asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for Scottish education of the White Paper on public expenditure.

Further information on the implications for Scottish education of the White Paper on public expenditure will be published shortly in the "Scottish Commentary".

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the £61 million cut in the Scottish education budget is a severe blow to education in Scotland? Does he further acknowledge that suggestions about the teachers' pay dispute are not worth a docken, unless he is prepared to make money available to meet any sensible settlement? Will he admit to the House that the White Paper simply makes a wrong decision which should be reversed?

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The reduction in education expenditure is smaller than the reduction in the number of pupils. Therefore, the sum provided for education in Scotland is more in real terms, per pupil, than ever before. I have spent a great deal of time and energy in recent weeks trying to get across to everybody —I have obviously failed, even with the hon. Gentleman — that if the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee suggests a good package of pay and conditions for teachers I am prepared to see whether I can find some money within my budget to deal with it. If that was not clear to the hon. Gentleman, I hope it is clear now.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that although falling pupil numbers has resulted in more money per pupil being spent than before, there has been no comparable drop in the number of people in non-teaching posts dealing with the administration of education? Should not that aspect be examined further?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. His views are backed by the figures. At constant prices, expenditure per pupil in real terms in 1979–80 was £1,042, and in 1983–84 £1,151.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that a substantial amount of new money will have to be found if the current industrial crisis in our schools is to be resolved? Will he stop pretending that the SJNC proposal has the support of the management side and is being considered by the unions? Will he bring forward a new initiative to resolve the dispute?

The views of all parties are clear. The teachers have made it clear that they would prefer an independent review of their pay. The management side has made it equally clear that, although it would prefer an independent review of pay and conditions, it is prepared to co-operate in discussing pay and conditions. I have made a clear offer. If a proper package of pay and conditions is put forward, I shall try to find some means of implementing it. That is a fair way out of a nasty situation.

If everything is so rosy in the education system, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the teacher-pupil ratio has gone up? Will he define what he means by a "proper package"?

I cannot explain why the pupil-teacher ratio has gone up, because it has not. It is at its best level ever. By that I mean that we have the lowest number of pupils per teacher ever. That is a fact which no amount of head shaking will shake away.

As the Secretary of State will guess, we have all been reading with interest the speculation in the Scottish press this morning about a new initiative. I have now had the opportunity to see the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which seems to offer a lot less than the press speculation. It is important that we should know exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind. If the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee decides to set up an independent review body to look at pay and conditions, will he approve of such a move? Does he accept that it should be properly independent and able, as Houghton did, to study comparable salary levels in the groupings that it thinks relevant? Will the Secretary of State undertake that if that exercise is carried out he will accept the findings?

As I think the letter to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) makes clear, none of that is for me. I was asked whether the SJNC could, if it wished, undertake an independent review of pay and conditions. The answer is that it has the right to carry out its functions in any way that it thinks fit. I have said that any package of proposals that comes to me must come from the SJNC. If it does, I shall see whether I can find a way to meet it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Confederation of British Industry to discuss the economic situation.

I receive regular reports from the Scottish Confederation of British Industry on a range of economic matters. I have no formal plans at present to meet the Scottish CBI to discuss the economic situation.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the CBI, will he discuss with it his intentions about the stagnation of the construction industry, bearing in mind that thousands of craftsmen are at present unemployed? Will he further tell the CBI how he stands in relation to the proposed closure of the skillcentres and annexes which are vital for training people for the future?

On the first point, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about unemployment in the construction industry. I have managed to keep capital spending in the Scottish Office budget steady over the past five years. In fact, it is still slightly up in real terms on what it was in 1979–80. I accept that that is helpful, and I shall try to keep it that way if I can. Within the next week or two the Government Will be announcing their reaction to the MSC's proposals for the closure of some skillcentres in Scotland. As I understand the proposals, skill training in Scotland will be going up, not down, whether or not the skillcentres are closed.

My right hon. Friend will have noticed representations from the CBI about investment in the infrastructure. Can he confirm that those proposals have one difference compared with any put forward by the Opposition—namely, that they imply that there must be savings in other sectors before that investment can take place?

My hon. Friend is right. That has been a constant theme of discussions that I have had with various bodies, including local authorities, over the past five years. It would be desirable to keep up capital spending, but to reduce current spending because it does not have the same good effect on the economy. I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks.

By the time that he next meets the CBI, will the Secretary of State be able to say that when he has completed his period as the longest serving Secretary of State for Scotland he will have succeeded in bringing down unemployment?

I am not sure whether that is a question or a statement. Unemployment has been and remains the main problem facing our economy. The efforts that the Government have made to counter the economic problems that have caused it have led in recent months to an increase in the number of people in employment in Scotland, and that is welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement following his meeting with the British Medical Association, Scotland, to discuss the restricted list of medicines that will be available for prescription on the National Health Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of organisations in Scotland which have made representations on the proposals for limited list prescribing; how many he has met; and if he will make a statement.

I have met representatives of the Scottish Council of the British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical General Council (Scotland). In addition, by the end of the consultation period we had received representations from some 60 organisations, and I shall list those in the Official Report. Our proposals cover only some 10 per cent. of the drugs bill. The drugs that will remain available for prescription on the NHS will be sufficient to meet all clinical needs in the areas in question.

How does the Minister know that the drugs that will remain available on the restricted list will be sufficient to meet the needs of NHS patients? How many of the 60 representations that he has received were in favour of his proposals, and how many were against? Does he understand the anxiety that is now being expressed throughout the medical profession and by patients in Scotland about the Government's proposals? Will he give an assurance that when the final list is published it will be more extensive than the rather restricted list with which we originally started?

We received a considerable range of representations, and most conceded the need for and our ability to make savings on the drugs bill. Many were in favour of a limited list, but representations were made on drugs that should be on that list. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a committee of experts advising him on the list. When the House hears his statement on the final list, it will appreciate that the clinical needs of patients have been met.

Everyone in the House will agree with the need to keep down costs of prescriptions in the Health Service and to get value for money, so that is just a cliché. If the Government say that essential drugs will be made available under the NHS, who will decide—the general practitioner or somebody in St. Andrew's House?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the people whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has as his advisers, he will see that we are taking the advice of some very senior medical people. It is not just civil servants in St. Andrew's House or the Elephant and Castle who are advising my right hon. Friend. We are considering one of the suggestions that has come to us. If a doctor decides, for clinical reasons, to prescribe a drug that is on the banned list, we are considering ways in which that might be done. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's announcement.

Will my hon. Friend utterly condemn the scare tactics of the BMA over the limited list, but bear in mind some of its manifestly sound judgments on the limited list in relation to chronic arthritic and elderly patients?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I have read with great interest the sensible suggestions that have been made by doctors, even doctors who are implacably opposed to the scheme. However, many doctors have been absolutely unfair to their elderly patients in scaring them into thinking that they will not get suitable drugs after 1 April. To make matters worse, some doctors have made that suggestion about drugs that are not even in the therapeutic groups under consideration.

Will my hon. Friend clear up the misunderstanding between prescribing and dispensing doctors, bearing in mind that dispensing practitioners have a particular role to fill in rural Scotland, where chemists' shops are not readily available?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a misunderstanding of a reply by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health the other day, when he said that prescribing general medical practitioners would not be permitted to sell drugs to their National Health Service patients. We are considering the representations that have been made to us on behalf of dispensing doctors in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom on whether they should be able to sell to their patients drugs that are on the banned list.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the overwhelming opposition to the whole scheme on the ground that it undermines one of the basic principles of the NHS? Will he now reply to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and turn his mind to the problem of rural doctors who not only prescribe but dispense drugs? How can it be right that they may be required to charge patients for certain drugs?

I thought that I had already answered that point, but obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening, as usual. I said that we were considering the matter of dispensing doctors, and that will be part of the statement that will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Many hospitals in Scotland already operate a limited list over the whole range of drugs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Stirling the local health council, using funds provided by his Department, is putting leaflets through letter boxes and organising public meetings telling elderly people that they will not be able to get their drugs because they will have to pay for them in future, when the health council does not even know what the list will contain and when the position has been clearly explained? Will my hon. Friend look into the matter and take it up with the health council, which is supposed to be there to serve the community, not to indulge in political propaganda?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is irresponsible of the health council to do that sort of thing. We have made it clear all along that the drugs that will remain prescribable under the NHS will meet all the clinical needs of patients.

Will the Minister explain to me and the many doctors and constituents who have written to me — not necessarily those who are opposed to generic prescribing—why, in drawing up the original list, he apparently took no medical advice? Was this not both insensitive and possibly arrogant?

The process of consultation lasted from the middle of November to the end of January. As I have explained my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up a committee of very experienced medical people. I have been taking the advice of my medical officials, and we have been taking into consideration the representations of doctors. I thought that that was the proper way to consult.

Will my hon. Friend note the hyprocisy of the Opposition, who are anxious that the drug companies should not cream off huge profits and that doctors should dispense properly for their patients?

The Opposition's hyprocisy extends even further than that. As I understand it, they approve of generic prescribing, which is opposed by the drugs industry and the BMA.

Is the Minister aware that the Greenfield report, which inspired the so-called banned list, to use the hon. Gentleman's expression, has been around for some considerable time? The Government's ham-fisted approach caused an inadequate list to be produced in the first instance, and they are now having to scurry back and forth between doctors and pharmaceutical companies to secure their agreement before the list can be implemented. That is the scandal and that is what is causing great anxiety among our constituents.

When the hon. Gentleman sees the final list he will recognise — I have said this three or four times — that it will meet clinical needs. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the Greenfield report. We have been discussing ways to reduce the drugs bill for some time. The Government decided that it was time to stop the discussions and to make concrete suggestions.

I wish to press my hon. Friend on his meeting with the BMA. Did he discuss with the BMA the serious situation that will arise in rural areas where general practitioners prescribe and dispense? Will he bear in mind that those doctors should be entitled to consider brand names rather than to implement the Government's proposals for generic medicines?

Briefly.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services bears in mind the problems that will be faced in rural areas of Scotland, which are inhabited mainly by the elderly?

I think that I have already replied to my hon. Friend's question in answer to a previous question. I can confirm that I discussed the matter with the BMA. A fair number of doctors have made their position clear to me in the course of making their representations. The role of dispensing doctors is one of the matters that is now under consideration.

The Minister should not get too excited about trying to defend the indefensible. Does he realise that this is another step on the slippery slope down which the Government are leading the Health Service? Will he give a guarantee that the elderly and the poorer people who will be affected by the list which he has published will not suffer when the final list is put forward by the Government?

I have already given that guarantee, and I am happy to give it again. We are taking the best advice possible to ensure that the list as it emerges, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services makes his statement, will be sufficient to meet all the clinical needs of patients.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall raise my point of order at the end of Question time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On earlier occasions you have explained to me how you group oral questions for the purpose of calling hon. Members to ask supplementary questions. I am sure that you will have noticed that today there were five questions—all asked by Opposition Members — on the proposals of the Government in relation to prescription charges, mine being one of them. The other four hon. Members were called to ask their supplementary questions; you called at least four hon. Members from the Government Benches, none of whom had a question down on the subject; and you called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches to ask supplementary questions, although neither of them had a question down on the subject. I was the only one in that list who was not called. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I want to know whether this is a new principle of victimisation of poor souls such as me.

rose—

Order. I assure the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) absolutely that there was no question of victimisation. I had regard to the fact that I called him on exactly the same question yesterday, when questions were down to the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I thought it only fair to give other hon. Members a chance today.

Hear, hear.

Further to your original ruling, Mr. Speaker. You said that you did not call me because I had asked a question on this matter yesterday, presumably the Secretary of State for Social Services. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Health Service in Scotland is separate from the Health Service in England. It is well known that, at the moment, the Scottish Minister is in violent conflict on this very matter with the Secretary of State for Social Services. You should not have presumed, as you did, Mr. Speaker, that the question I asked yesterday was the same question I was going to put to the Scottish Minister today.

I try to be as fair as possible. I hope that when the hon. Member studies the Order Paper tomorrow he will note that, of those hon. Members who tabled questions that were not reached, no fewer than 12 were called today. I am sorry that the hon. Member was not among those hon. Members who were called. If he had risen on another question, I would have tried to get him in.

Limited list of drugs organisations which made representations up to 31 January 1985

• The British Medical Association
• The British Medical Association, Scottish Council
• Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (Scottish Department)
• Pharmaceutical General Council (Scotland)
• The British Dental Association
• Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh
• Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow
• Borders Health Board
• Highland Health Board
• British Medical Association (Wigtown Division)
• British Medical Association (Ayrshire and Arran Division)
• Local Dental Committee of Greater Glasgow Health Board
• Grampian Local Medical Committee
• Borders Local Medical Committee
• Fife Local Medical Committee
• Shetland Local Medical Committee
• Highland Area Local Medical Committee
• Hospital Paediatric Services Advisory Group
• Glasgow Terminal Care Group
• Keith Patient Participation Group
• Scottish Spina Bifida Association
• Association of Scottish Health Councils
• City of Aberdeen Local Health Council
• Argyll and Bute Local Health Council
• Edinburgh Local Health Council
• North East Fife Local Health Council
• South Ayrshire Local Health Council
• Kincardine and Deeside Local Health Council
• West Fife Local Health Council
• Greater Glasgow East Local Health Council
• Orkney Local Health Council
• City of Edinburgh District Council
• Aithsting and Standsting Community Council
• Whalsay and Skerries Community Council
• Pollock Community Council
• Tingwall, Whiteness and Weisdale Community Council
• Burra and Trondra Community Council
• Lerwick Community Council
• Kilmeny Community Council
• Iona Community Council
• Rannoch and Tummel Community Council
• Mull Community Council
• Baillieston Community Council
• Stepps and District Community Council
• Northmavine Community Council
• Torridon and Kinlochewe Community Council
• East Sutherland Council of Social Service
• Harris Council of Social Service
• Guild of Hospital Pharmacists
• Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff
• National and Local Government Officers Association (Kyle and Carrick District Branch)
• Paisley and District Trades Council
• Orkney Labour Party Executive
• Ayr Constituency Labour Party
• Old Pollock Tenants Association
• Age Concern Scotland
• National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Association
• Pennyghael Community Association
• Wester Hailes Good Neighbourhood Scheme for Information and Social Help
• Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Ltd.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created in Scotland in the past 12 months.

During 1984 nearly 15,000 new jobs were associated with offers of selective financial assistance for projects in Scotland. In net terms there was an overall increase in employees in employment of 14,000 in the year to September 1984.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that many of those jobs were created in oil-related industries? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition has made the clear statement that, if he is put into office, he will implement a policy of controlling oil depletion in the North sea? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that policy were to be implemented it would drive investment from the North sea and jobs from Scotland?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point in relation to what the Leader of the Opposition said. I confirm that exploration in the North sea continues at record levels. As my hon. Friend will be aware, last week plans were approved for the development of Shell-Esso's Tern field, which it is estimated will create 3,000 new jobs. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have today authorised the Scottish Development Agency to invest more than £500,000 in a new oil rig repair base at Dales Voe near Lerwick, which will widen the capability of Scottish firms in that area and provide 150 new jobs.

Is the Minister aware that in the Invergordon to Dingwall travel-to-work area in my constituency, adult male unemployment is at present 25 per cent.? On Monday, this week I visited a distillery in Alness, which is due to close as a result of a decision by the Distillers Company. Incidentally, that effects to an even greater extent the constituency of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock). Will the Minister use the opportunity before the Budget to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to introduce further tax advantages or to reduce the tax burden on the distillery and whisky industry to try to improve the climate in which so many jobs are being lost?

No doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will read the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman of our commitment to the rural areas. We recently announced a new initiative —the programme for rural initiatives and developments — through the Scottish Development Agency. In the areas that serve the oil industry there will be substantial and increasing opportunities for employment if companies can provide competitive services.

Is the Minister aware that when I fought the constituency represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1959, the jobless total in Scotland was 70,000? During that election campaign Lord Stockton chastised the STUC for not coming to see him quickly enough, because he believed that the jobless total was too high. As the jobless total in Scotland is now more than 300,000, what is the message from the Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the STUC about unemployment in Scotland?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland doubled under the Labour Government. Unemployment is a difficult problem, and the Government's policies are designed to create a competitive economy to provide real and lasting jobs. My message to the STUC is that it should take fully into account the need for British companies to be competitive if they are to expand and provide new jobs.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the creation of new jobs. Will he ensure that those concerned with this crucial activity are not discouraged by the self-inflicted wounds created by striking miners, which have had especially disastrous consequences in Fife?

The whole House will be aware of the serious position that has arisen in Fife as a result of the strike. It is important that Scotland does not inflict such wounds on itself. However, there are several encouraging signs, including the improved performance of manufacturing industry. During the first half of 1984 manufacturing output was 5 per cent. above the level a year earlier.

Will the Minister accept that, very sadly, he is sounding more and more like one of his press handouts? Is it not insufferable complacency for the Minister to appear at the Dispatch Box and claim that his Government's policy has been a success? Will he accept that more than 160,000 manufacturing jobs have gone since 1979, that the index of industrial production is about 11 per cent. below what it was in 1979 and that unemployment is at a record level, with 360,000 people in the dole queues? Surely the Minister ought to do a great deal more and look at the reality of the crisis in Scotland—for example, at the appalling potential job losses that are being faced at the BREL works in Springburn?

Nobody seeks to deny that there is a serious unemployment problem, but the Government's policies are designed to create the type of economy that will provide employment in the long term. I am very surprised that in his list of the alleged problems facing the Scottish economy the hon. Gentleman did not mention the miners' strike and the damage that it is doing to the coal industry and to the coalmining communities.

Is it not the case that during the last 12 months the number of job losses has exceeded the number of new jobs, as a result of which unemployment in Scotland has increased by 10,000?

The total labour force is rising, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware. He will also be aware that in the service sector employment increased by 23,000 jobs in the year to September 1984. I am sure he will agree that that is very encouraging.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to safeguard Britain's remaining natural woodland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends meeting representatives of the Forestry Commission to discuss the consultative document, "Broadleaves in Britain".

The Forestry Commission makes a presumption against the clearance of woodland for conversion to agriculture or, in the case of broadleaves, to coniferous woodland.

Will the Minister accept that the decline in Britain's natural woodlands is now so serious as to deserve urgent consideration and greater attention to management agreements and planning control? While I am reluctant to intervene in Scottish Questions, may I ask the Minister whether, as an alternative, he will soon convene a meeting of farming, forestry and conservation interests so that they can reach agreement on sensible policies upon which British woodland policy can be based?

As the hon. Member perhaps realises, the Forestry Commission is engaged upon discussions with many of the bodies mentioned by him and with other bodies. A seminar is to be held later in the year. Once these consultations are over, the Forestry Commission will come to my right hon. Friend, who will look carefully into these matters.

Does the Minister accept that there has to be a consensus between all the parties that are interested in conservation? If that is the case, will he seek a meeting with the Forestry Commission to explain to it that, having met representatives of the landowning community and of the agriculture and timber-producing industries, it would now be proper for it to have discussions with those bodies which represent conservation interests before the seminar to which he has referred is held? Does he accept that it would be quite inappropriate for him merely to present those conservation bodies with a fait accompli?

In addition to all the bodies that are directly interested in timber planting and timber growing, the Forestry Commission, as the forestry authority for Great Britain, is in close contact with the various conservation groups, foremost among which is the Nature Conservancy Council, on this important matter of preserving ancient broadleaved woodlands and attempting to increase the acreage of broadleaved woodland in the United Kingdom.

Knowing my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, when he next meets the Forestry Commission may I ask him to ensure that it is aware of the serious river pollution that is occurring as a result of the drainage from newly planted forestry? Will he press the Forestry Commission to continue its researches?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says and I shall certainly draw that to the attention of the Forestry Commission.

In anticipation of the seminar and statement that the Minister has announced this afternoon, will he give us an assurance that in the interim there will be no clearing of ancient forests for agricultural purposes? In the course of his consideration of the issue, will he review the important practice of the Forestry Commission of selling off prime tracts of forest in Scotland to anonymous owners for undisclosed prices?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, as I said in my original answer, the Forestry Commission looks carefully at any proposal to fell broadleaved woodland either for planting coniferous trees or for agriculture) purposes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the possibility of tightening up the regulations is being considered by the Forestry Commission in the context of its current review.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will have discussions with the representatives of the United Nations Association and the City of Edinburgh district council, co-partners in the project, on funding of the International Youth Year Edinburgh Gathering, 9 to 16 June.

Financial support for the Gathering has been promised from both the Scottish Tourist Board and the Scottish Sports Council. After discussion between my officials and the interested parties it is my view that these are the appropriate channels for assistance.

Will my hon. Friend encourage a substantial level of funding through those and other channels, bearing in mind that during the United Nations International Youth Year the Edinburgh Gathering will be the most significant project not only in Scotland but in Britain?

I accept the role of the Edinburgh Gathering within the general campaign for the International Youth Year. Backed by an imaginative and well-planned publicity campaign it could be of considerable benefit in attracting tourists to Edinburgh and Scotland. In recognising that, the Scottish Tourist Board has promised financial support for the event to the extent that it will contribute up to 25 per cent. of the publicity costs incurred, subject to a maximum of £9,000.

Does the Minister agree that the best help that the Government could give the City of Edinburgh on this project and others such as the Festival would be to call off the ridiculous proposals that they have for cutting grants, thus destroying the ability of local authorities to carry out what their constituents want them to carry out?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. The Government support the International Youth Year by grant-aiding the co-ordinating committee in Scotland and the co-ordinating committees in other countries. The Scottish co-ordinating committee, consisting mainly of young people, is doing a good job and the hon. Gentleman would be better off encouraging and praising it rather than making those silly partisan points.

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

Yes. Since 1979 over 62,000 tenants have bought their houses. Binding contracts of sale have been concluded in a further 4,000 cases, and there are approximately another 7,000 applications at an earlier point in the pipeline.

What percentage of council house stock in Scotland has been sold to sitting tenants? If that figure is still significantly below that in England, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to increase the sale of council houses in Scotland?

The percentage figure now sold is about 4·6 per cent. of the council stock in Scotland, rather larger than the last time my hon. Friend asked me the same question last July, when I told him that it was about 3·6 per cent. There has obviously been an improvement, but I must concede that we are somewhat behind the comparable figures for England, and it is for that reason that I keep trying to persuade councils of the benefits of selling council houses—such as the way in which they can spend their receipts—to encourage them to release council houses as quickly as they can.

If the policy of selling houses with substantial discounts is such a success, will the Minister tell the House why this has not been extended to the private rented sector?

The hon. Member has asked that question before, and he will get precisely the same answer. We are dealing in this case with housing that has been provided by public money. I fail to understand the pathological hatred shown by the Opposition towards giving people who are living in council houses the right to own their own homes. We believe that that right is a good one, and we hope that they will exercise it.

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the low rate of sales that has so far been achieved? Does he agree that, if we can persuade more people in Scotland to own their own homes by buying council houses, we shall improve their quality of life and increase the mobility of labour, which will be a factor in the future prosperity of Scotland?

I agree totally with what my hon. Friend has said. The applications are running at about 1,800 a month. I would like to see this figure increased, and I shall do everything that I can to persuade people of the benefits of buying their homes.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present administrative and financial arrangements for marketing and for developing tourism in Scotland.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that he will give careful consideration to any recommendations that may in due course be made by the Select Committee for Scottish Affairs.

May I refer the Minister, in addition to the obviously important evidence that will come from the Select Committee, to the important report that was published by the Fraser of Allander Institute last November on tourism and public policy in Scotland, which said that there was an urgent need for a clear statement of Government policy on tourism, including a need for an urgent degree of co-ordination of art, heritage and tourism, and an equally urgent need for Government activity in the classification of the marketing and development rules of the Scottish Development Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency?

If the hon. Gentleman talks to the tourist industry in Scotland, I think he will find that not all of it agrees with the Fraser of Allander report that he mentioned. I believe that the tourist industry is vitally important for Scotland, and we are convinced that the roles of the Scottish Tourist Board and of the Highlands and Islands Development Board are vital to the future prosperity of the industry. We shall be looking with interest at the findings of the Select Committee on the subject of the interface between these two bodies.

The Minister says that tourism is so important. Why, then, is he insisting that local authorities cut back dramatically on their leisure expenditure, which includes museums, sports facilities and leisure recreation of all types and the arts, which play a vital part in attracting tourists to Scotland and ensuring that Scottish holiday-makers are properly entertained?

There is another side to the coin of local authority expenditure if expenditure and rates are not kept under control. The tourist industry and especially small hotels, boarding houses and the like are damaged by the increase in rates. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the Government on the considerable amount of money that we have put into the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board since the last election, almost doubling what was spent in the last year of the Labour Government.

May I remind my hon. Friend that tomorrow is St. Valentine's Day? As his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said, the tourist season will soon start in Scotland. Can the Scottish Development Department erect the signposts in time for the tourist season? If my hon. Friend wants some good advice about how to promote tourism in Scotland, may I suggest that he reads the Scottish Field next month for an excellent article on the subject, which I have written?

We all look forward to the article with bated breath. I am sure that my hon. Friend who has responsibility for home affairs and the environment has heard my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about signposts.

When will the Government wake up to the economic potential of the £1 billion Scottish tourist industry? With regard to the Minister's reference to rates for hotels and boarding houses, has the Scottish Office made any assessment of the impact of revaluation on the tourist industry in Scotland?

We have of course considered the question of revaluation across the board. My right hon. and hon. Friends have both answered questions on this matter. The total rate burden levied by local authorities is important to the tourist industry. While I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of tourism, I think that local authorities have to bear in mind the burden that they put on the local economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that land in the Highlands and Islands is utilised to the advantage of the local economy.

The policies pursued and assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Forestry Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are designed to improve the utilisation of land in the Highlands and Islands and to benefit the local economies.

Will the Minister scrap the Government's proposals to cut the grants under the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme, and will he agree to meet forthwith the chairman of the Crofters Union steering group and withdraw the abrupt refusal to consult about the Government's damaging proposal?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down detailed questions about the Crofters Commission, we shall answer them.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study his Department's report on the Crofters Commission? Is it not high time that we wound up that body and allowed the more efficient use of resources, which the commission is preventing?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister clearly misheard my question. He referred to the Crofters Commission. I asked him about the cut in the grants under the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme—

Order. I do not know whether that was so, but we must not have repeats in Question Time. I call Dr. Godman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) asked a question that has not been answered.

That is what happens when hon. Members intervene between a question and an answer.

The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is that I have noted his comments, but that we have no plans to wind up the Crofters Commission.

Where there is wasteful under-use of land, is not there a case for intervention to ensure the more rational use of that land by, say, tenant farmers?

The Highlands and Islands Development Board has considerable powers to achieve its land use objectives, particularly through advice and offers of financial assistance. Between 1974 and 1983, a total of £26–8 million was provided for the promotion of land development of various kinds in the Highlands and Islands. That created 1,500 jobs and retained 800. I do not believe that extra powers are necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with the bodies responsible for the negotiation of teachers' salaries and conditions of employment.

In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on 31 January, at column 272, I reported the outcome of my meeting on 28 January with both sides of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. At a subsequent meeting of that body on 7 February the management side outlined proposals for taking forward a review within the SJNC(SE) framework. I understand that the teachers' side is to respond to that initiative at a further meeting of the SJNC(SE) on 15 February.

Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that if the SJNC decided that it was within its terms of reference to establish an independent body to review teachers' salaries he would not block that development and would still have on the table his responsibility to provide the necessary funds to meet any obligations arising from the deliberations and decisions that finally emanate from the SJNC?

I think that I have already answered that question, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I say again that it is up to the SJNC to decide how it wishes to carry out its tasks. I have already said that if it produces a package of pay and conditions that I consider to be attractive I shall do my best to find funds to help to implement it.

Why does the Secretary of State continue to give the impression that he and the management side of the SJNC ar totally separate and independent beings? His representatives are members of the management side, and one of the underlying problems of teachers is that they do not believe that the management side can operate independently of the right hon. Gentleman.

I should have thought that a notable feature of the whole business was that the management side had been obviously independent. For instance, it took the line that it, too, was in favour of an independent pay review, as did the teachers, although it took a different line from the teachers in that it thought it should be a review of pay and conditions. I do not see any question of the management side being other than independent of the other parts of the body. The essential thing for everyone to understand is that the SJNC was set up for the precise purpose of considering and dealing with the pay and conditions of teachers. I suggest that this is the body through which this damaging dispute should be resolved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of people inside and outside the House are concerned that recrimination about the past few months would be unfortunate? It would be better for the teachers to explore fully within the SJNC the kinds of opportunities to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier. Rather than disrupt now, it would be better to explore the opportunities which my right hon. Friend indicated are available within the SJNC.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that there is a clear way of proceeding and having all the teachers' worries, grievances, and so on properly looked into by the body set up precisely for that purpose. With that in mind, I suggest that all concerned should reflect carefully on whether it is right to disrupt children's educational prospects when there is a good way of resolving the difficulties without doing so.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is his policy on jury vetting in Scotland in cases relating to section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

The general policy of the Crown in Scotland with regard to jury vetting was explained by the previous Lord Advocate in 1979 and has not changed. The Crown does not screen persons cited for jury service. There have been no recent cases in which all or part of the proceedings needed to be held in camera, but for any such case in the future my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate reserves his position so far as the making of inquiries consistent with the observations of the High Court in M v. Her Majesty's Advocate in 1974 is concerned.

Will the Solicitor-General set out in the Library the criteria of selection?

A detailed explanation is given in the case to which I referred, which sets out the special cause where a challenge can be made to individual jurors. I shall make that available to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall make sure that it is in the Library.

I hear the careful caveat that the Solicitor-General has made. May I take it from his reply that he shares my implacable resolve that jury vetting should not become a feature of the Scottish judicial system?

What needs to be appreciated by the whole House is that were we have a jury operating in Scotland it operates in a different context from the jury that is to he found south of the border. There are significant differences. We have a different system of majority verdicts and a different size of ordinary criminal jury. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that screening or vetting is not an ordinary part of the way in which we conduct matters.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the reason why the Government were persuaded by argument to leave the rejection of three jurors without cause shown was so that the practice of jury vetting by a back door should never be introduced in Scotland?

Yes, indeed, that is the situation. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) appreciated, there is only one small but general reservation that I have made on the whole matter.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he is satisfied with the operation of the Matrimonial Homes Act.

The Government are aware of the criticisms made of the operation of the Act and are, as appropriate, taking steps to meet these criticisms, or ascertain how far they are justified, and to provide remedies by legislative and other means.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. He will recall that during the progress of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill there was discussion of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1981 and Women's Aid indicated disquiet about variations in judgments in the appropriate sheriff courts. I look forward to the result of his investigation and to any action that can be taken to remedy the problem.

As I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has commissioned research into the operation of the Act. It is expected that this will be available by the beginning of next year. If he has specific complaints about the operation of the Act and the involvement of the police or procurators fiscal in Scotland, I hope that he will make the details available to me.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many cases of alleged drugs offences have been reported to the Crown Office or to procurators fiscal in 1985 to date.

In 1985 to date, 290 cases have been reported to procurators fiscal.

Does the Solicitor-General consider that the proposed change in the law to make fines available as the norm to the court in addition to prison sentences would be a useful deterrent, bearing in mind the alarming increase in the number of drug cases in Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point that he makes. I regret that the problem of trafficking in drugs remains very serious in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I am glad to say that our success rate in prosecutions in the High Court has been good. I hope that the amendments that have been put down to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will provide an effective addition to the armoury of deterrents against those who believe that trafficking in drugs is a profitable way to carry on.

Can my hon. and learned Friend tell the House how many of the drug offences in Scotland last year were committed by young persons under the age of 18?

I cannot immediately answer my hon. Friend. I regret to say that that area of crime involves not only older people. There has been a significant and tragic increase in the number of those involved under the age of 20.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions took place in 1984 for armed trespass.

Trespassing with firearms is an offence under section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968, and 51 prosecutions for contraventions of that section took place in 1984.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is a very high number? Can he break down that figure into urban and rural offences? Can he assure me that sufficient effort is made to prosecute those who are poaching both fish and wildfowl?

I cannot give a breakdown into urban and rural offences, but I should think that most of the offences took place in a rural context. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, if those offences are pursued in the courts, that can sometimes involve very complex questions of civil law, which the courts have said are not always suitable for determination in criminal trials. However, I understand my hon. Friend's great concern about poaching.

Based on the figures that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has given for prosecutions relating to armed trespass, what has the hon. and learned Gentleman to say about the alleged easy availability of weapons in Scotland? Will he investigate that matter and provide the House with information?

I shall be glad to provide the hon. Gentleman with what information I can. Under the Firearms Act 1968 and other statutory and common law offences, significant penalties can be imposed on those in possession of firearms or who use them when they do not have a justifiable excuse for carrying them. The courts in Scotland have imposed heavy penalties when such offences have come before them.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for drug-related offences have taken place in the Grampian region in the past 12 months.

The figures available are for 1984, when 294 drug-related cases were reported for prosecution in the Grampian police area.

I am grateful for that reply. While it is a tribute to the ability of the Grampian police that they have been able to contain the overall problem within the Grampian region, does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that within those figures there is an increased number of offences for the use of hard drugs? Will he consistently bear that fact in mind when considering sentencing policy?

As my hon. Friend will recognise, sentences are a matter for the courts. However, it has been the established policy for the past two years of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that where there are prosecutions of those engaged in the trafficking of drugs—be they hard or soft drugs — they should ordinarily take place in the High Court. That ensures that the full range of penalties available in that court can be used. I hope that in future that will include the power to impose, as a norm, a fine as well as a sentence of imprisonment.

Can the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell us how many of those prosecuted for drug-related offences were registered drug addicts?

No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. The range of offences covers not only those found in possession of drugs, but those found in possession of them with the intention of supplying them to other people. In those circumstances, whether or not the accused is a drug addict is essentially immaterial. We are seeking to crack down on the idea that people can engage in trafficking, especially when it is for profit.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the costs of dental treatment provided under the National Health Service in Scotland was met by the charges paid by patients at the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding proportion in 1979.

The proportion was 24·6 per cent. in 1983–84 and 20·29 per cent. in 1979–80.

Is the Minister aware of the great concern that is felt not only by the dental profession but by patients about the increased charges? Does he agree that dental care should continue to have an important place in Scotland?

I am indeed most concerned to improve the quality of dental care in Scotland and the attention we pay to our teeth. About half the courses of treatment are provided free. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that while the number of dental treatments in 1978 in Scotland was 2·4 million, by 1983 it had risen to 2·75 million.