern throughout the Clyde valley that the return of the salmon may affect the character of the Clyde and that what is now a recreation area for thousands of anglers might come to be regarded as a privileged place for the few who can afford to fish for salmon?

I look forward on my fishing trip to the Clyde to being accompanied by the hon. Gentleman, whose background in my constituency means that he should be quite a good fisherman. He has made a valid point. The trout fishing in the upper Clyde is one of a number of points that must be considered at the meeting and included in the report that the Crown Estates Commissioners will be preparing for my right hon. and noble Friend.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we are unlikely to see an improvement in the spring and summer salmon runs unless we tackle the issue of drift netting off the English and Irish coasts? Will my hon. Friend hold discussions on this issue with his hon. and noble Friend and the Dublin Government?

There is great anxiety about drift netting off the coasts of England and Ireland and the illegal drift netting off the coast of Scotland. There are many who feel that the salmon stocks have moved towards an autumn run and away from a spring and a summer run because of drift netting, but other factors may be involved. We are in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about nylon monofilament drift netting, and we shall maintain those contacts.

Is it not a matter of equal importance that heavy fishing by the Danes and the Germans off Greenland has cut off the salmon from their source? What contact has the Scottish Office had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about that?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is a problem with the interception of salmon at sea. My Department has had contact with the Ministry and with Greenland. We have an agreement with the Faroese to reduce their take of the north Atlantic salmon passing through their waters. We can proceed only by agreement. If the Faroese take some proportion of the salmon stock that feed off their coast, they must be reasonable or they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Does the Minister agree that the Crown Estates Commissioners have been somewhat dilatory in this instance? The Minister must push hard if there is to be an urgent inquiry, because the record leaves a great deal to be desired. We want a regime that will afford maximum access consistent with the conservation of stocks, and this should be achieved a great deal more quickly than the Crown Estates Commissioners have acted in the past.

This is an extraordinarily complex matter, affecting heritable rights that have been exercised for more than a century. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. and noble Friend is interested in developments and that he will urge the Crown Estates Commissioners to present him with a full report as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer, Official Report, c. 86.5, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) what consideration he has now given to the problem of section 20 payments and the rate support grant settlement in relation to the railways in Scotland.

The issue for local authorities which support railway services is essentially the same as for the Government: one of making the most of available resources. The local authorities which pay section 20 grant—in Scotland, that is only the Strathclyde region—should benefit from the general improvements in efficiency that British Rail has been asked to achieve. The cost allocation procedures are now under discussion between British Rail and the passenger transport executives.

Ministers undertook to do something. What have they actually done since the last Scottish Question Time?

During the previous Scottish Question Time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was considering the matter. That was only about four weeks ago. If there is any particular aspect about which the hon. Gentleman would like to know more he should write to me and I shall give him an answer.

Yesterday I raised the subject of the rate support grant. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the rate support grant for the passenger transport authorities will not be allowed to fall to a level at which redundancies will occur in the Glasgow and western Scotland areas? Will he further give an assurance that there will be no reduction in staff at Gourock, Ayr, Wemyss bay, Fairlie and Saltcoats and that Ardrosson beach station will not close? Will he also give attention to the future of Ardrosson harbour, which I understand from the National Union of Railwaymen is also threatened?

I understand that the latter part of the question was answered last night by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has responsibility for trade and industry matters. Relevant expenditure to 1984–85 includes about £32 million for section 20 payments, and this is broadly in line with expected demands. This figure is reflected in the overall expenditure guidelines of the Strathclyde regional council, issued on 18 November. Rate support grant is paid in aid of local revenues and is not earmarked for specific purposes. The total rate support grant for 1984–85 and its distribution among authorities are matters that have yet to be settled.

Will the Minister please give much more urgent attention to the real crisis facing the financing of railway services in Strathclyde? Apart from the cost allocation talks, which we welcome, there is a problem for a hard-pressed region that will have to find over £30 million in the coming financial year for section 20 payments. Will the Government do something to help preserve the line for the general travelling public, who deserve a decent and adequate service? I am not asking for Government intervention for particular interest groups. The Minister should not try to wash his hands of the matter and duck out of his responsibilities. Will he give an undertaking that he will take action?

This is a matter for the Strathclyde passenger transport executive and the Strathclyde regional council, which have the statutory power and responsibility to co-ordinate public transport in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the procedures for dealing wth breaches of discipline by nurses in the National Health Service in Scotland.

No, Sir. Responsibility for conducting disciplinary procedures rests with employing authorities, operating within the relevant NHS General Whitley council agreement.

Is the Minister aware of the blatant victimisation by the Forth valley health board in general, and particularly by senior nursing management at the Falkirk royal infirmary? One of my constituents was reported for allegedly taking drugs and was subsequently prosecuted at the Falkirk sheriff court. My constituent was given an absolute discharge by that court but was subsequently called to attend a disciplinary hearing arranged by the health board and was dismissed. On what basis can the Minister defend that form of double jeopardy upon any member of nursing staff throughout Scotland, and particularly on my constituent at the Falkirk royal infirmary?

The hon. Gentleman will know, from the time when he had ministerial responsibilities for health in the Scottish Office, that dismissals of the sort to which he referred can be the subject of appeal to my right hon. Friend. As the time for that appeal has not elapsed, I cannot comment further on the issue.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the likely effects on employment as a consequence of reduced coal burn by the South of Scotland Electricity Board in 1984.

In the year from 1 November 1983 the South of Scotland Electricity Board expects total coal burn, including slurry for Scottish requirements, to rise to about 4·5 million tonnes, compared with 4·25 million tonnes in 1982–83. This excludes the effect of any net exchange of power with England and Wales, which amounted to an extra 850,000 tonnes in 1982–83. Any employment implications for the National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Boards are a matter for the respective boards to consider.

The Minister must be aware that during yesterday's debate I presented a scenario which could mean either five pits or 4,800 jobs being at stake, or 3,000 jobs if coal burn is reduced by 1·7 million tonnes. I referred to the serious implications for the coal industry in Scotland and the Scottish economy generally and asked whether the Secretary of State would consider meeting area officials of the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland and some hon. Members who have constituency mining interests. As the Under-Secretary of State did not respond to my intervention in the debate am Ito take it that he is not prepared to discuss the serious implications facing the industry and the economy? Is there a "No Entry" sign in front of the Secretary of State's office at St. Andrew's house?

The Government's concern is to have a viable mining industry that can produce coal at prices that will enable it to win markets. The Government have supported the coal industry to the extent of over £3,500 million in capital investment and £1,599 million in grants since 1979. Electricity consumers should not be asked to subsidise the mining industry. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I referred to his speech last night. The coal industry is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is always prepared to meet hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies on matters of concern to them.

While I recognise the value of Scottish coal to the economy, may I ask my hon. Friend to ask the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to explain why he is asking hon. Members with constituents who are anxious about the cost of fuel to increase the price of electricity to help miners who will not help themselves, and at a time when the Government are providing £10 million a week to support the National Coal Board?

I should be very pleased to answer that supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) may answer my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) outside the Chamber. I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that electricity consumers should not be asked to subsidise the mining industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson)——

Order. I shall take points of order after Question Time.

The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) will get his answer if he chooses to meet some of the miners in my constituency. Surely the Minister cannot shrug off the implications of the wild fluctuations in coal burn in Scotland for employment in areas such as East Lothian, which is my constituency. Will he, just for once, make a clear and simple statement of commitment to the future of the coal industry, the electricity industry and the prospects of introducing combined heat and power in the Lothian region?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy took up the issue of combined heat and power on Monday. I repeat that since 1979 the Government have provided the coal industry with over £3,500 million of capital investment and grants amounting to £1,599 million. Surely that is ample evidence of commitment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of reduced coal burn will be a reduction in the amount of acid rain? As the substantial overcapacity of electricity generation in Scotland has been confirmed in a written answer to me, is it not absurd that we should be embarking on a new hydro-electric scheme in the north-west at Loch Maree, for example, and other commitments involving vast capital expenditure?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the elements of cost and price are crucial for the future of an efficient electricity industry.

Will the Minister recognise that responsibility for the funding of the SSEB rests with his right hon. Friend? As the National Coal Board is the major supplier of the SSEB, it is essential that the future of the industry is made clear to all concerned. Will he therefore allow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other colleagues to meet his right hon. Friend to discuss this matter of vital interest and importance to the Scottish economy?

I have emphasised to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and I do so again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), that my right hon. Friend is always willing to see Scottish Members of Parliament on matters that are of concern to them. I do not think that I can make that very much clearer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend met a delegation of Scottish Church leaders on 14 November and I had meetings in September with representatives of local interests about shipyards on lower Clyde, Govan Shipbuilders and Henry Robb, Leith.

Bearing in mind that Robb's of Leith has now completed the last vessel on its order book, will the Minister use all his influence to bring forward Ministry of Defence orders to help the shipbuilding industry in general and Robbs in particular?

The Ministry of Defence recognises the present difficulties facing the yard and the industry generally. Henry Robb has been given an opportunity to tender for a number of Ministry of Defence orders, along with other small United Kingdom yards, including Hall Russell. The tenders are currently being assessed. The Ministry hopes to place some orders before the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the percentage of electricity to be generated from coal in the next five years by power stations in Scotland.

In 1982–83, 38 per cent. of electricity generated in Scotland came from coal and slurry-fired stations. Within the limits of the uncertainties of forecasting, the South of Scotland Electricity Board expects this figure to rise to 43 per cent. in 1983–84 and to 56 per cent. in 1987–88.

I accept the Minister's percentages. but is it not a fact that in absolute terms coal burn will decline? Is it not reasonable to assume that the unit costs of production of both the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the National Coal Board in Scotland will rise, to the jeopardy of industry and of miners' jobs? Will the Secretary of State not slide away from his responsibility to ensure a dynamic coal industry in Scotland because, notwithstanding our oil and gas reserves, coal is the most fruitful and secure fuel for the future?

As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), the coal burn for next year will be higher than for this year. The hon. Gentleman made a general point about the coal industry. The figures that I gave a few minutes ago confirm the Government's concern to have a viable mining industry that can produce coal at prices that enable it to win markets.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects Crown Office staff to be operating in the new sheriff court house in Glasgow.

I understand that the new sheriff court house in Glasgow is scheduled to be completed and ready for occupation by September 1986. A small number of the staff of the procurator fiscal Glasgow will be accommodated in the new sheriff court building.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that when the sheriff court building is open it will be adequate for the purposes for which it was built, given that in addition to the Crown case work with which it will have to deal it will presumably have to deal with civil case work when the new Scottish divorce laws come into operation in the not-too-distant future?

The present accommodation in Glasgow for the considerable volume of work handled is completely inadequate and it is hoped that what is now to be provided in the new sheriff court building will be adequate. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that much of the divorce work that will be done at the new sheriff court building will not require the appearance of the witnesses or the parties in court.

I appreciate that point and the fact that the Minister is confident that the new building will accommodate both the Crown Office staff and any new impact of divorce jurisdiction going to the sheriff court. Can he say what will be the impact on the civil side of the divorce law changes? When will there be a decision on the Scottish Law Commission report on financial settlements on divorce, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has been copiously reported in the Scottish press recently as suggesting that there will not be an early decision, although the English are already legislating on the subject?

I have sought to show that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is at present no proposal before the House to deal with this matter. There is, though, the Scottish Law Commission report and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to spend his time sensibly by reading the Conservative party manifesto, he will find reference to that matter there.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will discuss with procurators fiscal prosecution policy in respect of offences of salmon poaching.

I have discussions with procurators fiscal from time to time about all aspects of prosecution policy. I am satisfied that procurators fiscal take proceedings against salmon poachers in appropriate cases and that, like myself, they view the level of poaching, particularly commercial poaching, with concern.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on the north-east coast of my constituency large quantities of salmon are poached but that no prosecutions take place? One of the reasons—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will clarify the position—is that there are no prosecutions for reset. Once the salmon is landed and is handed over to the person who is purchasing it, he cannot be prosecuted. Will my hon. and learned Friend take further steps to ensure that procurators fiscal are more diligent in their duties in prosecuting offenders?

My hon. Friend is correct. Salmon taken illegally is not stolen and accordingly cannot thereafter be resetted. I recognise that my hon. Friend has had problems in his constituency but he will be encouraged to know that last summer the Department in Scotland which has responsibility for this matter used spotter planes and helicopters in an attempt to crack down harder on the growth in poaching, particularly poaching of a commercial character.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the exaggerated attention being given by the Scottish Office to this offence, especially in relation to fishery cruisers picking up nets, when foreign vessels are fishing illegally all around the British coast? What is his attitude to the rights of bailiffs in the light of a recent case in Lewis where, although a person suffered severe personal injuries, the accused was fined only £50?

On the latter point, I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on particular sentences. But I am surprised that, as an hon. Member concerned about tourism, he does not recognise that the growth of commercial poaching of salmon in Scottish rivers and offshore waters is damaging and that, if it is allowed to continue, will do nothing for the reputation either of his part of Scotland or any other part.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of fines imposed on people caught salmon poaching is by and large ludicrously low? Will he take steps to consult his colleagues with a view to having the fines greatly increased?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. There is concern that the level of fines is sometimes not adequate. However, if my hon. Friend were to look to the level of fines imposed for commercial poaching in Scotland he would be satisfied that, in those circumstances, substantial fines are imposed.

Does not the return of salmon to the upper reaches of the Clyde, which has been largely due to public investment in river purification, strengthen the case for my private Member's Bill calling for the public ownership of all freshwater fishing rights in Scotland? If that were enacted the people would own all the fishing rights and would, therefore, have no need to poach.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to allow his constituents a free rein to fish anywhere in Scotland. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, this is properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what guidance he has given to procurators fiscal on the use of hand-held radar devices used in road traffic speeding cases.

On the instructions of my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, a circular was issued on 8 May 1980 to procurators fiscal advising them of the checks police officers should carry out when operating this type of equipment. No prosecutions for speeding offences will be initiated if these checks are not satisfactorily carried out.

Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that about 20 cases of possible interference in the use of these devices have been identified by the BBC "Watchdog" programme? In those circumstances, does he not agree that the possibility of error is so great that the device should be withdrawn from use?

I am not certain about the 20 cases where there might be error but I know that, in accordance with the guidance given by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, both before these devices are used and after there must be a check to ensure that they have been operating properly and without interference. If there has been interference prosecutions will not follow.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what prosecutions have been completed resulting from the shipbreaking at Cairnryan.

There have been two prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 arising out of the shipbreaking operations at Cairnryan. In one case fines totalling £1,500 were imposed while in the second proceedings are still pending in the sheriff court at Stranraer.

Does not the Solicitor-General for Scotland think it disgraceful that two people have been killed in the shipbreaking of the Ark Royal? Is he aware that in 1983 two prohibition notices have been served, one report has gone to the procurator fiscal, and eight warning letters have been issued from the Health and Safety Executive? Does that not show the sorry state of private enterprise operations at Cairnryan? Is it not the case that the Health and Safety Executive does not have enough men properly to police this matter to ensure an adequate oversight of it? What responsibility will his Department take for this sorry state of affairs?

My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) in whose constituency Cairnryan is situated took this matter up with the Minister of State, Department of Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) four or five months ago. The hearing into one of the deaths to which he referred is still pending before the sheriff's court at Stranraer. For good reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I can make no further comment on that. With regard to my own responsibilities in this matter, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in every case that has been referred to the procurator fiscal by the Health and Safety Executive arising out of these shipbreaking operations there has been a prosecution.

My hon. and learned Friend said that a fine of £1,560 had been imposed. It was imposed on my constituent, Mr. Miles of Northern Shipbreakers company, which was responsible for the breaking-up of the Ark Royal. Will he accept, however, that that case has not been completed? The Department of Employment is currently looking into the actions of the Health and Safety Executive officers and the restrictions on the Ark Royal prior to the breaking-up.

The operations of the Health and Safety Executive and the inquiries that my hon. Friend has made of the Department of Employment are not within my province. I am concerned only when such cases have been reported to the procurator fiscal. When those reports have been made, a prosecution has always resulted.