asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that persons occupying houses built by housing associations who wish to purchase their houses under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act will be able to do so at district valuers' valuation.

Where a housing association disposes of a house to a sitting tenant under the existing voluntary arrangements, the market value of the house already falls to be determined by the district valuer.

With respect to my hon. Friend, that is not a satisfactory answer. Should not people who are in housing association houses have the same right as council tenants to purchase their houses, because the building of those houses was funded by public money? They should not be in a disadvantageous position compared with council tenants.

I am sorry that my original answer was unsatisfactory, but I answered the question that my hon. Friend asked me. I shall now attempt to answer his second question.

Surely the Minister must be aware that if the test of the district valuer's figures is applied to housing associations the taxpayer—and, of course, the tenant—may suffer.

I find the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question concerning the district valuer's judgment rather strange, because, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) in answer to the original question—and in an answer on the same point concerning Newtongrange at the last Scottish Question Time — the district valuer made a valuation, and I believe that valuation to be proper.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Edinburgh district council to discuss the facilities and arrangements for mounting the 1986 Commonwealth Games.

In the course of my recent visit to the headquarters of the Commonwealth Games organisation and several of the venues for the games. I met informally members of Edinburgh district council who are members of the games organising committee. I see no reason to arrange a formal meeting with the district council.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am sure he will recognise that the success of the games is important to Edinburgh, and also of great importance to Scotland as a whole.

I entirely agree—and I am sure the whole House will agree—about the importance of the games to Scotland as well as to Edinburgh. I agree with the hon. Gentleman also in expressing delight and pleasure at the agreement with the district council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is enormous enthusiasm for the games in Edinburgh? Is he satisfied with the arrangements for bowling at Balgreen in my constituency? Throughout Scotland those who engage in bowling are extremely interested in having satisfactory arrangements made.

As my hon. Friend will know, there is indeed great enthusiasm, not only among the games organisers, but among a wide range of people who are assisting the organisers in any number of ways. I visited Balgreen and, while I am no expert on bowling facilities, I have no doubt that the facilities there will be excellent.

Talking about games and athletics, and in view of the abysmal failure of the Minister and of his right hon. Friend in Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman think that he will be for the high jump in the autumn?

I doubt whether that question needs a serious answer.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the facilities that are required for the games in Edinburgh are of a high standard? As has been rightly said, we look upon them as the games for Scotland. Will he not be put off by those who think that there could be boycotts by certain countries because of contact by other countries with South Africa? In practice, I do not think that that will take place.

I am sure that the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh will be an outstanding success.

At the main organising committee of the games the week before last, which I attended, as I attended each one before, two problems were expressed. First, can the games be certain that everything will be done to prevent the embarrassment of Rugby Union football tours, which could have a terrible effect on the games at Edinburgh? Secondly, is it not embarrassing that Queensland, British Columbia and the federal Governments of Canada and Australia coughed up quite a lot of money for their games? Cannot the Government at least give a token sum to ours?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have consistently reiterated their support for the Gleneagles agreement. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the organisers are confident that they will achieve all the finance that they need. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, a number of events are being assisted through the Scottish Sports Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has studied the report "A Strategic Review of Public Sector Housing Finance in Strathclyde (1979–84)"; and if he will make a statement.

Strathclyde regional council has not yet submitted that report to my right hon. Friend.

That is a pity. In that report the Minister would have read that there is a great needs element for finance for public housing in Scotland. Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider releasing his stranglehold on expenditure in Scotland? If he does not, ultimately it can only lead to a drastic lowering of the quality of life for tenants in Scotland. How long will he preside over an area that can only lead to a massive new generation of slums?

Taking the hon. Gentleman's word for what is in the report, I must remind him that there was a considerable provision for the housing authorities in Strathclyde this year — about £97·075 million. It is equally well worth noting that, of that capital allocation, £15·5 million was forfeited by decisions of housing authorities within the Strathclyde region on the rate fund contribution. That £15·5 million could have bought solutions to many of the problems that exist in the housing estates in those authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future assisted area status of the Scottish new towns.

The future assisted area status of the Scottish new towns will be considered in the forthcoming review of the assisted area map. The review will take account of the views which have been expressed by the new town development corporations in their responses to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

Will the Minister take this opportunity of removing the uncertainty raised by his speech three weeks ago? Does he not appreciate that that uncertainty must limit the effectiveness of the new towns in attracting investment to Scotland, which they have done effectively over recent years? Is he aware that Livingston new town is in the same travel-to-work area as Bathgate? In view of the repeated statements by himself and his right hon. Friend about their concern for the rocketing unemployment of that area, does he not realise that those expressions will ring hollow if the development area status of Livingston is downgraded?

I am fully aware of the position at Bathgate. My right hon. Friend and I met Lothian regional council and West Lothian district council to discuss that subject earlier this week. Livingston, as the hon. Gentleman says, has been a tremendous success as a new town, with over 1,000 new jobs in the past year. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that any suggestion in various speculative articles in the press that a decision has been taken to single out the new towns to bear heavy cuts in regional assistance is absolute nonsense.

Will the Minister reiterate the view, which he has expressed before, that Scotland's new towns have led the field since the war in the attraction of inward investment? In view of that, will he give an assurance that no adverse decisions will be taken about the future development area status of the new towns, because of the damage that that would do to Scotland's economy as a whole and to the new towns in particular?

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take into account the distinctive contribution that the new towns have made and are making, not just to the regional and sub-regional economies, but to Scotland as a whole. The hon. Gentleman knows that Cumbernauld has shown an increase of 1,000 jobs in the past year.

Is the Minister aware that Irvine new town is an unemployment black spot, not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom, and has an overall unemployment rate of just under 23 per cent. and a male unemployment rate of about one in four? Against that background, would it not be criminal if any future formula for allocating regional aids to new towns in Scotland downgraded Irvine? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Secretary of State will stand up for the Scottish new towns, will resist the demands of the Treasury and will give some protection to Scottish new towns, instead of killing them?

The hon. Gentleman is a renowned devotee of conspiracy theories. I assure him that we are aware not only of the contribution made by Irvine new town but of the problems to which he has referred. He will know that Irvine attracted 700 new jobs in 1983–84.

The Minister referred to press speculation, but does he not realise that our anxieties are based on his speech, which was circulated in the Scottish Grand Committee, in which he referred to the support given to the Scottish new towns and said that it was only to acknowledge reality to say that continued assistance to the new towns would have to be considered? Surely those comments are open to the interpretation that the new towns are under threat.

I have already told the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that the Government acknowledge the problems at Bathgate. I said:

"It is only to acknowledge reality to say that the case for continued assistance to the special development areas will have to be considered against the claims of other parts of the country."

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his circular to health boards instructing them to put out to private tender their catering, cleaning and laundry services.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent circular to health boards concerning the privatisation of the catering, cleaning, and laundry services of National Health Service hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he has made for increases in administrative staff in Scottish hospitals consequent upon privatisation proposals.

The circular of 22 June confirms our policy of testing the cost-effectiveness of support services to enable health boards to secure savings which will be available for patient care. The circular sets out short and long-term timetables for action by health boards and the Common Services Agency. It is part of their continuing duty to identify and secure efficiency savings, and I see no need for additional staff.

In view of the Minister's failure yesterday to clear up the status of the document that he has sent to the health authorities in Scotland, will he clarify the status of that document and make clear what action he would take if any of the health boards — rightly, in the view of Labour Members — sensibly ignored the Minister's document?

The document that I have sent to the health boards has the same status as the many circulars and documents which the hon. Member sent to health boards in his time in office. The document suggests a course of action that health boards should take. I fully expect them to take that action, as they are appointed by my right hon. Friend. — [Interruption.] That is a fact. They are appointed by my right hon. Friend and are answerable to him and to Parliament.

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that he will give in writing to all the health boards an undertaking that if they wish to retain in-house services they will not be compelled by him to accept private contractors? Will he also declare in writing that private contractors must observe all National Health Service conditions of service and all its statutory responsibilities?

I have made it clear on a number of occasions that health boards will be expected to judge private tenders on the basis of competence and efficiency. Private contractors must be able to do the jobs that the health boards expect them to do. I expect the health boards to take the lowest tenders, all other considerations being equal.

Surely extra administrative staff will be needed for sending out tenders and assessing their value. May we have an assurance that if and when tenders prove to be more expensive than the cost of work done at present the Minister will come to the House to explain the exact position?

The position in relation to my short-term request to the health boards will be clear at the year's end. I shall then be happy to answer questions about the tenders. The administrative staff of the Health Service should already be monitoring in-house services. It will not add much to the work load to ask staff to prepare tenders for work which is already supervised and known well.

Will my hon. Friend dispel the rumour put about by Opposition Members that there will be redundancies in the nationalised sector? If that sector can provide the same service as the private sector at competitive prices, will it not have an equal opportunity to tender?

My hon. Friend is right. I have said time and again that if the in-house cost is lower than that of outside contractors, the health boards will sensibly accept the in-house tender. I expect that in some cases that will happen. Whether in-house tenderers or outside contractors are the winners, money will be saved to be used for direct patient care.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that if tenders are comparable and on exactly the same terms, he will leave it to the health boards to decide which to accept, bearing in mind value for money and cash saved for the health care of patients?

I confirm that I shall expect health boards to work out the pros and cons of tenders and attempt to balance the advantage to the health board in the money that can be saved. That will be at their discretion. I know that the health boards wilt act sensibly and not be politically motivated, because they wish to use the money for patient care if any savings are to be made.

Does the Minister accept that by requiring the health boards to undertake a tendering process the Government are delivering a kick in the teeth to the many loyal and dedicated staff in the catering and ancillary services? What advice has he for the management boards which will have to cope with irreparable damage to industrial relations?

Perhaps the alliance has some relationship with the trade unions in the Health Service. The Government's motive is to achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer and the patient. We shall achieve that through contracting out, if the tenders are available. I do not think that loyalty has anything to do with the matter. If the in-house tender is the most economic, the health boards are free to accept it.

Has the Minister read the response of the Greater Glasgow health board to the earlier circular on privatisation? Is he aware that that response was agreed unanimously by a board made up of either medical experts or appointees of the Secretary of State and that it includes Lady Goold, the wife of the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party?

Yes, I read the original remarks by Greater Glasgow health board; but, after discussion with the chairmen of the health boards, including the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board, I sent them a new circular, and there was no suggestion in my meeting with them that they would not go along the road that I was requesting.

When will something be done about the activities of certain Tory Members, such as my own Member of Parliament, who is moonlighting as the head of Michael Forsyth Associates and seems to be using his parliamentary position to further the interests of his own company, which is up to its neck in this aspect of the privatisation of the Health Service, which, anywhere it has been tried, has been shown to mean dirty linen, dirty sheets—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to impugn the honour of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

It is clear that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will not withdraw his remarks about my hon. Friend, which are totally unjustified. Hon. Members have their interests declared in the Register of Members' Interests. It is up to them to defend their position, which they can do perfectly well. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West has his trade union interests to defend.

Does my hon. Friend not find it astonishing that the official Opposition seem to confine themselves to personal attacks on hon. Members on a matter which has already saved the Health Service many millions of pounds, mainly where in-house direct labour organisations have cut their costs and no outside contractors have been involved?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It is amazing that the Opposition do not seem interested in getting value for money in the cash spending of the Health Service. As I told the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday, already by in-house tendering being looked at seriously and critically, Tayside health board has saved £250,000 in the cleaning costs at Ninewells alone.

Will the Minister confirm clearly and simply that, in the event of any health board refusing to comply with his suggestions of 22 June, it is liable to be sacked? Will he answer that yes or no?

As I said at the outset, the circulars have the same strength as they have had in the past.

Yes or no?

These are my requests to the health boards. I have had no indication that any board will refuse to go along that road. Until that day comes, I refuse to speculate.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress being made with the sale of council houses in Scotland.

Over 50,000 sales have been completed so far and many more applications are with councils. But my Department is writing to five councils which still appear to be taking oer 12 months to process sales—Aberdeen, Dumbarton, Monklands, Renfrew and Stirling — to stress the serious consequences for their own housing programmes.

Can my hon. Friend say what percentage of the stock of council houses in Scotland has been sold?

The percentage of the whole public sector, including the new towns and the SSHA, which has been sold is about 5·8 per cent. Taking only council houses, sales amount to some 3·6 per cent. The first figure compares with more than 10 per cent. over the whole of the public sector in England, and it shows that a vigorous sales campaign of the kind that we are seeking in Scotland will produce not only more sales but additional resources for councils to spend on problems in their housing areas.

Is it not significant that the Minister named my authority, Monklands, in reply to a question from an hon. Member representing an English constituency? Is the Minister aware that people in Monklands still take local government seriously? So long as we have the number of damp, rotten houses that we have and the council is denied the capital that it needs, the district council in Monklands will set the housing priorities that it does at present.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that, because of the delay in selling council houses in Monklands, that council will forgo £749,000 this year. The council has estimated that the cost of treatment of condensation and dampness would be about £100,000. Therefore, if it had sold its houses it could have dealt with the problems.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some councils are insisting, before modernisation programmes take place, that tenants give an undertaking not to apply to purchase their houses? Does he agree that it is an unreasonable interference in the statutory rights of tenants, bearing in mind that the capital cost of the house will be accordingly higher after modernisation?

I shall deal with my hon. Friend's second point first. I am concerned that there is inconsistency in the way that regional councils across Scotland are selling their surplus houses. I am seriously studying the matter. Secondly, I understand that Glasgow district council has asked tenants to sign an agreement that they will not apply for purchase within 10 years of modernisation. I have made it clear that that agreement would have no validity and in no way undermines the right to buy.

As a firm supporter of the right to buy, may I ask the Minister to have due regard to the Highland local authorities, especially those in areas such as Ullapool and Kyle of Lochalsh, where the cost of construction of council houses is becoming increasingly high because of the additional expenditure incurred in the costs involved in transporting timber and construction materials? Will the Minister give preferential treatment to those councils which, in a non-dogmatic way, are implementing the Government's policies?

Obviously, we look at the bids from housing authorities in the autumn before we decide the allocation. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the right-to-buy policy, but there is no evidence to suggest that the sale of council houses diminishes the total stock. In most cases, those who buy would not have bought a home if they had not had the opportunity to buy their council homes.

If a miner who has moved from a National Coal Board house to a council house wishes to purchase that house, would it not be possible for the time that he spent in the NCB house to be taken into account? Will my hon. Friend consider that point?

I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Can the Minister confirm that in some cases local authorities are having to take back houses which they have sold to tenants because the owners are defaulting on payments and, in some cases, doing moonlight flits? Does he agree that that position will become worse because of the huge increase in mortgage interest rates? Does not the Minister have a guilty conscience about forcing people to take on huge debts and are now having to meet a substantial increase in the repayments?

The hon. Gentleman is taking a different line from that usually taken by Opposition Members, who usually complain about the level of discounts and claim that we are giving away council houses. There is nothing to suggest that the houses sold with discounts do not offer a good investment for the tenant. We would be interested to know whether the Opposition have yet made up their mind on whether they believe in the right to buy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the North British Steel foundry, Bathgate.

My officials in the Industry Department for Scotland have had discussions with the company about the proposal to concentrate production at Armadale, and have drawn attention to the Government's willingness to assist with any investment proposals designed to ensure the firm's long-term viability. I understand that the company is also having discussions with the SDA.

All credit to the late Ian Menzies for the reinvestment policies of MacBeth Menzies. Is there a more modern technical casting plant in the whole of Europe? Will the Secretary of State use his influence as a Cabinet Minister to obtain a favourable outcome to the meeting between George House, AUEW representatives, members of the company and his ministerial trade colleagues at 11.15 am on Monday?

I am well aware of the importance of this matter. I am also well aware of the meeting, and I very much hope that it will be successful. I shall draw the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it would be very helpful to the North British Steel foundry in Bathgate and, indeed, to the whole of the steel foundry and the iron foundry industry, if he would make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry insisting that export quotas should be applied to the export of scrap steel? Is the Secretary of State aware that the cost of scrap steel to the North British Steel foundry at Bathgate and, indeed, to all the foundries, has risen from £30 to £80 per tonne during the course of this year because his right hon. Friend refuses to apply extra quotas?

I am aware that that is one of the problems that the company has been considering. I have no doubt that this will be covered in the coming discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report on the operations of Locate in Scotland's overseas offices.

As hon. Members are aware, a review of United Kingdom inward investment promotion, not just the operations of Locate in Scotland's overseas offices, is currently taking place. The Government expect to receive a report shortly from a working group of officials upon which the Scottish Office is represented.

Is it not tame for the Secretary of State to say unambiguously that Locate in Scotland will he able to continue its vital and unique role in attracting industry to Scotland? Could he not today make it absolutely clear that, if he is still in that post by the time the report comes out, he will resign if the Secretary of State for Trade arid Industry gets away with butchering Locate in Scotland's jobs?

I must say that there is a great deal of speculation in that. I have always made it clear that I have the greatest admiration for the, work of Locate in Scotland. Until I receive the report, I do not know what will be proposed. I very much doubt whether anyone would be likely to propose abolishing Locate in Scotland, which has been outstandingly successful.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I am sure that I speak for Conservative Members and indeed for Opposition Members when I say that we shall give him total support in any fight that he has to retain Locate in Scotland in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has said, we will not tolerate the removal of Locate in Scotland, and we give a guarantee of our support in that regard.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and for his offer of support. I am sure that he will be as encouraged as I am to find that, surprisingly, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have done nothing but moan about this in the past have now suddenly become great supporters.

Is it not a fact that, when the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigated this matter, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), not to mention the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), resisted any independent role for Scottish representation overseas? That is the historical fact of the matter. Is the Secretary of State aware that it is an open secret that the Department of Trade and Industry has never liked that independent role overseas? We are referring not only to abolition, but to the maintenance of the independent role of Locate in Scotland, because, without that independence, it will be very much less effective than it is at present. That is what we are pledged to defend, and we hope that he, too, is pledged to defend it.

I make no apology for my defence of Locate in Scotland, although I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of history. What he will have to recall, whether he likes to or not, is that, on every occasion when new investments have been successfully achieved by Locate in Scotland, the Opposition have done nothing but criticise them and say that they are not worth having.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why Locate in Scotland is so successful is that it operates a one-door policy, in contrast with the English authorities, who go in multiplicity to the United States? Will he impress upon his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry that the important thing for us in Scotland is not that Locate in Scotland takes jobs from other parts of the United Kingdom, but rather that it wins jobs that might otherwise go to Ireland, Germany and other places in the world?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the most important achievements of Locate in Scotland is that it broadly has the confidence of all the institutions, local authorities, new towns, and so on in Scotland, which are supporting it and working with it. That is one of the most important features.

As the leak to the Glasgow Herald was caused by alarm either within the Scottish Office or the Scottish Development Agency about the drift of the report, will the right hon. Gentleman now indulge in another preemptive strike by saying categorically that Locate in Scotland will remain or that he or his successor in office as Secretary of State for Scotland will not?

I am always happy to indulge in preemptive strikes, but first I like to know which target I must hit. Therefore, I shall wait to see what the report says.

Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to a statement by the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency this morning to the effect that Wales is now attracting more foreign investment than any other part of the United Kingdom? While I wish the Welsh no harm, will the right hon. Gentleman find out how many representatives and offices in America and Europe the Northern Ireland Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Trade and Industry have, and then tell the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that we will have no messing about with Locate in Scotland or with any other form of representation that we have in Europe or America?

I am not aware of the figures that lie behind the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerning the Welsh situation. I welcome any new jobs that come to Wales. The only thing that I prefer to new jobs coming to Wales is new jobs coming to Scotland. Since it started, the Locate in Scotland operation has been involved in the investment of no less than £800 million in Scotland, with the association of 23,000 jobs. I doubt whether any other part can beat that record.

When the Prime Minister answered a question on this subject yesterday from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) she said that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be dealing with the matter. Does the final responsibility for the future of Locate in Scotland rest with the right hon. Gentleman?

I heard my right hon. Friend say that, but I think that she was referring to the matter of the question that we were being asked. The situation is that any decisions that are made will be the decisions of the Government as a whole and I expect to be very much involved in them.

Is it not the case that Locate in Scotland is well along the road to announcing further successes?

My hon. Friend is correct. It is expected that there will be a considerable number of announcements from Locate in Scotland in the next few weeks and months, as it is doing extremely well.

Has the Secretary of State not basically said to the House today that, because it is so successful, there is absolutely no case whatever for dismantling Locate in Scotland? If those south of the border think that it has been successful, they should not seek to dismantle it and set up some operation of their own for other parts of the United Kingdom. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, regrettably, he has not told the House that he is prepared to resign if the decision — which, he has already said, would be againt the interests of Scotland—were to go ahead against his wishes?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but as a general rule it is wise to wait until somebody proposes something before expressing one's views against it, and that is what I propose to do.

Bearing in mind the number of liquidations that have occurred since the Conservatives took office, and the deterioration that has taken place in the Scottish economy, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the risk of being repetitive, to say that if he finds that the official report recommends that Scotland should lose this body he and his right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will resign, in the interests of Scotland?

I have nothing to add to the answers that I have given to that question.

Why, in view of the strongly supportive statements of Locate in Scotland which the right hon. Gentleman has, rightly, made today, has he been a party to the setting up of a committee of inquiry, which inevitably casts a shadow over its future?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation. He may recall that when Locate in Scotland was originally set up it was made clear that the operation would be reviewed in the middle of 1984. There is, therefore, nothing new about this review. That is why I do not regard it as anything sinister. It is a sensible step for Government to be taking.

Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the Opposition strongly support Locate in Scotland and that we fought hard for it at the time of the original Select Committee report? Our only reservations are over Ministers childishly and pathetically trying to use the scheme's undoubted success as an alibi for their total economic failure in the general sense. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that well-founded and well-informed rumours are circulating to the effect that the axemen in the Department of Trade and Industry are implacably opposed to the continued independence of Locate in Scotland, and that the loss of its independence will be a tragedy and deeply resented? Does he not recognise that any such effort to inhibit or restrict the agency's success would be a piece of insensitive vandalism? We expect the right hon. Gentleman, when the matter reaches ministerial level, to put that view energetically.

I have been putting points of view on this matter for a long time. I note what the hon. Gentleman said. The happiest outcome of this controversy is the warm support that the hon. Gentleman has at long last given to something that was introduced by this Government. He has never before been prepared to acknowledge any of its good points.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the review of Scottish lowland airports policy.

The terms of reference and arrangements for conducting the review have been announced and a consultation document has now been issued. I hope that interested parties will take full opportunity to make their views known.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the consultation paper on Scottish lowland airports policy, issued by the Department of Transport, specifies that representations on that document must be made by 21 September? Bearing in mind that July and August are holiday months in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree with me that that period is inadequate? In view of the importance of this matter to my constituents, will my hon. Friend vigorously press his colleagues in the Department of Transport to extend the period so that there is the widest possible consultation in Scotland on this important matter?

Although I appreciate that a time scale of a full two months may be short of the period that some people desire, I believe that it is adequate, especially in the light of the need to avoid any undesirable delay, because of the uncertainties that might arise out of that review. It is in the interests of all parties that the review is concluded reasonably soon.

Is this review not as big an embarrassment to the Secretary of State for Scotland as the review of Locate in Scotland? The Department of Transport has set up a review that could undermine an airport in Scotland, in the constituency of the Secretary of State. Why is it that the decision will be taken by the Department of Transport, not by the Secretary of State for Scotland? How can the right hon. Gentleman continue in office if a decision is taken by the Department of Transport that would undermine the future of Prestwick airport? Should he not resign, not only as the Secretary of State for Scotland, but as the right hon. Member for Ayr?

The hon. Gentleman's interest in Prestwick airport is well known. Allegations of the kind that he is making can only damage the airport. I make it clear to the House that this is a joint Department of Transport-Scottish Office review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be fully involved in the considerations of its conclusions and subsequent decisions on the future of the policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish economy.

I expect overall activity to rise faster this year than last year. An outstanding feature of recent performance has been the expansion of the electronics industry, where output rose by more than one fifth last year. Investment currently under way in the industry suggests that further advances in electronics output are in prospect.

While I am hardly surprised that the Secretary of State keeps to his philosophy about hope springing eternal in relation to the Scottish economy, will he take into account the fact that production has fallen and that there is a weak labour market in Scotland, in that vacancies have fallen disproportionately compared with the United Kingdom as a whole? Set against that background, will he do two things: first, persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change his economic policies; and, secondly, tell the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make no attack on regional policy in Scotland, because that policy is badly needed for the introduction of jobs?

The hon. Gentleman's assessment of the Scottish economy is fatally flawed, because he is ignoring the fact that during the most difficult recession that anyone can remember the Scottish economy has performed better than the rest of the United Kingdom. What is more, he may have noticed that during the last quarter of last year employment in Scotland rose. That is a sign that things are improving in Scotland, and we should welcome that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is estimated that some £4·5 billion will be invested in the oil industry between now and 1990 and that a substantial amount of that will accrue to Scottish companies and provide a great opportunity for increased jobs in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right. The new developments that we are seeing all the time in the oil industry picked up substantially as a result of the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Chancellor a year ago. We are insisting that a larger content is given to local British industry. I am glad to say that that figure is now generally speaking; well above 70 per cent.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement about the cases which have been deserted at recent High Court circuits because of a failure to serve the indictment with 29 days' clear notice in terms of section 111 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 as amended by paragraph 31 of schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement on the disruption of courts as a result of adequate notice of trial not being given by the Crown Office to accused persons.

As a result of the High Court decision of 20 June 1984 that a trial could not proceed because the requirements of sections 75 and 111A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 had not been met, which decision was subsequently reversed on appeal, 40 High Court cases involving 67 accused had to be put off. In the sheriff court 23 cases involving 40 accused were similarly put off. These cases will proceed to trial in the near future on fresh indictments.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that there is a great deal of disquiet in the country about the fact that trials such as those for homicide and drug offences had to be delayed until a decision was made about the matter? Surely the Solicitor-General's Department should try to get its act together and ensure that things are done properly. If incompetence continues in his Department he should do what his predecessor did, and that is resign.

That question was plainly carefully rehearsed before the decision of the five judges in the High Court in Edinburgh had been announced. In their judgment the judges said:

"We have no hesitation in holding that the learned Lord Advocate's criticisms of the decision taken on 20 June are well founded and must receive effect."

Is the Solicitor-General saying that as a result of the decision reached by the five judges yesterday the Crown Office will continue in the future as it has in the past? What on earth happened in the Crown Office on this occasion? Will the Solicitor-General tell us, because he must know, what this fiasco has cost public funds? The cost must be enormous. Who is responsible for that?

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has not considered the result of the appeal. The Appeal Court said that the attitude struck by the Crown in relation to the original decision was correct. The trials should have gone ahead on that day. If those trials had gone ahead then there would have been no additional cost, but there has been some additional cost. That I regret. However, I do not accept that the additional cost is the responsibility of the Crown. The decisions taken and the attitude adopted by the prosecution has been confirmed by the Appeal Court in Edinburgh, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, to be correct.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that, notwithstanding the court's decision, the court really decided that, despite the defect in citation, that defect had been cured? None the less, there was a defect in citation and that was the responsibility of the Crown Office. What was the cost to public funds of these trials being discharged? The public should decide who was responsible.

Although the hon. Gentleman is a member of the faculty, he clearly has not bothered to see what the court's decision was. If he had bothered, he would have seen that the judges said:

"We should add, also, that it was not and could not be suggested"—

"that the notice given had in any way prejudiced the respondents in the exercise of their rights … or in the preparation of their defence."

The Appeal Court judges have said that the trials could stand, despite the errors that have been made. We are worried that the errors were made. They are part of a series of errors made recently by the Crown Office. They call into question the efficiency of that office, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman bears responsibility.

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly unhappy that what he hoped would be a cause celebre has not occurred. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I have said that there was a misconstruction of one section of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, by the prosecution as well as by all the defence lawyers in Scotland who were involved. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman can mutter as much as he likes. The Appeal Court in Edinburgh said clearly and unanimously that the Crown's attitude was correct and that we should have been entitled to take those cases to trial earlier last month. If that had happened, there would not have been problems of relocating the trials, or additional expense.

Will the Solicitor-General accept that his attitude to the matter is incomprehensible to us? Has he not stated that a defect was involved, which led to the breaking of the trials? Whether or not the Appeal Court said that it was a curable defect, there was maladministration in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department. If there is maladministration there, does he or does he not accept the responsibility?

What was said, and what is accepted, is that an additional day should have been granted, as a matter of citation. According to the criminal procedure of Scotland, any consequence flowing from that must be taken before the trial. No one made any effort to take that point. The Appeal Court has said unanimously that we should have been allowed to proceed to trial. It was not a matter of fundamental nullity, which were the words first used.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that, although the matter is not a cause celebre, it is a bad case of continuing incompetence? The reason for the shambles is that the Crown Office, which is primarily responsible for the serving of indictments in High Court cases, lamentably failed to interpret properly the plain words of the statute. It is no defence for the Crown office to say that the relevant point was not picked up later by defence solicitors. The responsibility lies with the hon. and learned Gentleman and with his staff at the Crown office. Is it not deplorable that we have had a long list of abandoned cases, and much public expense and inconvenience? Does it not reflect much discredit on the hon. and learned Gentleman's stewardship of the Crown Office? What steps will he take to rehabilitate his battered credit, especially as it has been badly damaged by the fact that the prosecution of serious embezzlement charges had to be abandoned because of further incompetence in serving an indictment from his office? Was that not very unfair to the accused in that case, and bad for the administration of justice?

I regret that the hon. Gentleman has such an inflexibility of mind that he anticipated that an appeal decision would go against the Crown Office. The circumstances are completely different. I have said to the hon. Gentleman before that there was a misconstruction of the relevant provision of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, alone among Scottish Opposition Members, would understand that it is important to consider the consequences flowing from the case. The hon. Gentleman should look to what the Appeal Court said unanimously, namely, that the trial should have been allowed to proceed in the High Court. If that had happened, no inconvenience would have been caused to the prosecution or the defence; nor would there have been additional cost. It is unfortunate for the hon. Gentleman that the Appeal Court in Edinburgh took that decision.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is satisfied with the arrangements for prosecuting criminal offenders in Aberdeen.

I am satisfied with the arrangements for prosecuting offenders in Aberdeen.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet in Aberdeen district council, which has to provide court facilities for prosecution in Aberdeen district court, that those court facilities are becoming extended, particularly because the terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 must be implemented? Will my hon. and learned Friend urge the Under-Secretary, our hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who is presently conducting talks with Aberdeen district council about the provision of those new facilities, to take a constructive view of the representations that are being made to him so that the prosecution of criminal offenders at district level is not impaired?

I am aware that at present several physical difficulties confront those involved in conducting sittings of district courts, sheriff courts or the High Court. With regard to the High Court, as I think my hon. Friend appreciates, because of improvements that are being made and because of modernisation, several sittings have had to be transferred to Peterhead and Stonehaven. I hope that as soon as possible we shall be able to return to the regular practice of sittings in Aberdeen.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to the decision by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for health to answer questions Nos. 5, 8 and 12 together and the intimation from the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would answer questions Nos. 37 and 41 together. Over the years it has been the practice of Ministers to give notice to hon. Members when their questions were linked with others. There is a suspicion that the Scottish Office, today of all days, sought to avoid answering questions on the Health Service. It appears that, for that reason, no notice was given to those whose questions were linked. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a direction to Ministers that, when they propose to link questions, they must advise hon. Members.

Order. That is not a matter for me. It is up to the Departments to tell hon. Members when questions are linked. I believe that it is a courtesy that they should do so—and I believe that it is normally done.