asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the aggregate value of the inward investment attracted to Scotland up to the latest practicable date by Locate in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on her visit to Scotland last month, the aggregate value of planned investment by overseas companies which we have helped to secure since we set up Locate in Scotland in 1981, now exceeds £1,000 million. This investment is expected to create or safeguard directly some 25,000 jobs and to provide many more opportunities in other enterprises throughout the United Kingdom.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a most impressive record on the part of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment? Will he pass on to the officials of LIS the congratulations of the House on their continued success and our hopes that they will do still better? How many of these companies have set up marketing and research and development functions in Scotland? Are not these functions fairly critical in guaranteeing a long-term future for the companies that LIS has attracted to Scotland?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's sentiments on LIS, which I am sure will be widely shared. Locate in Scotland is in the present year on target for investment. Since April some £500 million has gone into Scotland, which will involve new or safeguarded jobs for about 6,000. My hon. Friend makes an important point on research and development and marketing, which are critical functions. One of our great advantages in attracting such activities is the strength of our higher education system.

I echo my appreciation of the success of Locate in Scotland, but will the Minister acknowledge that, with the present review of assisted area status in Scotland about to be published, some non-assisted areas could lose out, especially under section 8 of the Industry Act, which could affect the future performance of LIS? Will the Scottish Office recognise the need to press for more approvals of section 8 applications in non-assisted areas?

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper explicitly recognises the importance of regional centres in enabling Scotland, and the United Kingdom as a whole, to complete effectively for internationally mobile projects.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the success of the Locate in Scotland unit is likely steadily to continue, and that there has been a lot of American investment recently, as was shown by W.L. Gore Associates?

I met Mr. Gore during my recent trip to America. I am convinced that the climate is now excellent for further inward investment in Scotland. We have established our reputation as silicon glen. Overseas businessmen have high confidence in the policies of the Government, and were particularly impressed by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce corporation tax.

Has the review by the Department of Trade and Industry into the future of LIS been completed? If so, will the Minister give us a full statement about the results and about LIS's continuing success? Is he aware that any reduction in the scope and independence of LIS will be unacceptable to the Opposition, however skillfully it may be disguised as integration and co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Invest in Britain bureau? It is particularly important to get this fact established because of the continuing rumours that at least one of the North American operations of Locate in Scotland is threatened with closure.

I note with interest that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has refrained from commenting favourably on the inward investment successes to which my hon. Friends have referred. The Government have been considering the future of inward investment promotion for the whole United Kingdom, as was announced a couple of years ago. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our only concern is to increase the effectiveness of our efforts.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress general council to discuss the economic and industrial situation in Scotland.

I have no immediate plans to meet the general council of the STUC to discuss the economic and industrial situation in Scotland. I meet senior trade union representatives as often as possible. I shall be meeting them next month to discuss local authority expenditure.

When the Secretary of State next meets the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and tells it about the inward investment successes, will he also remind council members about the 370,000 unemployed? That is the true figure. Will he remind them that one in four in Strathclyde is still unemployed? Will he also tell them whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has stated that the Government can do very little about the economy of the country? If the Secretary of State agrees with that view, will he resign and let someone else do the job?

The hon. Gentleman has given me a lot of instructions. I shall, of course, consider them all carefully. I do not consider that it will be necessary either for me to advise the STUC, or for it to advise me, about present unemployment levels in Scotland. We are only too well aware of them.

When the STUC makes statements about unemployment, should it not bear in mind the impact of the present coal strike on places such as Ravenscraig? Is it not also true that people are often judged by the friends that they keep? When the STUC next meets the mineworkers' union, should it not remind the union that Colonel Gaddafi is not very well received in other parts of the country?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's final remark. Over recent months, unfortunately, certain sections of the trade union movement seem by their actions to have deliberately tried to ensure that people lose their jobs. I hope that common sense will prevail before too long and that those sections will appreciate the considerable success of the Government in bringing new jobs into Scotland.

I noted the Secretary of State's reluctance, in answering the first question, to give any information about the long-term future of Locate in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State come clean on another matter that is causing Scots, and the STUC in particular, much concern — the review of regional grants, and their future? Will the Secretary of State give a copper-bottomed guarantee that Scotland will not lose in any way under the current review?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the results of the review. I can only say that the Government believe very strongly in a strong regional policy, and that I believe that the final decisions will bear that out.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss the Scottish economy.

My right hon. Friend has no specific plans to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) in the near future, although my right hon. Friend and I meet the council from time to time to discuss a wide range of subjects.

Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), will the Minister assure us that he will pay close attention to the Scottish Council's view of the current industrial review in relation to the rates applicable to the tiered structure and—most important of all — the automatic grant versus selectivity? Will the Minister also assure us that if he is subject to menacing threats from the Treasury he will consider the possibility of keeping the area cover wide, but going for selective rather than automatic grants?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry and I met the representatives of the Scottish Council on 26 June to discuss their response to the White Paper. The representatives made some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. We assured them that the points made in their written and oral submissions would be taken into account in deciding the outstanding issues of the review.

Has my hon. Friend observed that many sunrise industries prefer to develop in rural towns than in traditional industrialised areas? Will he ensure that such developments will not be prevented by regional policy?

I note my hon. Friend's point. Rural areas have proved attractive to some companies in the industries to which he referred.

What response has the Minister given to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) about its view that assistance should not be based entirely on the number of jobs that would be created by investment? If the Government's approach, were the reverse, capital intensive industries such as the petro-chemical industry in my constituency, which needs to create new investment, reinvest and modernise plant, would be seriously at risk.

As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I assured the Scottish Council that its views on that matter and others would be taken into account. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the object of the review is to make regional policy more cost-effective in terms of jobs.

In regard to replacement investment, is the Minister aware that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said that exclusion of replacement investment would save £70 million and that exclusion of non-job-creating modernisation would save £100 million? Of that £170 million, about £50 million could legitimately be expected to come to Scotland. Did he say how much of that money will still come to Scotland after the review? Did he give the Scottish Council any assurances? If not, is it any wonder that the Scottish Council despairs of the Government's attitude to regional policy?

My hon. Friend and I assured the Scottish Council that its views would be considered fully. The exclusion of replacement investment is a requirement of membership of the Common Market and brings our system into line with every other European country.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Scottish unemployment.

There were 15,000 more jobs in Scotland in June 1984 than there were a year previously. I regard this as very encouraging.

My question concerned unemployment in Scotland, which is at a record level. The Secretary of State has not bothered to answer it. Is the Secretary of State aware that a Bill that is now completing its stages will reduce regional aid in Scotland by about 30 per cent.? Is he aware that, in view of that, there is widespread opposition in Scotland from the CBI as well as the STUC to any further reduction in regional aid? If the rates of grant or the areas covered are reduced after the review — there is much speculation about that — the Government will receive the most hostile reception.

I note that the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way not to welcome the fact that we have 15,000 more jobs. He might like to note, even if he will not welcome it, that we had 35,000 more service jobs in June 1984 than one year previously. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that decisions on regional policy have been finalised. He should know from the White Paper that the Government have clearly stated that they believe in strong and effective regional policy. It is against that background that the right hon. Gentleman should judge the effectiveness of the changes when they are announced.

Is there any likelihood of jobs being created in the west of Scotland thanks to oil exploration? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ardrossan harbour is an ideal location for a base as there is serious unemployment in that area?

I note my hon. Friend's excellent point about Ardrossan harbour, which might well be suitable. Exploration is being conducted in many coastal areas, including the west of Scotland, but so far no large exploitable finds of oil have been made.

What percentage of people who left school in Scotland in June went straight into the dole queue, and how many more can be expected to join it after a temporary period on youth training schemes?

I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here today after fulfilling a different role yesterday. I am sure that it was a happy occasion. As to youth unemployment, all those who leave school this year are guaranteed either a job or a place on the youth training scheme. A large proportion of people who have just completed their year on YTS are getting employment. We hope that that pattern will be repeated this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the level of unemployment in the west midlands of England is, regrettably, comparable to that of Scotland? Is he further aware of the resentment in the west midlands at the vast amounts of money given——

Order. The hon. Member must relate his question to Scotland.

I am making a comparison between unemployment in Scotland and in the west midlands. I wish to draw a comparison between the effects of regional policy in Scotland and its effects in the west midlands. I then wish to ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that the west midlands expects treatment equal to that afforded to Scotland regarding regional policy. Will he bear that in mind?

Order. That is precisely my point. The Secretary of State cannot answer that question.

All Scottish hon. Members will appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend. I assure him that regional policy has always been a Great Britain policy. It is in the interests of Great Britain as a whole that those areas which require help should receive it.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will share my satisfaction at the continuing investment in IBM and National Semiconductor in my constituency. Is he aware that recently Greenock and Port Glasgow has shown the sharpest increase in unemployment of the whole Strathclyde region? Is not the present figure of male unemployment, which is in excess of 23 per cent., scandalously high?

The position in Greenock and Port Glasgow has been causing deep anxiety for a long time. In recent years, the electronics industry has become a larger employer than the older industries that used to be the largest employers. The Government have been pouring money and effort into the area to build a new base for its economy, and have achieved a measure of success.

Does my right hon. Friend find it curious that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) is so critical about the increase in unemployment when many of its causes derive from the Labour Government of which he was a prominent member? Does he agree that there is genuine anxiety among Conservative Members about unemployment? Will he consider reviewing the policy in the public sector of employing people beyond pensionable age?

That point can certainly be considered in a longer term review about such policy. My hon. Friend is right to say that all hon. Members appreciate that, while unemployment is a major problem at present, we have the benefit of the Government's defeat of the main scourge of unemployment, which is, inflation. That is a great success and of permanent benefit to our economy.

How long does the Secretary of State think it will take for Government policies to be sufficiently successful to replace the jobs lost in the Highlands of Scotland under this Administration through the closure of the Corpach pulpmill and the Invergordon smelter?

It is the objective of all those ivolved with development in the Highlands, especially the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has the largest budget ever, to reverse that trend. I was encouraged to read in the newspapers this morning that the president of the hon. Gentleman's party, Mrs. Shirley Williams, had been in Scotland yesterday and had said what a splendid example Scotland's economic progress was to the rest of Great Britain.

Does the Secretary of State remember that on 29 November 1983 in the Scottish Grand Committee he said:

"at long last Scotland is part of our economic recovery and is about to lead this country out of the recession that has caused so much damage."

[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 29 November 1983; c.783.

On the contrary, anyone considering the progress of the Scottish economy against the background of the recession through which we have been will see that notable advances have been made in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to September, and he might wish to note that since 1 September no less than 5,087 new jobs have been announced for Scotland. He might also wish to record that the average number of people being placed in employment from jobcentres is between 15,000 and 20,000 every month.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of his talks with voluntary bodies and others on the urban aid programme.

On 24 August, my right hon. Friend announced that it would be possible to approve new projects to spend in 1985–86. A circular inviting applications, and conveying a statement of policy, will be sent to authorities very soon.

Is it not the case that the increase proposed by the Government is £500,000, as compared with the current £29 million, without taking account of the inflation expected during that year? Will he confirm that councils will not receive the aid unless and until they provide evidence to the Department that they intend to cut staff numbers?

There should be some scope in 1985–86 for about £5 million of new capital expenditure and £5 million of new current expenditure. The provision of £29 million is at least as good as the outturn achieved last year.

As it created the crisis in confidence in the urban aid programme, by how much has the Scottish Office cleared the existing applications for urban aid in its in-trays? Is it leaving it to the local authorities to do the dirty work in prioritising the approval of applications? How much will the information that came to light in the previous census return influence the distribution of funds to deprived areas?

On the last point, my right hon. Friend's statement of his policy and priorities in this matter makes it clear that projects should be of direct and particular benefit to deprived urban areas. There is no scope to approve new projects for start in this financial year, although extensions to existing projects are being approved where appropriate. As I said, £29 million will be available in the next financial year for projects in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in Scotland in non-manual jobs in the public sector at the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with those for May 1979.

There are no comprehensive estimates on this basis. The available estimates are complex and I will arrange for them to be published in the Official Report. They show a reduction of 6·6 per cent. in Civil Service non-industrial staff and increases of 2·5 per cent. in local authority non-manual staff and of 7·5 per cent. in National Health Service staff.

In view of the many jobs that were lost in the private sector because of the large number of bankruptcies, why do not the Government give the public sector the importance that it deserves? Why are they ashamed about building more homes, hospitals and schools? What happened to the Civil Service jobs that we were promised for Scotland in 1979?

The Government have almost fulfilled their undertaking to bring 2,000 Civil Service jobs to the west of Scotland—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as warmly as I do—and the programme is on stream. As to the balance between public and private jobs, the hon. Gentleman must agree that the money to pay for public sector jobs comes from the private sector. If I tried to make up any losses in the private sector by increasing those in the public sector, I would simply put an even heavier burden on the remaining private sector jobs, which would have a disastrous effect on the Scottish economy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures give the lie to the views expressed by Opposition Members that there have been cuts in local government and the National Health Service? Instead, there has been expansion, and the bankruptcies to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been caused by those excesses in the public sector.

On this occasion I share my hon. Friend's astonishment. We are invited to believe by Opposition Members that virtually all local authority services have been slashed beyond recognition, yet the figures show that there has been an increase in staff of 2·5 per cent. We are also invited to believe that the Health Service has been practically destroyed by the Government, when it is clear from the figures that we are employing 7·5 per cent. more people to run it, most of whom are doctors and nurses.

When will the Secretary of State learn that thousand of jobs in the private sector depend on public sector expenditure?

They depend on each other. But my point still stands. If I were to place extra taxation and burdens on the remaining private sector to increase public sector jobs still further, that would be just about the most disastrous thing that I could do to the Scottish economy, apart from the appointment of another Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about commercial and industrial investment in Scotland since June.

In the period 1 June to 30 September 1984, 92 offers of selective financial assistance were made under the Industrial Development Act 1982, with a value of £14·3 million. Total project investment associated with these offers was £197 million. Since June a number of North sea oil-related contracts have been announced, and over the past year Scotland has been particularly successful in attracting electronics industry investment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures will be encouraging? Will he say something more about his impressions of, and the possible benefits which may flow from, his visit to the United States during the recess? What steps have been taken to encourage existing Scottish firms to supply goods and services, particularly components, to the companies which are now settling in Scotland from elsewhere?

My hon. Friend is right. Inward investment means opportunities for equipment suppliers from domestic industry. Building up the whole electronic sector is an essential part of our strategy and of the SDA's detailed work on the Scottish economy.

Will the Minister explain why, each time he makes an optimistic forecast about industrial or commercial prospects for Scotland, the unemployment figures increase?

My forecasts are always cautious and I am not aware of having made any forecast that was not subsequently fulfilled. As the hon. Gentleman is very well aware, and as my right hon. Friend has told the House, the total number of jobs in Scotland is increasing.

Has the Minister noted that most Scottish health boards do not want private commercial investment in their catering and cleaning services within the integrated NHS? Will he now accept that the intrusion of "fast-food, fast-buck" merchants into the NHS is entirely undesirable, and will he therefore tear up the Scottish Office circular on this subject?

I am not clear about the precise relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to investment, but as my hon. Friends will be aware, he is talking rubbish.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the disappearance of jobs has been historically due to the problems of the past and that the jobs that are now coming in are jobs for the future? Tomorrow in Aberdeen there will be an announcement about some jobs that are coming from inward investment. In fact, a Scot is organising it.

The House will be delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. It is essential for the Scottish economy to be competitive and to develop the industries that will compete, prosper and expand in the future. That is what our economic strategy is all about.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss housing and rating matters in Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment in Scotland met representatives of the convention on 8 and 29 October to discuss these matters and further meetings will be held at the beginning of December.

I understand that the provisional revaluation assessments was one of the matters discussed with COSLA. Will the Secretary of State assure Scotland's ratepayers that there is no way in which the Government will approve a shift of 16 per cent. in the burden of rates towards domestic ratepayers without in any way compensating householders through additional domestic relief which is not at the expense of either the needs or the resources elements of the rate support grant?

That matter was raised at the most recent meeting that my hon. Friend has with COSLA. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is part of the normal procedure for a revaluation. We have not yet had the final figures from the assessors as to what is likely to happen. When I have those figures I shall consider carefully whether there are any inequalities that need to be put right, and, if so, to what extent I can do anything about them.

Is not the Secretary of State disguising a fact that is already known, that on current trends there is likely to be the swing that has been mentioned? Does he regret that in the past four or five years he did not bring in the programme of rates reform which he urged in the 1979 Conservative manifesto?

If the hon. Gentleman means that the present rating system should be altered in some way I have no doubt that he will have ways to put that. This is only concerned with the ways in which the current revaluation system works and there is nothing new or unusual about that. When one sees the spendthrift actions of some councils it makes one think how happy we would we all be if there were some other form of taxation for them to pile on to us at this time.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be some disappointment that there is not a willingness to discuss an alternative to the rating system? Will he take the opportunity of the meeting to discuss whether it might be possible to amend the guidelines in such a way that they do not offer an advantage to the high spenders at the expense of the low-spending, often Conservative-controlled authorities in Scotland?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's last point. As he will know, the new system for splitting up the general abatement is now much fairer—in fact, almost completely fair—to authorities. That goes a long way to meet the point that my hon. Friend made.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman going ahead with another revaluation in Scotland when the previous revaluation in England and Wales took place in 1973 and when the Government have postponed any further revaluation there? In view of the rumours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said, of increases of about 16 per cent. facing Scottish domestic ratepayers as a result of the next revaluation, is it not about time that the Government considered postponing the 1985 revaluation and bringing us into line with England and Wales?

The objective of a revaluation is a narrow one, and that is to re-establish the relative positions of various properties and types of property within the rating system to try to ensure that, as near as possible, they are assessed fairly in relation to each other. To that extent, to put off the revaluation would be to perpetuate the unfairnesses to some Scottish ratepayers in some categories. That is why it is much fairer to all concerned to go ahead with the new valuation.

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

This tragic and unnecessary dispute has had no general effect on Scottish manufacturing industry, where a recovery in output is well under way. I understand that some difficulties have been caused for firms which are specialist suppliers to the mining industry. However, the greatest damage has been the extreme hardship caused to families of striking miners.

Will the Minister prevail on his right hon. Friend, in developing the forensic skills that he has as a member of the Star Chamber, to give us an assurance that nowhere in the Coal Board is there a document relating to Scotland similar to that circulating in relation to the north-east of England, which decimates the coal industry there? Can we have an assurance that we shall have a continuance of high capacity and a high number of pits in operation in Scotland? Given the hon. Gentleman's economic knowledge, would he not say that the vacillations and incompetence of Mr. MacGregor must have an impact on the morale of Scottish management? No manager worth his salt in Scotland could say that he could do a worse job that this incompetent geriatric, who should be repatriated.

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well in his heart of hearts, there is not a shred of industrial justification for the strike. As he also knows, there is a perfectly reasonable basis for a settlement, and that is the agreement reached with NACODS. The hon. Gentleman should be using his influence in the Labour movement to ensure that the NUM faces reality.

Is my hon. Friend aware that more Scottish miners are working in Nottinghamshire than in the whole of the Scottish coalfields? Is it not the case that they are working as a result of a ballot?

My hon. Friend, and fellow clansman, is absolutely right. If the Scottish miners had held a ballot they, too, would be working. They have been picketed out. Opposition Members know that it is only violence and intimidation that is preventing many more Scottish miners from working.

Surely on this day of all days we are entitled to hear fewer echoes of Government propaganda and more of the language of conciliation rather than confrontation. Is the Minister aware that there has been an impact on Scottish industry, with not one new pit being sunk in Scotland since the Government took office? Is he further aware that 81 per cent. of investment in the coal industry goes to Yorkshire, the Midlands and Nottinghamshire, leaving only 19 per cent. for South Wales, Durham and Cumberland? Can the hon. Gentleman justify that as a fair share of investment for the coal industry in Scotland?

The Government have an outstanding record of investment in the coal industry, standing at more than £2 million a day. The hon. Gentleman is widely respected and he should use his considerable influence to get the NUM to face reality.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating those at the Hunterston nuclear power station on having produced power at record levels to maintain industry in Scotland during the past eight months of dispute?

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. The Scottish electricity boards have a wide range of fuel sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, gas and water. I can assure the House that there is no threat to electricity supplies in Scotland.

Does not the Minister realise that the NUM will not be smashed, unlike 1926? In recognising that fact, is it not important for the Government to empower Ian MacGregor to negotiate a just settlement of the long-running dispute?

The hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with the regime that has been involved recently in our mining industry. It is astonishing that Opposition Members are still not prepared to say that there should have been a ballot of miners in both Scotland and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman knows that violence and intimidation are preventing many more Scottish miners from joining those already working, whose number increases every day.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the mining dispute has done grievous damage to the Scottish economy, which is all the more galling because these are self-inflicted wounds? Has not the dispute done damage also to Scotland's reputation in industrial relations, which is so important for inward investment? Has not an unfair view been taken abroad of Scottish industrial relations, which the dispute now underpins? Has he seen the catalogue of violence during the dispute in which more than 250 miners and almost 800 police officers have been injured on picket lines?

Indeed. I think that everyone is familiar with the catalogue of violence, which should be deplored by Members of all political persuasions. It is to their credit that one or two Labour Members have been firm in their attacks on such violence. As for inward investment and industrial relations, I believe that those abroad see the miners' dispute as an isolated matter. The representatives of the American companies with whom I have spoken are high in their praise of their Scottish work forces' productivity and flexibility and the Scottish work ethic.

Before the Minister announces his resignation, which is long overdue, will he confirm or deny that the Killoch and Barony coalfields in Ayrshire were on the hit list and due to close within five years? It could not be simpler than that.

I shall not comment on matters that are for the management of the National Coal Board. The hon. Gentleman must know of the damage that is being caused by the strike to his constituents. He should be using his influence to try to persuade them to get the National Union of Mineworkers to face reality and accept the reasonable settlement to which NACODS is already a party.

Will the Minister accept that another barrier to the settlement that we all want of the miners' strike is the distrust that has understandably arisen from the National Coal Board's handling of the dispute? May I bring the Minister back to the supplementary question that was asked originally? He will be aware that a document has been made public which shows that the NCB has plans within the next two or three years to close six or seven pits in the nort-east of England, which will reduce the number of pits in that area to a mere handful by the middle of the 1990s. Will he tell us whether there is a similar document in existence that applies to Scotland? If he does not know, will he make immediate inquiries with the NCB to establish exactly what is going on and make the earliest possible statement to the House on the information that he finds?

I have already said that I cannot comment on matters that are the responsibility of the NCB management in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should be asking for a ballot from the Opposition Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] He should be using his influence with the NUM to try to get a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the level of capital investment by the public sector in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members and from other individuals and organisations about the level of public sector capital investment, which has borne up well despite the overriding need to restrain public expenditure.

Will the Minister acknowledge, as the CBI in Scotland has done, that public expenditure and public investment are the quickest and most effective ways of dealing with unemployment? There are 75,000 unemployed construction workers in Scotland and an increase in public investment in Scotland would be the most important act that the Government could take to reduce dole queues.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that capital spending in Scotland is at a high level. It is running at about £1,500 million in the current year. However, we need to restrain the total of public expenditure. Increased spending means increased borrowing, higher inflation and higher levels of unemployment in the long run.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the operation of the Mingary-Tobermory ferry.

Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. operates this service as an approved service for which my right hon. Friend pays revenue subsidy. The company has recently sought his agreement to its initiating procedures to withdraw the service. He is considering the matter.

Is the Minister aware that that is a highly unsatisfactory answer? Does he agree that the relatively isolated community in western Ardnamurchan is highly dependent on the service and has had, from the vessel provided by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. an unsatisfactory and probably unsafe service for some time? Will he take these matters very much into consideration?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, if the proposal for withdrawal is to be taken further, there will be a full opportunity for the communities concerned to present their case to the Scottish transport users' consultative committee. I am sure that all those points will be raised at that committee meeting, if the matter goes to that stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the employment prospects for Scotland's maritime industries, following the Government's recent announcement on the future of British Shipbuilders.

Prospects in Scotland are good provided the yards achieve levels of performance and efficiency which enable them to compete successfully in domestic and international markets.

Leaving aside for the moment the inexplicable—some would say absurd—decision of the MOD to award the contracts to refit HMS Otter to a yard that has little or no experience of refitting, what is the likelihood in the near future of an order being placed with a Scottish yard for a fisheries protection vessel?

The contract for that refit was awarded on a strictly commercial basis and in line with the Government's well-publicised intention to bring competition into warship refitting. There will be a full opportunity for the yards about which the hon. Gentleman is specially concerned to tender and compete for any new orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss expenditure guidelines and future local authority spending.

I shall meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 7 December for one of my regular meetings with it to discuss local authority expenditure.

Before the meeting, when the representatives of the convention complain to the Secretary of State about the effect that public guidelines are having on the future of Scottish education, will he accept the need for an independent review of the teaching profession, in view of the way in which it has fallen far behind in the national wages structure?

I have now had meetings with the teachers' representatives and the employers' representatives, and I am considering what they said to me at those meetings.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been made in the current year arising out of assaults or breaches of the peace committed during the course of industrial disputes.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people have now been reported to procurators fiscal in connection with incidents arising from the miners' strike; how many have been charged with an offence; how many of those cases have been decided by the courts and how many remain to be so decided; and how many of those reported to procurators fiscal have a permanent address outside Scotland.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the latest figure for the number arrested as a result of the miners' strike; how many have been charged; how many have been tried and convicted; and how many currently await trial.

As of 26 October 1984, 1,320 persons have been arrested and charged with offences arising out of the miners' strike. To date, procurators fiscal have taken proceedings against 816 persons of whom 160 have been convicted and 48 acquitted by the courts. In 608 cases the accused has either pleaded not guilty and a trial diet has been fixed or the accused has still to appear in court to answer to a citation. I intend to publish more detailed information in the Official Report giving details of the nature of the charges and the domicile of the accused.

Is it not a fact that the vast majority of convictions have been for specific offences under the laws of Scotland, which have been in existence for a great many years?

The more detailed information, which I have said that I shall publish in the Official Report, shows that the vast majority of charges were for breaches of the peace or arose in relation to obstruction of the police under section 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that a not insignificant number of people who have been charged with offences arising out of violence on the picket line have permanent addresses outside Scotland? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with me that that type of behaviour has no place in industrial relations in Scotland? Will he say that it is deplorable that the NUM has had to ship in to Scotland marauding thugs to sustain its strike in the Scottish coalfields?

The best figures that I can give to my hon. Friend are that of the 1,300 people who have been charged, 72 have domiciles of citation out of Scotland. Those are definite figures, but my information is that the number may be higher. I do not anticipate that it would be much more. That is, nevertheless, a significant number of those who have been charged and are to be brought before the courts.

Since this strike is likely to continue for some time, what provision is the Scottish Office making to bring more expeditiously to court the people who have been charged and are awaiting trial? How many of those charged were miners before the strike and how many were not?

I do not have a precise answer on the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I know that a number of the people charged were certainly not employed as miners before the strike began. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to obtain the information, I shall do what I can. Although we are doing what we can to ensure that these cases are brought to court as quickly as possible, in a number of cases people have not been brought to court because of reasons advanced by the defence. Unfortunately, there has been some delay to accommodate those people and to ensure that opportunities for fair trial are given. Those of us involved in prosecutions certainly do not want a delay.

Will the Solicitor-General confirm that he accepts that offences that arise from the picket line should be dealt with on conviction on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the accused? I raise that matter because there have been occasions when speeches, particularly by the Home Secretary, have suggested that he sees the courts in some way an extension of the Government's political campaign against the miners. Will the Solicitor-General study the administration of legal aid, because evidence is coming from solicitors that there are wide differences of approach within sheriffdoms in Scotland on the granting of legal aid for picket line offences? Does he accept that if that is proved it would be alarming? Does he accept that the legal aid system should be impartial and operate in exactly the same way in all sheriffdoms and in all parts of the country?

I would have to accept that there are discrepancies in the way that legal aid is granted in the sheriff courts. It is something that I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is studying at the moment. I would not accept that those discrepancies arise out of a view that the courts take about the miners' strike. Discrepancies exist, but they are on a more general basis. I can only repeat that where people have been charged in Scotland with offences arising out of the miners' strike, the vast majority of the offences are for breaches of the peace and obstructing the police. In those circumstances, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the sherriffs of Scotland will deal with them on the basis of the cases that come before them, the evidence, the severity of the charge and the circumstances of those individuals accused who are eventually convicted.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if prosecution practice in relation to travelling people is the same as for any other citizens, where there have been breaches of criminal law, local byelaws or planning matters.

The toleration policy relates only to unauthorised encampments as such. It does not relate to other breaches of the law. Where there are such complaints these will be dealt with by the police and procurators fiscal in the normal way.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some people in my constituency will find that answer difficult to believe because they perceive that travelling people are allowed, apparently, to do things which no other people would be allowed to do, sometimes on encampments and sometimes not. Will my hon. and learned Friend agree to discuss with his right hon. Friend what action would be appropriate between the Crown Office and the Scottish Office to resolve some of the difficulties with whch we are faced in north-east Fife, particularly Cupar?

If I may disabuse my hon. Friend's constituents of their misapprehension, no toleration policy extends to the travelling people other than in relation to unauthorised encampments. I have to say to his constituents and the travelling people that if they think that they would enjoy greater leeway in the commission of offences unrelated to encampments they should carefully consider the position, otherwise they will find themselves prosecuted in court.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the policy of non-harassment of travelling people.

The Scottish Home and Health Department will shortly be circulating revised guidelines to local authorities following the policy initiative announced by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment at the Scottish Office. Under the revised policy, non-harassment will be directly linked to progress in the provision of pitches for travelling people with targets fixed at district levels. In future where these are met, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate agrees that the policy of toleration should no longer apply. I should also make it clear that the policy of non-harassment does not apply to larger random encampments such as those experienced at Kilmarnock and elsewhere this summer. Encampments of large groups of caravans moving outwith established travellers' patterns will not be tolerated, whether or not pitch targets have been met.

What a splendid answer. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider and perhaps clarify matters. If, for instance, Kilmarnock and Loudoun district identify a proper site which exceeds the criteria laid down by the Scottish Office and apply for a grant, at the moment of application will it be free from the obligation to operate a policy of non-harassment?

I am grateful but surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approval of the answer that I gave. I believe that the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking will be warmly welcomed by district authorities throughout Scotland. I confirm that once the pitch targets have been announced and are known, and once those targets have been met in districts and areas, the toleration policy in relation to unlawful encampment will no longer continue. I believe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, that that will go a long way to alleviate local anxiety about this difficult and ong standing problem.