asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any new initiatives to announce to improve the employment situation in Ayrshire.

The Government have introduced many new initiatives to improve the employment situation in Ayrshire and new developments recently announced are proving their success.

You, Mr. Speaker, will be as disappointed as am I by that reply. My question referred to new initiatives. Is the Under-Secretary aware that I am disappointed that he is unable to institute new initiatives? I had in mind freeport status for Prestwick. If the Minister will give the House the assurance that he will continue to press for such status, the people of Ayrshire will continue to live in hope.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are considering applications for freeport status. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome recent developments in Ayrshire, such as the announcement by SCI Systems Incorporated, with the potential for providing 500 new jobs during the next four years at Irvine. I should have thought that all hon. Members would give a warm welcome to the achievement of British Aerospace at Prestwick in winning a £20 million order from America for 12 Jetstream 31 aircraft, against tough competition from major American companies.

Will my hon. Friend underline yet again the great success of British Aerospace at Prestwick in introducing the successful Jetstream aircraft, which was conceived and is being built in Scotland? The Opposition should congratulate those concerned, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has been greatly involved with the company.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Jetstream is a marvellous Scottish aircraft and a fine achievement. I am sure that this week's announcement will be followed by further orders.

Is the Minister aware that he would give immediate enjoyment to the people of Ayrshire if he would put more pressure on his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy to issue drilling licences for the exploration of oil and gas resources in the Clyde? Does he accept that if he did that Ayrshire would have a new initiative, because it could get the oil and gas out of the Clyde and so provide jobs for the people of Ayrshire?

The Government have made it clear that oil development in the area, if properly controlled, would be welcomed, but as yet there is no evidence that oil exists in that area.

Nonsense.

It is wrong to risk raising false hopes. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I suggest that he reads what Mr. Ian Clark has said on the subject.

Does my hon. Friend concede that in considering the argument for freeports in Scotland one of the main factors should be the qualifications of the applicants, bearing in mind the guidelines laid down by the Treasury? Does he agree that the ideal qualificant is the city of Aberdeen?

I have said that the Government are considering the various applications for freeport status, and the House knows that my hon. Friend is a stalwart proponent of the city of Aberdeen.

As the current movement for freeport status started in Ayrshire, and as most of the development will come from North America, would it not be a travesty if Prestwick were not designated as one of the freeports in Scotland?

The freeport applications are still being examined. We hope that selected sites will be announced shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Prestwick is an important national airport and that it is vital that it should continue to be so as long as a need for jobs exists in that part of Ayrshire? Will my hon. Friend ensure that all of his hon. Friends are aware of its importance?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I readily endorse the substantial efforts which the British Airports Authority is making to develop traffic through that airport. My hon. Friend will be aware that 1983 traffic levels at Prestwick were better than they were in 1982, and in 1984 they are likely to be even better.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the provision of geriatric beds related to the relevant populations for each of the Scottish health boards; and if he is satisfied with the current level of provision in each area.

With permission, I shall arrange for the relevant figures for each health board to be printed in the Official Report. For Scotland as a whole the total geriatric bed complement at 31 March 1982 represented 39·2 beds per 1,000 of the population aged 75 and over. This is close to the 40 beds per 1,000 recommended in the report, "Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the Eighties". There are variations between areas, but I am satisfied that all health boards are endeavouring to meet the needs of their areas.

Does the Minister concede that in the truncated debate in the Scottish Grand Committee the Secretary of State said that improvements were made when phase 1 of the Dunfermline and West Fife hospital was opened? May we have an assurance that the improvements in Fife will continue, with support for phase 2 of that hospital in order to bring the number of acute beds in Fife into proportion with the need in the area?

The question is about geriatric provision. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that the Fife health board provided an additional 60 beds at Whyteman's Brae last November and that work is well advanced on a further 120 beds for the elderly in Dunfermline. With recent developments at Glenrothes and Stratheden hospitals, that means that considerable improvements have been made in Fife for the care of the elderly.

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the improvements in Fife under the present Government, but does he recognise that the improvements involve catching up? Will he ensure that the Fife health board continues to improve geriatric and psychogeriatric provision in the area?

I agree that we are talking about a catching-up exercise by the Fife health board, which has gained substantially from the more equitable distribution of Health Service funds. It stands to gain further from the continuation of that redistribution. I welcome the priority that Fife health board has given to the care of geriatrics in its use of the additional funds.

Does the Minister accept that the average which he considers reasonable hides wide discrepancies? Does he accept also that it is not good enough that beds should only be available 100 miles away from some areas where they are needed? Will the Minister try to ensure that enough beds are made available in every area in Scotland?

In my main reply I conceded that variations exist in different areas. That is one of the main matters to which health boards must address their attention. They must ensure that geriatric beds are provided where the demand is, and not, as sometimes happens for historic reasons, in areas which are a long way from the demand. That is part and parcel of the priority which I expect health boards to give to geriatric care.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in an area with an aging population—

Speak for yourself.

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to think of himself as an aging person. Does my hon. Friend accept that many health boards consider geriatric care in terms of today rather than taking the next few years into account? Does he agree that in many areas there will not be enough beds for geriatrics and psychogeriatrics in the future?

My hon. Friend is right. Health boards must plan not only for today but for demographic changes between now and the end of the century, and I assure my hon. Friend that health boards do that. When considering the plans that they have submitted to my Department we shall examine carefully the provision for likely demand and the way that it will change in different areas.

Is the Minister aware that Cleland hospital in my constituency has a long waiting list? Is he aware also that some people have to travel as much as 100 miles to visit patients there? Is he further aware that the hospital board and its administrators are helpful, but that they can do nothing without the beds? What does the Minister propose to do about hospital care in Lanarkshire?

Lanarkshire health board, like some other health boards in Scotland, has a problem in matching its beds to the demand of the area. Let me repeat what I said. Lanarkshire, like other health boards, has to take account in its planning of geriatric provision now and in the future. I have made geriatric care a priority, and I continue to underline that.

Does the Minister accept that many of the authorities which are dependent on a share of the redistribution for the day-to-day business of running the Health Service in their areas are no longer able to finance or even forecast an expansion along the lines recommended by the SHAPE report in 1980? Does he agree that the present funding of the Health Service is inadequate to meet the responsibilities of Scotland as a whole and to avoid the disparity in provision at which he hinted today? He did not have the guts to come here today and tell us the exact position, although no doubt it will appear on the record. The fact is that the authorities do not have the money to do what he is asking them to do.

The disparity in provision existed in 1979 when we took office. It was inherited from the Labour party. Since 1979 we have increased the amount of money for the National Health Service. It is now at a historic high. We have put more money into the Health Service in Scotland than has ever been put in before—far more than one would imagine from the crocodile tears of the Labour party.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 November, Official Report, c. 861–62, what estimate he has made of the additional costs that would fall on the people of Scotland if the Scottish Office were to be put under the control of an elected Scottish Assembly.

The 1978 scheme of devolution was estimated to cost £13 million. Any new scheme would clearly cost considerably more than that. If the Assembly adopted expensive additional policies, the cost to Scottish taxpayers would be greater still.

Is it not humbug for the Secretary of State to suggest that an extra tier of Government would cost more money when that extra tier of Government already exists, warts and all, in the form of his own Department? Will he admit that last night's events show that the House is not up to the job of scrutinising Scottish affairs properly, because many Tory Members voted against repressive legislation for England, and the same Tory Members are apparently so ignorant of what is going on that on 5 December they voted for virtually identical legislation for Scotland?

I do not recall Opposition Members objecting when, if one likes to put it that way, Labour votes in England forced through nationalisation measures. On the question of extra expenditure, if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that a Scottish Assembly would not cost the Scottish taxpayer more, I am not sure why his party is apparently proposing extra tax-raising powers on the Scots to pay for it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of Scots want less money spent on government, not more, and that the last elections in north Tayside showed that there was no demand whatever for a Scottish Assembly?

I am certain that Scots particularly would like the Government to use the money that they take from people as wisely as possible, and I agree with my hon. Friend that there is little sign of any interest in a Scottish Assembly.

As the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely impotent in the Cabinet when it comes to saving Scottish industries, does he agree that the price of not having a Scottish Parliament is the closure of the smelter at Invergordon and the attempt to close the shipyard of Scott Lithgow? Does he not think that Scotland needs a Parliament to defend its basic industries?

If there had been a Scottish Assembly when those things happened, it would not have made the slightest difference to any of them. If the hon. Gentleman had had his way and there had been an entirely separate Scotland, all those businesses would have been closed down long ago.

As 99·5 per cent. of the civil servants employed by the Scottish Office work in Edinburgh, does it not make nonsense of the Secretary of State's argument that there would be an increase in bureaucracy if we had a Scottish Assembly and that extra costs would be involved in creating an elected Assembly? Does he object to spending money on democracy?

The hon. Gentleman's first figures are wholly inaccurate and quite wrong, and the rest of his question therefore falls. As for the rest of his supplementary question and the matter of paying for a Scottish Assembly, if the Labour party thought that it would cost nothing, it would not be proposing extra tax-raising powers on the Scots to pay for it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly has run out of money shows that market forces are at work?

I dare say that that is right, and there is no doubt that the presence of a Scottish Assembly—this view is held widely on both sides of the House—would not provide a solution to many of the problems with which we must deal.

Whatever costs the Secretary of State invents for a Scottish Assembly in order to blacken the concept, will he accept that it is nothing like the cost that Scotland has had to pay in the last four or five years for the damaging and divisive legislation which his Administration have put on the statue book?

I do not agree, and the hon. Gentleman should know from the history of the last four or five years that large sums of United Kingdom money have been spent to improve the situation in Scotland during a particularly difficult recession. As for devolution generally, I rest on the wise words of the present Leader of the Opposition, who quoted Bevin as saying:

"If you open that Pandora's box, you will find it full of Trojan horses",

"That conveys my feelings on Devolution precisely." — [Official Report, 15 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 468.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one: of the principal reasons why many Scots are against a Scottish Assembly is precisely because Labour Members would give it tax-raising powers—or teeth, as they call them—and does he agree that that form of levy on Scottish business would destroy rather than create jobs?

My hon. Friend is right, and we have seen enough examples in recent years of the way in which irresponsible people in Scotland can put levies on business, which destroys jobs. The principal disadvantage that I see in the whole debate is that it is well known that the Labour party is so hopelessly divided on the issue that it has no prospect of introducing such a thing anyway.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of public sector houses he expects to be completed in 1984–85; and how many he expects to be modernised in the same year.

I expect there to be a modest increase in the number of public sector houses completed in 1984–85 over the level of 4,500 houses completed in 1982–83. Improvements of public sector houses are also running at a high level, which I hope can continue.

Where will these modest increases take place? Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the paucity of new starts, especially for sheltered housing accommodation? What steps does he intend to take — apart from reducing the housing support grant and other measures that he has already set in train—to ensure that there is a continuing improvement in new build and modernisation programmes in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the overall provisional allocation for 1984–85 is £404 million, compared with £350 million in 1983–84. He will also be aware that those who decide to increase their rate fund contributions are removing money which would otherwise be available for the sort of provision that he wants to see, and I hope that the city of Glasgow will bear that in mind when it takes decisions in the near future.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that despite having sold about 6·5 per cent. of the corporation houses in Kirkcaldy district, as a result of the cut in housing grant to that area, houses that were planned to be built in 1984–85 have had to be postponed for two or three years? What relevance do his remarks about the overall provisional allocation for this year have in that context?

I am sure that the members of Kirkcaldy council are as aware as the hon. Gentleman that the answer lies largely in their hands. He gave the figure for the number of houses that they have sold. If they pursue a vigorous sales policy on council houses, they will be able to create the receipts to do what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 1,586 council houses have been sold by Perth and Kinross district council, that that council assured me this morning that it is having no difficulty in the rural areas in housing people who want council houses and that it welcomes the shift towards the building of sheltered housing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House how successful his district council has been in this respect. It is an example that other local authorities could usefully follow.

The Minister will know that England and Wales enjoyed the benefit of a national house condition survey in 1981. When may we expect a similar facility north of the border?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that survey was based on examples of information gathered from local authorities, which should know more than anyone else about their own housing position. Information from local authorities is more valuable than a survey.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had from the fish processing industry in Aberdeen.

Last month my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State received a submission from the Federation of North East Scotland Fish Merchants Associations seeking financial aid for the fish processing industry in its area. After full consideration, my right hon. and noble Friend has informed the federation that its case for aid has not been proved.

My hon. Friend will be aware that that answer is disappointing, especially to the small firms engaged in fish processing in the Aberdeen area. Will he concede that those firms form an important and substantial part of the fishing industry in the north-east of Scotland, particularly as they subcontract a substantial amount of work to larger firms, but have been disadvantaged by the fact that they cannot receive EEC aid? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to make sure that the Sea Fish Industry Authority tries to organise some kind of assistance so that at least a portion of the cake of Government aid going to the fishing industry as a whole will go to these hard-pressed firms?

We have encouraged the SFIA to develop, in consultation with the fishing industry, its proposals to increase the consumption of fish and its ideas for the processing side of the industry. We have asked the small business division of the Scottish Development Agency to contact the federation to see whether there is any way in which it can assist small firms in this industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and what subjects were discussed.

I last met leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland when I addressed the president's council of the CBI in Glasgow on 7 November during the CBI annual conference. My principal theme was the importance of the new technologically based enterprises increasingly being attracted to Scotland. I shall be meeting the chairman and director of CBI Scotland on Friday 20 January to discuss CBI Scotland's Budget representations.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the CBI in Scotland shares the concern of the House and the Scottish people about the future of Scott Lithgow? Does not the only practicable solution for the future of Scott Lithgow lie in the acquisition of the yard by an enterprise or consortium, whether United Kingdom or foreign, with the expertise and commercial reputation to build sophisticated oil-related structures? If my right hon. Friend agrees — [Interruption.] This is an important point, to which Opposition Members would do well to listen. If my right hon. Friend agrees with me, can he give an assurance that he and his Ministers will do all in their power to enable this acquisition to take place and thus to protect an important part of the Scottish industrial structure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I share his concern and that of all hon. Members about the serious situation that we have seen develop on the lower Clyde. I am only too willing to do anything that I can to assist in ensuring that somehow, if possible, the rig will be completed on the Clyde.

Has the Secretary of State, in his discussions with the CBI, or in his mind, had clear signs of, on the one hand the cost of the immediate closure of the yard and, on the other, making it worth while for Britoil to agree to the completion of the rig?

The problem does not appear to be primarily a matter of cost. The calculation of the balance of cost depends crucially on what view British Shipbuilders takes of the likely cost of completing the rig under the present contract. The principal problem is that, for whatever reason, the customer lost confidence in the supplier and decided to terminate the contract.

The Secretary of State spoke of confidence. When will he defend, with conviction and principle, the economic and social interests of the people employed at Scott Lithgow, because he is not doing that now?

As far back as last April I held the first of many meetings with all concerned and spelt out in clear terms that I was concerned about the future of the contract, and I am only sorry that there was no quicker response to the suggestions that I then made.

They want guidance and leadership from the Secretary of State, and they are not getting it.

When my right hon. Friend meets leaders of the Scottish CBI, will he remind them that every time they ask for special privileges for Scotland they get them and there is a counter-reaction in the West Midlands and West Midlanders say that they also need regional benefits? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the West Midlands gets regional benefits he will be a party to undermining the Government's strategy?

I appreciate and share my hon. Friend's proper anxiety about the West Midlands. Nevertheless, I remind him that regional policy is not Scottish, but British, policy and that it has served Britain extremely well for the past 25 years. It has created about 100,000 new jobs in Scotland and about 500,000 in Britain as a whole.

Is it not clear that no third party will take over Scott Lithgow, except at public expense? Does that not mean that the most obvious, direct and cheapest means of saving the yard is to get Britoil and British Shipbuilders into negotiations? Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government stand back and do not intervene to bring that about they will be conniving at the massacre of thousands of jobs?

The right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should be best placed to understand that the contract between British Shipbuilders and Britoil was perfectly freely entered into. It contained normal terms and clauses, which were freely agreed between the two parties. For whatever reason, during the course of the contract the customer lost confidence in the firm's ability to complete the rig on time and terminated the contract in a perfectly normal commercial way.

Have the leaders of the CBI in Scotland given my right hon. Friend any preliminary reaction to the Government's White Paper on regional policy? Have they commented on the merits of increasing the emphasis on the importance of service industries for job creation and the extent to which greater selectivity in terms of quality of project is as important as price?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I have not had detailed discussions with the CBI in Scotland about the proposed regional policy, but its initial reaction to the general tenor of the proposals, especially those to bring service industries more into regional policy and to make the policy more job-related, has been favourable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only people who do not understand that there is only a short gap of time available in which to take action to solve the problem at Scott Lithgow is the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues? Does he agree that he has used the opportunity provided by that gap of time to insult the workers at Scott Lithgow, as did his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a month ago, and the junior Minister? The right hon. Gentleman could lift his little finger now and solve the problem. If he does not, we shall have horrendous unemployment in that isolated section of the Clyde. He is not aware of the dangers of the situation and appears ignorant of the possibilities.

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has a constituency interest in this issue, for nearly one year I publicly and obviously warned everyone that this problem was likely to occur. Opposition Members have not said one word to encourage people involved at Scott Lithgow to realise the seriousness of the problem. That is a disgraceful commentary on their inability to take part in this important matter. With regard to the future, I have always made it clear that I shall do anything that I can to ensure, if that is possible, that the rig is completed on the Clyde, by some means or other.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in view of the state of the Scottish economy, his work rate will not stand much examination? Why, in view of his record on Linwood, on the pulp mill at Fort William and on the smelter at Invergordon, should we trust him to try to save the jobs at Scott Lithgow?

The hon. Gentleman knows better than to take such a selective view. I should have thought that he, of all people, who has good reason to thank the Government for helping to bring Wang to the area near that which he represents, would be rather more evenhanded.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only now, during the death throes of Scott Lithgow, that the work force and management have realised the desperate circumstances? The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) calls for leadership. May we assure him—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree — that there is leadership from the Government? We want a categorical assurance to my right hon. Friend from the work force and management that if there is any possibility of this yard being saved they will hold to whatever regulations he requires should be implemented to ensure the yard's future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his views. There has never been, and is not now, any disagreement between me and the representatives from Scott Lithgow, whom I have seen several times. If there are faults, they are no doubt on the side of the management and the work force, and that is not a matter of disagreement between them and me. It is a little hard, as I am the only person who has been giving any leadership during the past nine months — [Interruption.] The trouble is that I did not give it sufficiently loudly for those concerned to hear and understand me and do anything about the problems.

Will the Secretary of State accept that there is deep and justified anger in Scotland at the lamentable spectacle of him sitting paralysed and ineffective while thousands of jobs on the lower Clyde are lost? Worse still, he is trying to cover his own glaring inadequacy by misconceived and tasteless attacks on the work force, which he is trying to make the scapegoat for the whole catastrophe. Will he now realise that if he had acted in a timely and decisive manner it would not be a matter of having to scramble around looking for some private sector rescue operation?

I should be more impressed with the hon. Gentleman's well-prepared speech if he, or for that matter his predecessor, had uttered one word of leadership to the people at Scott Lithgow during the past year, either to sign the working agreement or not to go on the planned national strike. Not one word was said from the Opposition about that matter.

A positive response was made in September.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands that there is no difference of opinion between me and the work force, to which I have spoken about the fact that there have been faults on the side of the management and the unions concerned. Although I totally share the great anxiety of everyone about these problems, I at least can claim to have been trying to return leadership for nearly a year to put the problem right, and I have had no support whatever from the Opposition.

Resign.

rose—

Order. I have allowed a good run on this very important matter. In fairness to those who have questions further down the Order Paper, we should now proceed more rapidly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to encourage the further development of oil-related industries in Scotland.

Our fiscal and licensing-policies are designed to maintain the momentum of exploration and development in the North sea. Their success is evident with four new oilfields and a 300 km pipeline from Fulmar to St. Fergus approved since the last Budget, and the prospect of a substantial number of further approvals this year. Scotland will continue to benefit from a full and fair opportunity to compete for this business, as it has done so successfully in recent years.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he acknowledge that the loss of major capacity in offshore technology, which will result from the closure of Scott Lithgow, will mean the removal of a vital component in our ability to compete in this area? Will he further acknowledge that his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) has stated that the solution to the problem might be a private buyer? It is difficult to conceive of a private buyer taking over a yard which the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Government have spent many months running down, condemning and rubbishing. Will he acknowledge that that will not enable Scott Lithgow to maintain its proper place in oilfield technology?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him that to lose entirely the capability for building all these forms of oil-related structure would be a retrograde step for this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done what they could in financial terms? Over £100 million has gone into Scott Lithgow to shore it up so far, and the only ultimate way of saving Scott Lithgow is to remove it from the present management and put it into private hands. In the past, before the nationalisation of Scott Lithgow, that yard was in profit. It did some of the best work in shipbuilding that was ever done on the Clyde. That yard was known as the jewel in the crown of shipbuilding in the Clyde. Will he comment on that?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intense interest that she has been taking in this important matter. On the question of finance, she is, of course, right. I should have mentioned earlier in these exchanges that the Government have not only been trying to persuade all concerned to do what they could to regain confidence between the supplier and the contractor in this matter, but have put in literally millions of pounds worth of money to help keep the contract going for as long as it has continued, amounting to approximately £13,000 per man employed. As to the future, what is necessary is to see whether there is a way of building up a management for this contract that will carry the conviction and the confidence of the person who is going to buy it, that is, Britoil. It is to that end that I and my colleagues will, of course, do everything we can to help.

If the Secretary of State is really interested in oil-related industries, will he use his considerable influence to ensure that an order is placed with the Leith yard of Henry Robb Ltd, a yard which is so important to the economy in eastern Scotland?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about that yard, but the decision about its future is very much one for British Shipbuilders.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures the Government have introduced have been reflected in the high-tech-company which is going into the enterprise zone at Arbroath which is part of the Tayside enterprise zone? Is this not real evidence of Government policy working?

It is the case that, when these very large and extremely difficult industrial crises arise, there are two levels of activity which any responsible Government must take. The first is to do everything they can to try to build some new activity from the old one that has come to grief, and that is what we are trying to do in this case. Secondly, in the regrettable event of a new enterprise not being successful, the Government must do all they can to help the area concerned. There are numerous examples in Scotland of very successful activities funded by the Government and the SDA in recent years.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I do not agree with routine party insults against him? [Interruption.] Having seen several Secretaries of State in operation against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other people, and given the appalling economic policy within which he operates, I do not think he has done badly. [Interruption.] It is an appalling climate, created largely by his Government. Will he also bear in mind that, unless he will take a constructive initiative and bring Scott Lithgow and Britoil together at this stage, he will put a slur on what he has done, which is quite unnecessary, and miss the opportunity to save a vital Scottish industry?

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. [Interruption.] The House is always quick to protect a Member who has the integrity to tell the truth, even when it is not popular. On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question I entirely appreciate that it is up to me and my colleagues to do all that we can to help in this extremely serious situation. I do not believe that there was any way in which the existing contract could have been rescued after the trouble into which it had got. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that we shall do all that we can to see whether anything can be recreated in the area.

If the Secretary of State is now so quick to recognise the integrity of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), why did he not do so at the time of the Hillhead by-election? Does he agree that the validity of the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, and the judgments incorporated in them, was shown by the long faces on the Liberal and SDP Benches while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking?

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to read what I said. My point was that, as it is clearly possible for structures of this kind to be manufactured by people in places such as Korea, it is inconceivable that people with long experience on the lower Clyde cannot do the same job so well. I should be extremely surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not agree with that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting health board chairmen to discuss waiting lists.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans to discuss waiting lists with health board chairmen.

Does the Minister agree that the single most significant yardstick of Health Service provision is the length of the waiting list? Is he aware that the increasing length of waiting lists in particular areas and specialties is causing great pain and suffering to patients in Scotland? Does he agree that it should be a priority for him to discuss this regularly with health board chairmen?

The chairmen are, of course, well aware of my wish to encourage them to seek ways of improving their efficiency, increasing patient throughput and reducing waiting lists. From 1979 to 1981 the Government had some success in reducing the waiting lists which we inherited, but, when the Health Service dispute occurred, waiting lists increased again. Time after time I told the House that the dispute was damaging patient care and I invited Labour Members to condemn it, but they never did so. Yet now they are surprised that waiting lists have rocketed upwards. I trust, however, that they will be delighted to hear that between March and September last year waiting lists declined by 8,000. We hope to continue that progress in recovery from the damage inflicted by the dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to reduce transport costs in the Highlands and Islands.

My right hon. Friend has made major increases in subsidy for shipping services and has maintained support for the Highland and Island aerodromes and for certain essential air services. We intend to continue those policies.

The islanders do not begrudge the subsidy provided so far, but does the Minister recall that the Select Committee found an overwhelming desire on the part of the islanders for the introduction of road equivalent tariff? What is the timetable of the Scottish Office to give substance to the commitment made by the Secretary of State in his statement on 28 July 1981 that the Government would stand by their manifesto pledge to move towards road equivalent tariff?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the level of subsidy over the last four years he will see that we have been fulfilling the commitment that was made in the manifesto in 1979. However, we have been giving further consideration to the system of subsidy, taking into account, among other things, the recent Monopoly Commission report on CaLMac. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement on shipping subsidy levels for 1984–85 soon and to announce his conclusions on the system at the same time.

I acknowledge the substantial assistance that has already been given to shipping services in the west and north, but does the Minister recollect that there was a firm commitment to move towards a system of road equivalent tariff? Since this was given in 1979 and we are now five years on, is it not time that the Government took the next step, closed the gap and introduced RET without further delay?

I should perhaps remind the right hon. Gentleman of the figures. When we came into office in 1979 the subsidy figure for that year was £4·2 million. The equivalent figure for 1983–84 is £12·3 million. That is not only a very large cash increase but a large increase in real terms. I do not see how he can possibly say that that is not a fulfilment of the commitment we made in the 1979 manifesto.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Points of order take up Question Time, so I will take them after Members' questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have taken place concerning motorists using bright rear lights in conditions of good visibility.

No statistics are available.

While I do not want to see unnecessary prosecutions of motorists, will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that the police issue severe warnings to motorists who disobey the regulations and use bright lights, causing great inconvenience and even danger to other road users?

I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is little understood that the use of rear fog lamps in conditions where visibility is not adversely affected is an offence. I hope that that will be more widely understood. If it continues to be a problem, doubtless the police will report that to procurators fiscal in Scotland and after that the step of either issuing a warning or prosecuting will be taken.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many staff his Department employs in the Crown Office building, Edinburgh, formerly the Royal high school.

The total number of persons employed in the Crown Office building, Edinburgh is 93, excluding cleaning and security staff.

Will the Solicitor-General consider taking all those staff out of that building, employing them somewhere else and persuading the Secretary of State to use the building for its proper purpose, which, of course, is the establishment of a Scottish Assembly?

Now that I read that the hon. Gentleman increasingly understands that he is a somewhat dumb pawn in the nationalist game over a Scottish Assembly, I am surprised that he uses his not inconsiderable energies in putting down questions of this sort. If he wants to ask me more detailed questions about how the staff of the Crown Office in Scotland—which is a unique institution in the United Kingdom—operates I shall be happy to give him a serious answer.

I had always thought that one of the duties of the Solicitor-General was to bring about law reform in Scotland. Given the considerable backlog and delays in relation to law reform, particularly with regard to the law of diligence and such matters, does he not agree that it would be beneficial for the improvement of the Scottish legal system if we had a Scottish legislature, so that we would be able to devote to Scottish legal business more than the half hour in one day which the House of Commons is able to give to it?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who has had a career in the law in Scotland, would understand that we have a unique system of criminal law. It would do no good at all to our commercial system of law if we were to go along a route that is wholly idiosyncratic. It is critically important that we march in step with developments in Europe and south of the border—

Why?

Because it is in the commercial interest of Scotland, which I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree is a desirable objective. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, there is not a delay on the part of the Government over diligence, as he well appreciates. The Scottish Law Commission feels that this matter requires the most detailed consideration. It is still considering it as a matter of top priority. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the better the reform it can achieve in this difficult area of the law, the better it will be for Scotland.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not the number of staff that he is employing in the old high school building that is important, but the quality of the staff and the quality of the work they produce?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is generally recognised that the procurator fiscal system and the Crown Office in Scotland are admired widely, not just in the rest of the United Kingdom but elsewhere in the world, to the extent that it is being considered whether a similar scheme might be followed south of the border.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to consider matters of mutual concern and, in particular, the sequestration of trade union funds.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress has not requested a meeting with me to discuss such matters.

As the Government seem determined to break the trade union movement by law, and as that will inevitably lead to increasing conflict between trade unions and the law courts, with the consequent possible sequestration of trade union funds, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance that no organisation in Scotland — bank or anyone else — will sequestrate trade union funds without the law?

It is not for banks or financial institutions to sequestrate without a court order.

A Scottish order.

What has been little understood, and might be better understood by those who are truly interested in the commercial development of Scottish financial institutions, is that some, if not all, of those financial institutions trying to operate in places other than in Scotland will, on occasions, be subject to the jurisdiction of more than one court. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's view on trade union matters, I would counsel caution—

You, too.

—when he suggests that there are financial institutions in Scotland which should be subject only to Scottish jurisdiction. If they are to expand and be profitable, they will naturally have to operate in jurisdictions other than Scotland.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he next intends to meet the members of the Scottish Law Commission.

Neither I nor my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate have any meetings arranged, but both formal and informal meetings are held from time to time as necessary.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Scottish Law Commission Bill—the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Bill—has been introduced with support from both sides of the House? Will he be prepared to give it his support?

Yes. I am most grateful, and the House should be grateful, to my hon. Friend for the steps that he has taken to introduce a Bill reforming the law relating to husband and wife. While the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) feels that we are not doing all that we might, it is significant that it should be my hon. Friend who has taken this step of introducing these changes following the publication of the Scottish Law Commission's report. I am pleased that Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), have supported the measure. I trust that the Bill will enjoy the support not just of its sponsors when it comes before the House on Friday, but all hon. Members.

Why are the Government allowing the matter to be handled by a private Member rather than, as in England and Wales, treating it as a Government issue? Is it a sign that the Scottish legislative process is so clogged up with other measures that it has to be left to a private Member to take action?

No, not at all. It is that the Conservatives have a prominent Back Bencher who is prepared to read Scottish Law Commission reports and who realises that there is an opportunity for him to introduce a reform which the Commission has advocated. I hope that when the Bill is before the House on Friday it will enjoy the support of all hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Caithness (Mr. Maclennan) was referring to a completely different set of provisions. We are awaiting the Government's decision on the Law Commission's recommendations on the financial settlements on divorce, about which the English are already legislating, although the English Law Commission's report was introduced at about the same time as the Scottish Law Commission's report. I recognise that there are different issues, but we need decisions. When can we expect them?

This is a difficult matter. If I recollect accurately, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland was reported in the Scottish press as saying, "Oh! This is a hot potato." The Conservative party's general election manifesto said that the matter required reform. The report is different from the one prepared south of the border. The hon. Gentleman recognises, from his interest in these matters, as do other Scottish Members, that, although there may be great interest in the Scottish Law Commission's proposals, there are as many organisations in Scotland hostile to the scheme as there are those in favour of it.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement about the Scottish Office social research study investigating sexual assault.

The Scottish Office social research study investigating sexual assault relates primarily to police investigations and as such is properly a matter for my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The second report, which is expected to be published this year, examines the prosecution and court stages of such cases. I shall study that report, as I have the first report, with great care.

Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland add weight to any discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and point out that one of the main conclusions of that important first report concerned the inability of some detectives to interview women and children who were victims of sexual assault? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman add weight to the report's suggestion that a special unit should be set up, with specialists who are trained to deal with this nasty offence? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, even if a unit set up in Strathclyde was a pilot scheme, that would be a tremendous advantage?

It is widely recognised that matters arising from the report must be examined. It has been proposed that discussions should be held with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to examine what action needs to be taken as a result of the report's important proposals.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland might justifiably have been expected to be asked a question during Scottish Questions about his crucial meeting tomorrow with Mr. Ronald Hancock, the managing director of Leyland Vehicles. In view of the Cabinet's belief that the world is coming out of recession, Scottish Members from the area plead with the Secretary of State to put the case for a tiding-over operation—such as the Jetstream operation—to Leyland Vehicles and his Cabinet colleagues—

Order. I think the hon. Member is asking a question which he might have put earlier.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State, as you well know, has often been the subject of complaint for making statements outside the House on very important matters. In the presence of both the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House, I ask the Secretary of State to give a commitment that he will come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about the outcome of his meeting with British Leyland.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's plea has been heard and noted.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter concerning Question Time that is of deep concern to me. I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland misled the House, perhaps inadvertently, when he referred to the Scott Lithgow work force's failure to respond positively to the management's survival plan. The work force responded in September, when there was agreement on both sides.

I allowed a good run of questions about Scott Lithgow because I appreciate how important the matter is to hon. Members from Scotland and, indeed elsewhere. I apologise to hon. Members who had later questions on the Order Paper, which, as a result, were not reached.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, assistance and advice. Before questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland this afternoon, we had reached only question No. 10 to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The general dialogue of Question Time shows that some Conservative Members were called four or five times, although the Conservative party is a minority party—

Rubbish.

In seeking your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, I am not being critical. I understand that if hon. Members have tabled a question they are entitled to be called. One Scottish constituency is as good as another. During Scottish Question Time we are entitled to voice our concern about matters affecting our constituencies and our constituents. The Conservatives are the minority party in Scotland, but they are the Government, and the Government are entitled to defend their record. However, they are not entitled to defend their record in Scotland at the expense of other members of this honourable House. [Interruption.] As there is a serious crisis in Scotland in the energy industry, the shipbuilding industry and the motor car industry, we as Members of Parliament are entitled to an opportunity at Question Time to ask questions—[Interruption.]

Order. I was about to request the House to be silent so that I could hear what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was saying. Has he finished?

I was about to finish. I was seeking your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker. I do not criticise you personally. At present in Scotland there is a crisis in shipbuilding, the coal mining industry, the energy industry, the motor car industry and other industries. We are entitled, at Scottish Question Time, to have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Scotland. We should not be disadvantaged by Conservative Members being able to ask four or five questions of the Secretary of State. That is manifestly unfair—

Rubbish.

Order. I say, particularly to Scottish Members, that I appreciate that we did not get far with questions today, but I have to make a judgment every day about the important issues. I judged today that Scott Lithgow was of great importance. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) did not have a question on the Order Paper. I try to call hon. Members who have questions later on the Order Paper on earlier questions, and I did so today. I am sorry if my judgment today meant that we did not get far. I hope that Scottish Members are satisfied that this important matter had a good airing.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that Scottish Members are greatly frustrated not only because the Government are in a minority in Scotland but because the Secretary of State for Scotland constitutionally exercises the powers of seven to nine Cabinet Ministers for England? This is bound to cause trouble if we have only one Question Time every four weeks. Is it not time that you, Mr. Speaker, invited the Procedure Committee to look at the order of questions, so that when there is a crisis and a national emergency, as there is in Scotland at present, we have the opportunity to air those matters in the House and to endeavour to get a satisfactory response from the Secretary of State and his colleagues which will in some small way satisfy our constituents, who feel that the ground is caving in under them as unemployment increases and closures take place at an ever-increasing rate?

The timing of questions is not a matter for me. However, the Leader of the House is present, and he will have heard what has been said.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect the comments made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), but do you not accept that, equally, some Conservative Members had no opportunity to speak to matters affecting their constituencies? I accept that you endeavoured to call hon. Members, but not only did some Opposition Members have no opportunity to speak but some Conservative Members did not have the opportunity to make pertinent points concerning not only their constituences but the economy of Scotland.

Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not complaining about the number of times he was called.