asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the chairmen of Scottish health boards to discuss the funding of their activities

I shall next be meeting health board chairmen on 12 June, when a number of major issues affecting the provision of health services will be discussed. I have no specific plans to discuss the financial allocations to health boards for 1984–85, which were discussed at my last meeting with chairmen on 13 March.

Before 12 June, will the Minister reflect on the possibility that one reason for the decline in Tory support in Lothian, and the crushing Labour victory in the Edinburgh district council elections, has been the Government's display of the shallowness of the Prime Minister's promise that the NHS was safe in her hands when, in fact, Lothian health board has been subjected to such drastic cuts that 250 employees are likely to lose their jobs?

The 200 jobs mentioned in the newspapers recently are not 200 real jobs—200 people will not lose their jobs. It is simply that Lothian will not take into post the 200 additional jobs that it had planned to make available. I remind the House that since 1979 we have spent more money on the NHS than ever before. There are more doctors and more nurses treating more patients.

Will my hon. Friend advise the chairmen of the health boards that, wherever possible, they should privatise services so that they become more efficient?

Yes, indeed. The health board chairmen are well aware of the need to run the health boards as efficiently as possible. That may mean putting certain tasks out to private contractors, which may be the best way of obtaining value for money in the NHS.

I know that the Minister has taken the trouble to consider the matter that I wish to raise. Will he keep in mind the great difficulties under which the Western Isles health board is working because of the high incidence of geriatrics in the area and the conditions under which local hospitals are operating?

All the health board chairmen are well aware of the priority given by both this and the previous Government to the needs of the increasing number of elderly people. I am equally well aware of the proposal now before my Department from the Western Isles health board for hospital provision in Stornoway, which we are now considering.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition arid the health service unions is wholly irresponsible in regard to what they are saying about the running down of the Health Service? Does he further agree that compared with 1979 more than 6,000 additional nurses and 400 additional doctors are working in the NHS, and that the Government have spent an additional £120 million this year on the NHS? I do not understand how on earth the Opposition can take such an attitude.

My hon.. Friend is absolutely right. There have been many new developments, such as the increase in cardiac surgery, heart bypass and hip replacement operations. The additional work being done in the NHS shows the priority that the Government give to it in real terms.

When the Minister gets around to meeting the chairmen of the health boards, will he make a special point of talking to the chairman of Lothian and ensure that he briefs himself on what is happening in the Lothian area? Are there to be cuts in the Health Service in Lothian? The general practitioners in the area are warning Members of Parliament about what may happen.

As I have already said, I shall meet all the health board chairmen in June, and that includes the chairman of the Lothian health board, whom I met in March when I met the other chairmen. Of course, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members can point to a certain hospital whose services are being cut because they are obsolete or out of date, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, throughout the whole of Scotland there are now more doctors and more nurses treating more patients and we have a better Health Service than the one that we inherited from the Labour party.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to give a right to holders of long leases to convert their interest into that of full ownership.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Will the Minister try to forget that he is the son and heir of a member of the landed aristocracy? Will he condemn unhesitatingly the inhuman and unconscionable acts of the Earl of Seafield in his attempts to evict elderly tenants occupying houses under long leases which are now about to expire? Does he realise that in Scotland there is no legislation to allow such tenants to convert their tenancies into full ownership, and will he take early action to persuade his right hon. Friend that immediate action is required unless—

Order. The hon. Member has asked a number of questions.

I shall deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I expressed earlier my sympathy for the conditions in which a number of tenants of the Seafield estate find themselves. Plainly, it is a matter of anxiety for the Government, but it is strictly an issue between the landlord and the tenant. It is not one in which the Government can intervene directly. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who reminded me of my background, that he is a lawyer, and in the legislation that he proposed he was effectively suggesting expropriation without compensation, which is contrary to the principles of law in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in my constituency there are a substantial number of leases of the type which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is trying to convert? Is he aware that the Scottish Law Society and others have for some time been trying to find suitable legislation that would alter that position, and that the matter is being pursued actively at the moment?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the subject of leases in his constituency. They are slightly different, because they are perpetually renewable. Certain problems exist with regard to them, because in many cases the landowners are not known. It is a matter that we are considering, because legislation may well be required. At the time of the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 1954 there were some 600 Seafield long leases. There are now fewer than 40, so many of them have been converted in the intervening period.

Through his considerable influence, will the Minister ensure that Robb's lease is not disposed of by British Shipbuilders at the expense of the local community? Will he ask Graham Day to come clean about the latest bid and ensure that shipbuilding continues on the River Forth? It is important. It involves a lease and the law of Scotland. When will the Government spell it out?

I was not aware that Robb's lease was a long lease in the terms of the law of Scotland, and therefore I do not think that that question arises from this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet Glasgow district council to discuss unemployment in the city.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure existing jobs in industry in the Glasgow area.

My right hon. Friend has had no request from Glasgow district council for a meeting to discuss unemployment in the city. Glasgow has special development area status and the selective financial assistance which we have given since May 1979 has created more than 5,400 jobs and safeguarded more than 6,200 jobs in the city. At the same time the Government have supported a number of special projects by the Scottish Development Agency to assist Glasgow; for example, GEAR and the Scottish exhibition centre.

The Minister's answer is just not good enough. Does he agree that he and his colleagues have a duty to tackle the scandalous level of unemployment in Glasgow, even if his party is almost extinct there? Is he aware that Dalmarnock, in my constituency, has 63 per cent. unemployment, according to figures that are already six months out of date? Will he consider continuing and increasing the GEAR project, and introducing as a matter of decency and urgency a crash programme to tackle the problem of dampness in thousands of Glasgow houses, and thereby create many much needed jobs?

Glasgow has benefited enormously from public expenditure under this Government. The GEAR developments in the hon. Gentleman's constituency amount to £200 million over a six-year period; the Scottish exhibition centre is a £36 million development, and Glasgow has benefited from the leg-up scheme and will continue to benefit from the Anderson scheme, the St. Enoch's development and the west of Scotland science park. In addition, the Government are committed to disperse to Glasgow 1,400 jobs in the Civil Service and the Ministry of Defence. That is precisely 1,400 more jobs than the last Labour Government achieved.

Is the Minister aware that within two years the work force at the Caley workshops, which are now known as Springburn railway workshops, will be reduced to about 600 if British Rail maintains the present level of work that is being given to them. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will urge British Rail and Ministers at the Department of Transport to give more work to the only railway engineering works in Scotland?

The Government are committed to a strong, competitive railway manufacturing industry, although detailed decisions in relation to the engineering division at Springburn are for British Rail and British Rail Engineering Ltd. to decide.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Government initiatives have done much to improve the face of Glasgow, and does he further agree that Dr. Michael Kelly's campaign, "Glasgow's Miles Better", has done much more to put Glasgow on the map than the whingeing that we constantly hear from Glasgow Members on the Opposition Benches at Question Time?

The campaign has been a great success and I am sure that, on a personal basis, all hon. Members will join me in wishing Michael Kelly's successor personal success as Lord Provost of Glasgow. One of the most encouraging—

What about Provost Gibson MacDonald? [Laughter.]

Order. I do not understand these jokes.

I was just going to add that it is particularly encouraging that the work of Locate in Scotland and of Glasgow district council recently resulted in important inward investment projects by Holmes and Narbur.

Does my hon. Friend agree that excessively high rates in Glasgow, combined with the doctrinaire principles of the Labour-controlled council, have prevented many companies from coming to Glasgow and providing jobs there?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that if the new district council pursues reasonable expenditure and rating policies that will be of great benefit to firms already in Glasgow and will attract new firms.

Returning to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), does the Minister share our anxiety, given the appalling problems that are faced in Glasgow, at the prospect of 900 jobs being lost at the Springburn engineering works? Will the Minister accept that it is not good enough for him to say, simply, that that is a matter for British Rail, as we expect the Government to show some sort of concern and Ministers to work to ensure that there is sufficient investment in the railway network to save those jobs?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, as will my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport. I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) refer to the issue, and I must repeat that the Government are committed to a strong, competitive railway manufacturing industry, although detailed management, decisions must be for British Rail and for British Rail Engineering Ltd.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the future financing of Scottish local authorities.

1 will next meet the convention to discuss Scottish local government finance on 22 June.

Will the Secretary of State go to that meeting in sackcloth and ashes, apologise for his past actions and make it clear that he intends to withdraw all his previous legislation against local authorities in view of yet another overwhelming defeat for his party in the last district elections—or does he intend to continue as an arrogant, unelected dictator with no mandate whatever to interfere in Scottish affairs?

On the latter part of the question, I have responsibility to look after Scotland's part in the national economy. That is why I must maintain my responsibility to ensure that no one, including local authorities, spends more than the country can afford.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to COSLA that he is determined to continue to protect ratepayers from unreasonable expenditure? In that context, is he not worried that many people who vote in local elections do not pay rates and that many who pay rates do not have a vote? Does he feel that the situation might be improved if expenditure in excess of guidelines were met by a poll tax?

I have certainly had no representations of any kind from ratepayers, especially commercial ratepayers, asking for the withdrawal of our legislation to bring rate expenditure under control. I dare say that there may also be a connection between that and the fact that rate increases this year have been roughtly in line with inflation. In other words, there has been no increase in real terms—thanks to the Government's policies on keeping local government spending under control.

Has the Secretary of State any idea who will be representing Kyle and Carrick district council on COSLA? Will he bear in mind in all future negotiations that COSLA has a mandate from the people of Scotland which he will never have?

When he has been a little longer in the House, the hon. Gentleman may learn not to use the word "never". He may also recall that in 1980 his party had a very similar result to that which it achieved this year, and look what happened to it in 1983.

When my right hon. Friend meets COSLA, will he point out that at least one of its members—central region—is so flush with funds that it did not even bother to turn up for a meeting with the Manpower Services Commission yesterday to press the TVEI scheme, which had a good chance of bringing £440,000 to schools in my constituency, and that at the end of the last financial year it rushed out and spent £120,000 of its education budget to buy a dry ski slope instead of using that money to provide books and services for the children?

I am most interested in my hon. Friend's comments. If that region has so much money, perhaps it will reduce the rate burden on the hard-pressed ratepayers.

Will the Secretary of State explain to COSLA why he refuses to provide any additional money earmarked for curing dampness in houses in Scotland when he is prepared to allow the Treasury to give Northern Ireland more than £40 million of oil revenue to which it is not entitled?

On dampness, the most relevant issue for me to discuss with COSLA might be why £22 million allocated for the maintenance of houses in Scotland was forgone last year through the irresponsible decisions of Labour-controlled authorities when it could have been spent on eliminating the worst of the dampness problems.

When the Secretary of State meets COSLA, will he be more truthful than he was last weekend when he told the rump of the Scottish Tories in Perth that their party was doing much better than it was getting credit for in Scotland? As the Tory vote in the district elections slumped to just over 21 per cent., does that not prove conclusively that the Secretary of State has no mandate to intervene in the affairs of Scottish local government and that he should get out and leave the councillors to get on with the job they were elected to do?

When it comes to assessing the balance of truth in political statements, I am happy to take on the hon. Gentleman in a contest at any time.

When my right hon. Friend next meets COSLA, will he remind it: of a substantial source of revenue of which it has failed to take account—that available from the sale of council houses—and press authorities once and for all to enter into the sale of council housing in a proper manner and not grudgingly as in the past?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This would not only provide far more funds for eliminating problems such as dampness, which concern Members in all parts of the House, but would be extremely welcome to the individual constituents whom hon. Members claim to represent?

Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friends who seem dismayed, as well as to COSLA, why further help cannot be given for the dampness problem in response to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Does he accept that his actions have been miserably inadequate, considering the scale of the problem? Does he recognise that he cannot shrug off the clear, stunning and comprehensive repudiation of his policies which was given at the district council elections? Will he bear that in mind when he makes decisions in the next two or three weeks about general abatement and selective action against those authorities which he considers are overspending?

The hon. Gentleman must get the problem of dampness into perspective. The reports considered by the Select Committee showed that about £157 million was probably needed to put right the dampness identified in Scottish housing. As for this year alone £227 million is allocated on the housing revenue account, it is self-evident that if local authorities wish to give dampness top priority they can make a big start on the worst cases immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of long-term unemployed persons in Scotland.

On 12 January 1984, the latest date for which information is available, there were 129,145 claimants who had been unemployed for over one year in Scotland.

Is it not the case that these figures show the underlying trend of increasing unemployment, which contrasts sharply with Minister's frequent optimistic statements about jobs, which have no basis in fact?

No, Sir. The total number of those in work is rising. Seasonally adjusted unemployment fell by 2,000 during the last two months. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency existing companies are expanding — for example, the Loveable company — and there is new investment in Barclay Glass Lab. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that today Avery Label Systems announced an expansion worth £2 million, which will increase its work force to 100.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong case for the Manpower Services Commission concentrating its resources on training and community based projects? Will he pass on these representations to it?

I note my hon. Friend's comments. He has been in correspondence with me about such schemes in his constituency. However, the mode B schemes had over-capacity this year. It is sensible to emphasise the employer-based youth training schemes, which provide direct, work-related opportunities.

Is the Minister not worried that many of those job losses are in the construction industry? Will he draw to the attention of his hon. Friend, the Minister with responsibility for health the appalling conditions of health board houses in Fauldhead? Staff who work in Woodilee are living in atrocious conditions. Will he do something to help those people and at the same time provide useful jobs in the construction industry?

The construction industry will benefit from the steady economic expansion in Scotland, which the Government's policies are now clearly and demonstrably achieving. The detailed point is a matter for the health board.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important to keep whatever jobs we have? Will he warmly congratulate the Scottish police on their outstanding work in keeping Ravenscraig open and allowing people to go to work? Will he condemn as irresponsible the attitudes of those unions who wish to close the plant?

All reasonable hon. Members will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police on the job that they have done in sometimes difficult and dangerous circumstances. I deeply regret any threat to coal supplies to Ravenscraig and the effect that that will have on jobs there.

Does the Minister recognise that the jobs which he says have come to Scotland represent a fraction of the jobs which he has destroyed as a result of cuts in the public sector? Can we at least have an assurance that, having destroyed jobs at Henry Robb, the Government will ensure that investment is made available to sustain and expand Leyland Vehicles at Bathgate?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are still considering British Leyland's corporate plan. He must also be aware that the shipbuilding industry faces major problems of overcapacity, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the world. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that employment in the sevice industries in Scotland has been expanding very quickly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many jobs have vanished in Scotland because of changes in technology and in consumer demand and, sadly, because of strikes, such as the transport strike, the strike in the steel industry, which contributed to a savage loss of jobs, and the present miners' strike, which looks like doing the same?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the effect of strikes on jobs. The best guarantee of secure employment is satisfied customers. It is encouraging that the structure of the Scottish economy has been fundamentally changed, so that it is well placed to face the challenges of the late 1980s and the 1990s.

The Minister says that he can see an expansion of the Scottish economy. May I suggest that he gets a new pair of spectacles? Will he explain to the House how the Secretary of State for Employment can say that there was an increase of 118,000 in the number of people at work between September and December last year when, during the equivalent period, there has been a reduction of 5,000 in the Scottish figures?

The hon. Gentleman should re-examine the figures, with or without spectacles. In the second half of the last quarter of last year the total number of those employed in Scotland was estimated to have increased, and the reason was an expansion of employment in the service industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the amounts collected by the local health authorities in Scotland under the terms of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations since the inception of the scheme.

Health boards in Scotland collected £275,800 in the first year of operation of the scheme.

Does the Minister agree—I am sure that he will—that this has been a massive cock-up, even by this Government's standards? Is he aware that the administrative costs of the scheme far exceed the miserable sum to which he referred? Will he exercise a spark of common sense and drop the whole ruddy nonsense?

The hon. Gentleman has no evidence to justify his statement that the administrative costs are greater than the £275,000 I mentioned. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman expects people who pay taxes and national insurance in Britain, and who decide to have private medical care, to pay for any NHS service that they may use, yet believes that people who pay no taxes in Britain should come here and obtain health services completely free.

Will the Minister provide those administrative costs? Instead of asking the Greater Glasgow health board to waste manpower and money on this stupid scheme, will he ensure that it spends the money properly on establishing a health centre in Castlemilk?

There is no evidence that the Greater Glasgow health board, or any other health board, has taken on more staff. I should have thought that the income from the scheme of almost £100,000 to the Greater Glasgow health board in 1982 was a welcome addition to its resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for the Scottish economy of the White Paper recently published on regional development in the United Kingdom.

Regional policy has played an important part in restructuring the Scottish economy and in promoting the growth of investment and output in both new and older industries. The White Paper builds on this success and affirms the Government's commitment to maintaining an effective regional policy.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that when inevitably, he makes representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the White Paper review, he will ensure that Scotland does not lose out, as some of us believe it will? Will he pay special attention to areas such as the Borders, which does not have development area assistance, which prejudices incoming industry and denies access to European infrastructure grants?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. Of course I shall take a full part in all the consideration of regional policy, which is of immense importance to the Scottish economy generally. On his last point, I appreciate that areas which do not have development area status do not qualify for European assistance of many kinds. That is part of European policy on these matters. Regional policy make no sense if it did not concentrate the aid that it has available on the areas with the greatest need. The hon. Gentleman's area, the Borders, fortunately has a much lower rate of unemployment than almost all other areas of Scotland, except Shetland.

Can my right hon. Friend say what part of the total employed population of Scotland is in the service sector? Does he agree that the White Paper could encourage the further development of that sector? Finally, will he consider carefully the Fife case for the redrawing of the regional development area map, with particular regard to the case for certain areas in north-east Fife being incorporated?

In regard to my hon. Friend's question about service industries, I can give him an accurate figure if he cares to put down a question. I think that the service industries currently cover about 65 per cent. of employment in Scotland. It has been a most interesting feature of the last few years of deep recession that the service industries have performed very strongly. I have doubts about what my hon. Friend says about north-east Fife. Of course, I shall consider that carefully in the course of the review.

Since the Secretary of State has confirmed that any area that loses its assisted status will lose not only United Kingdom regional aid but aid from the European regional development fund, will he give an absolute guarantee that when the review has been completed no area in Scotland will lose its assisted area status?

I do not think that any Minister could give an assurance that any part of the United Kingdom will never lose such status. Surely the hon. Gentleman knows more about reviews than that.

In view of the underlying fragility of the Highlands of Scotland, particularly the sparsity of the population and its distance from markets, will the Secretary of State listen to the plea of the CBI in the Highland area that no travel-to-work area in the Highlands should be exempted from assisted area status?

I note those views, which the hon. Gentleman and the CBI in the Highlands have expressed. I am looking forward to seeing all the representations, which we should have before the end of May, if possible. In regard to commitment to the Highlands, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, the Government have handsomely fulfilled that commitment with a huge increase in funds to the Highland and Islands Development Board.

Will my right hon. Friend at the same time make a statement on the effect of regional policy on the English west midlands—

Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

When the Secretary of State comes to my constituency on Monday to open the new development at Paton and Baldwins mill, and when he remembers the welcome investment project which he opened last year at BP Chemicals in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) at Grangemouth, will he think again of the consequences of the regional policy White Paper, which will specifically exclude, or place on a far lower level of emphasis, investment which seeks to maintain and protect existing employment rather than create new employment? Is this not a dangerous principle if applied to the Scottish economy, because we need considerable investment to ensure the maintenance of existing employment as well as the attraction of new employment?

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, a balance has to be struck between using the funds that we have to deal with the intensive problems of the worst areas and not spending those funds on areas that have sufficient strength to keep development going. It is that sort of balance that makes a good and sound regional policy, in which we are strong believers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding current levels of unemployment and future employment potential in the Easter Ross area.

At 5 April 1984, unemployed claimants in the Dingwall travel-to-work area numbered 2,126—an unemployment rate of 15·9 per cent. The enterprise zone at Invergordon and Alness and the oil rig inspection, repair and maintenance base on the Cromarty Firth are among the encouraging signs of the employment potential of the area.

I thank the Minister for that rather sad reply, but, in view of the increased level of unemployment, particularly with no contract on the books of the Highland Fabricators yard at Nigg, will he give positive consideration to any proposals that may come from the Highlands from elected bodies or myself on the use of the Manpower Services Commission to try to increase the amount of local training that will take place, so that more local labour can take advantage of the definite prospects which the rig maintenance and repair construction industry offer the area?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the prospects that he mentioned. I found my visit to the base on the Cromarty Firth very worth while. The figures are an improvement on those of a year ago, when unemployment was considerably higher in that area. The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible and positive contribution with his point about training. There is an application for a training workshop at Alness, which will be considered by the area manpower board in, I think, June.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the problems caused to potential applicants by the moratorium on home improvement grants.

I have received a great deal of correspondence about the improvement and repairs grants schemes in recent months, including many inquiries and representations about the timing and amounts of grant payments. The pressure on resources, which I would now expect to slacken, is a reflection of the very great success of these schemes in the past two years.

Leaving aside the case on housing and employment grounds, and the interests of the construction industry, for the Government giving a high and stable priority to home improvements, is the Secretary of State aware that I have dealt with four individual cases in the past few weeks in my constituency where considerable hardship and heartbreak have been caused to people who bought properties, expecting to improve and live in them and who have then found that the Government had changed the rules after the properties had been bought? On reflection, is that not one of the harshest, most cruel, arbitrary and shortsighted attempts to cut public expenditure?

I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman complaining that it was arbitrary, cruel and hardhearted to introduce the temporary scheme in the first place. Nothing he can say can alter the fact that in 1979 the total amount of money spent on this was £11 million, whereas on the most recent count it will be £145 million this year. If that is not something on which the right hon. Gentleman feels he ought to have the decency to congratulate the Government, he carries no credibility at all.

Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at the special cases in Glasgow where, free from ideological bias, they have genuinely tried to seek a partnership arrangement with private developers? The increase in VAT and the reduction in improvement grants means that hundreds of houses are lying empty at the moment.

I appreciate that there are cases where it was expected that things would happen quickly which will now take a lot longer. That is perfectly true and I have great sympathy for the people who are affected. When a scheme such as this, brought in with the best intentions, takes off to the extent that it outstrips the resources available, somebody must have the responsibility to do something about it. Although the hon. Gentleman knows about these things, I should say that the number of houses below tolerable standard in Scotland has gone down since 1979 from over 120,000 to 81,000. I should have thought that that was something on which the Government could be congratulated.

I recognise that home improvement grants have done a great deal to improve the housing stock all over Scotland, but is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of people incurred architects' and surveyors' fees in anticipation of being eligible for a grant? As they may not now qualify for a grant, is he able to hold out any expectation that his Department will look sympathetically upon some way of reimbursing those people for the professional costs which they have incurred?

I have complete sympathy with people caught in the middle of the changes, but the change in the grant percentage does not necessarily mean that anybody who previously hoped to obtain a grant will not do so, although it may be that a person does not get so much or that it will take a bit longer to get. I also sympathise with the problem caused by fees that have been paid, but it is unlikely that such fees will be more than the at least 10 per cent. which the person concerned would have had to contribute from his own resources. If the grants can go ahead as soon as possible, at the end of the day the person concerned will have his house improved as he originally hoped. It is regrettable that it will take rather longer because of the huge success of the scheme.

Although I have not received another internal memorandum from the Scottish Office this morning, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to introduce another moratorium on all council house building in Scotland in July this year?

As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I have no such intention. I am sorry that I added inadvertently to the hon. Gentleman's already considerable burden of paperwork.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, given the difficult interaction between central Government funding and district council priorities, it is not easy to be clear where responsibility lies on specific decisions on discretionary improvement grants? Can my right hon. Friend emphasise to district councils the importance of finding improvement grant help for listed buildings in particular, especially in conservation areas?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I appreciate that it is disappointing for people who were hoping to get a 90 per cent. grant not to get such a high percentage rate, but it has to be said that it never was the case that everybody who applied for a grant in the 90 per cent. period would get a 90 per cent. grant. In many cases, local authorities exercised their discretion to offer a lesser amount than 90 per cent. There are special arrangements for historic buildings, and I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

May I have a simple assurance from the Secretary of State that, unlike the Department of the Environment, which is considering the possibility of contingency plans for a freeze on local authority housebuilding, the Scottish Office has no such intentions, and that he would resign if such a plan were inflicted on him by the Treasury?

I have not heard of any such proposal, and I have no intention of introducing any such proposal. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures for inward investment in the Grampian region.

Detailed figures are not available, but Grampian region has benefited substantially from inward investment, particularly in oil and oil-related activities. Although some of these investment decisions were influenced by the efforts of "Locate in Scotland", in close co-operation with the regional authority, most were determined purely by market opportunity without specific Government assistance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that further inward investment in the Grampian region in connection with the offshore oil industry will be dependent upon the tax structure applied within the North sea? Will he join me in welcoming for Scotland, and for Grampian in particular, what has occurred in the Budget in encouraging offshore investment and continue to make representations in that connection?

My hon. Friend is right in emphasising that the changes introduced in the fiscal regime and the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy have resulted in a favourable outlook for the oil industry and related activities.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, in the north-east of Scotland, or in Scotland as a whole, we have not had the full benefit of inward investment that we could have had, and that, where we have investment from overseas we are not strong enough in ensuring, where possible, British participation so as to develop our export markets, using British technology rather than short-term foreign investment? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that there is more British participation in new manufacturing investment related to offshore technology?

I am not sure that I quite followed what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I believe that Scotland has been, and is, extremely successful in getting inward investment. That applies to the north-east as it does to the central belt of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what my right hon. Friend has said about research and development in relation to licensing arrangements.

Will the Minister ensure that any surplus investment from Grampian is channelled into Leith, a community ripped apart by this Government with the closure of the Henry Robb shipyard? Will he agree—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

The Government are fully aware of the problems of Leith and the hon. Gentleman will know of the success of the Leith project, a co-operative venture between the Scottish Development Agency and local authorities, in meeting those problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a system of compulsory registration for all charities in Scotland.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that any benefits of introducing such a system in Scotland would justify the expenditure of public resources.

As all charities enjoy tax concessions and, therefore, all taxpayers are indirect financial contributors to charities, does my hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory for taxpayers not even to be able to find out the names of Scottish charities which they are supporting, let alone ascertain more important financial information about those organisations? Does he agree that the only way in which the situation can be rectified is for a system of compulsory registration to be introduced?

I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend, but the cost of setting up a register would also be borne by the taxpayer and there has been little evidence of any need for compulsory registration in the public interest and little evidence that it would secure benefits or prevent abuses. However, if there are difficulties or abuses that have come to my hon. Friend's attention, I shall consider them.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report a list of the prospective legislation currently being considered by the Scottish Law Commission.

No. This information is already available in the Scottish Law Commission's annual reports. In its 18th annual report, published in November 1983, the commission gives details of the work being carried out in pursuance of its published programmes of law reform and of consolidation and statute law revision.

I am grateful for that information. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Law Commission rightly complains in its 18th report that none of the reports that it has published since 1981 has been the subject of a Bill presented to Parliament, except for consolidation measures? I hope that the three-year delay will not creep into consideration of the important recommendations and reports on bankruptcy and diligence, since it is important that those areas of the law are reformed over the next three years, as the Government's economic policies may cause them to be used more than in the past.

It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has not paid more attention to the business going through the House. In the past six months, three reports of the Scottish Law Commission have been acted upon, not least by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). A number of reports are outstanding and, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware; the White Paper "A Revised Framework for Insolvency Law" states:

"The Scots law on personal bankruptcy will be dealt with as a separate legislative measure based on the Report and draft Bill of the Scottish Law Commission".

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Scottish Law Commission is grateful for the assistance that he has given during the passage of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Bill?

I apologise to my hon. Friend for failing to mention his private Member's Bill on the outdated rules and law affecting husband and wife. I commend him and his Bill, which ensures that important provisions originally proposed by the Scottish Law Commission are put on the statute book.

In view of recent publicity about the Lord Advocate, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider urgently drawing the attention of the Scottish Law Commission to the need for legislation to prevent Lords Advocates from nominating themselves as senators of the College of Justice, particularly when divorce work has been taken away from the College of Justice, leaving an excessive number of judges for the work available?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the former Lord Advocate. The recommendation that he should become a member of the College of Justice was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and not by himself. I should have thought that anyone who had dealt with the former Lord Advocate, either in Parliament or in his capacity as a lawyer, would recognise that he has one of the finest legal brains in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been charged with incidents arising out of the miners strike.

The position as at 15 May is that 513 persons have been arrested and subsequently charged by the police. The majority have been charged either with a breach of the peace or obstructing the police, although other charges, including vandalism and possession of an offensive weapon, have also been preferred.

Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware of the widespread concern about incidents such as occurred last week when busloads of miners were arrested on the outskirts of Glasgow after being ordered by the police to discontinue their journey to Hunterston? As this excessive use of police powers is doing untold damage to relations between the police and the community, and in view of the need to try to restore public confidence in the police, will the Solicitor-General or the Lord Advocate act in the public interest by instructing the procurator fiscal to drop all pending charges? If they do not, they will be encouraging the belief that we are indeed on the verge of a police state.

If anyone is seeking to upset the well-established patterns of prosecution in Scotland, it is the hon. Gentleman. We have a perfectly clear and settled system throughout Scotland. The police make reports to the procurators fiscal, who make an independent and impartial assessment of the situation and determine whether there should be prosecutions. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the cases to which he referred are sub judice. However, the police in Scotland have the authority — where they apprehend that there is the prospect of an offence—to ensure that that offence is not committed, whether it is a breach of the peace, obstruction of the highway or anything else. It is proper to leave such matters to the police and to support them in their difficult and delicate task. It is not for the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends to seek to arrogate to themselves the responsibility for determining whether there has been a breach of the law in Scotland.

Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that if large busloads of people travel to a place to prevent other people going to work, they are committing offences that may well be more serious than breach of the peace and may constitute mobbing and rioting?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his clear perception of the law. He doubtless noted that his predecessor in office has also told the Labour party in Scotland and the Scottish Trades Union Congress that, according to the information before him, the police in Scotland are acting within the law in relation to the present issue. However, if they have operated outwith the law, that is a matter for the courts in Scotland to determine and not for anyone else.

In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, has advice to that effect been given direct to chief constables or do they judge for themselves without any advice being given by a Law Officer?

No specific advice is given on this matter. The chief constables and police officers who have operational responsibility for such matters in Scotland are well aware of their powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 — passed by a Labour Government — to ensure that order should be maintained and the commission of offences prevented. They are all also well aware that they have power to prevent the commission of offences, not being restricted simply to acting when an offence has already occurred. The law on that point in Scotland — and indeed in England—is perfectly clear.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the widespread concern in Scotland is not just about the number of arrests, but about the disgraceful harassment on the picket lines and the intimidation, which is carried from the picket lines to the doorsteps of homes in the early hours of the morning—

Where?

Most people in Scotland welcome the efforts of the police, and if confidence in the police is being destroyed it is because of provocation by those who use intimidation to win what they cannot win through the ballot.

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Probably the greatest cause of upset among Opposition Members is that the people who have been charged have been charged with offences that are nothing special and do not relate especially to industrial disputes. The charges concern breaches of the peace, assault, use of weapons and obstruction of highways. Such charges appear before the courts regularly.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are many people who might have different views about the merits of the miners strike, but who are deeply worried about the extraordinarily wide use of powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and the way in which the fundamental rights of the individual to move about the country have been infringed on the rather doubtful premise that, at some future date, an offence might be committed? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not worried about that as, following that precedent, the police will be able to ban any rally, demonstration or meeting without recourse to public order legislation? Is that not wrong? He must accept that the souring and damaging of the relationship between the police and the public, which is fundamental to our society, is a legitimate cause for concern. Indeed, that relationship has broken down in regard to some important groups. That must worry the Solicitor-General and he must consider carefully whether the right course has been followed.

If police morale is to be maintained, it would be helpful if the Opposition spokesman on Scottish affairs said that he recognises the difficulty and delicacy of their task in maintaining law and order when people are picketing outside such places as Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is so ludicrously wide — he used the term "at some future date"—that I cannot possibly answer it. He has been advised by a former Solicitor-General for Scotland that, to date, the police have operated within the law. If they have gone beyond their powers and have not reasonably apprehended the commission of an offence, it is not appropriate for me or the hon. Gentleman to reach a conclusion—it is a matter for the courts in Scotland, once it comes before them.