asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of redundancies in Scotland between 1977 and 1979 and between 1980 and 1984, respectively.

The number of redundancies in Scotland involving 10 or more workers, notified to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur, averaged 29,186 per annum for the period 1977 to 1979 and 47,207 per annum for the period 1980 to 1984. There are no statistics available where the number of redundancies is below 10.

Does the Minister accept that the Opposition believe that these figures are totally unacceptable and that they will not be acceptable during the lifetime of this Parliament? Does he recognise that the result of the revaluation will be a tremendous increase in rates which will lead to further redundancies because many companies will go to the wall? When will the Government and the Minister do something about it, in particular his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is our mouthpiece at Cabinet level?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that unemployment doubled during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. The Government's policies are designed to create a competitive economy. Output and employment rose last year. Business surveys are encouraging about the prospects for Scottish industry in 1985. As for rates affecting industry, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. Manufacturing industry will benefit from the revaluation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Opposition Members to try to make political capital out of the increase in the number of redundancies during the lifetime of this Government, as many of them are the logical consequence of high inflation, low investment and uncompetitive work practices of the previous Labour Government? Does my hon. Friend also agree that we should be talking not about redundancies but about Scotland's share of the 350,000 new jobs which have been created during the last year?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Employment has been rising and the prospects shown by the business surveys are good. I was very surprised that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) did not mention the increase in the work force at Terex or the fact that Honeywell has received contracts worth £35·2 million since January 1985. It does nobody any good to talk Scotland down.

Does the Minister recognise the importance to Scottish employment of the 80,000 jobs in the financial sector? If so, will he welcome the amendment to the Trustee Savings Bank Bill and ensure that the Government do not seek to reverse it at a later stage?

Of course, the financial sector is very important to the Scottish economy, as is the service sector as a whole. Two out of three Scots are now employed in the service industries. As for the amendment made last night in another place to the Trustee Savings Bank Bill, no doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the position.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed reduction in funding for the agricultural colleges in Scotland set out in the receent White Paper on public expenditure.

Representations have been received from a number of organisations and individuals expressing concern about the proposed reduction in funding.

Is this not arguably the Government's most short-sighted public expenditure cut so far? Is the Minister aware that more, not less, advice and research are needed in the present agricultural situation in Scotland? If the industry, and especially small farmers, can satisfy the Government that they cannot raise the £3·4 million cut by 1987, as proposed in the White Paper, will he reconsider the proposal so as to preserve this invaluable service?

I accept that the service is invaluable to the industry, but it is worth pointing out that in 1987–88, when the reductions in public funding are fully effective, about £34 million of public money will still be going to research and development and advisory services in Scotland. That is a very considerable sum.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in times of difficulty, when expenditure everywhere is under strain, farmers appreciate that every aspect of agricultural support must be examined, but that they expect continued support for upland and less favoured areas, where it is difficult to provide jobs, rather than for colleges?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of keeping control of public spending, because farmers are among the groups most directly affected by higher interest rates which may result directly from Governments allowing public expenditure to get out of control. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State is having talks with the Scottish National Farmers Union and the chairman of the Council of Scottish Agricultural Colleges and with college principals to ensure that the service provided is kept in as good a state as possible.

As the EEC has designated Scotland as having 87 per cent. less favoured areas for agricultural purposes, is not the Government's proposal totally backward and reactionary? Will the Minister explain why for 1987–88 the cuts in Scotland will be 41 per cent. compared with only 20 per cent. in England?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to get himself a better calculator. The percentage reduction for Scotland is 41·5 per cent. and the MAFF reduction for England is also 41·5 per cent., so he will have to take the chip off his shoulder about this matter.

Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm what the Minister of State said in a letter to me — that the grant for Auchincruive college in my constituency is to be reduced by £110,000 in the current year? How does he think that that can be achieved without redundancies? Will he also confirm that the Department has approved the setting up of an organisation, known as the Friends of Auchincruive, to try to raise money for the college through raffles and jumble sales? Is that how education is to be funded under the Tories?

As I recall, the figures given in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers showed that spending this year would be greater than in the last year of the Labour Government, so perhaps we are doing better than his right hon. and hon. Friends were doing in 1978–79. We believe that the industry should make some contribution to the services, and we look forward to seeing the extent of that contribution before the colleges work out what savings will have to be made.

Is the Minister aware that it is no surprise to the Opposition that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that education was not important? Is he further aware that his answer to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) showed the same abysmal ignorance as the Minister of State has shown about the difference between the position in Scotland and that in England? Has he still not realised that the advisory services in Scotland are closely linked with the educational function, which is not the case in England, and that a 41 per cent. cut in advisory services will thus have a direct impact on education? Is he proud of that?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the record of the exchanges in the past few minutes, he will realise that some of his remarks are quite wide of the truth. There is no reduction in the funding of the colleges' education function, although I concede that, due to the way in which their activities are integrated, there may be a marginal effect on the education facilities, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State will be considering that aspect with the principals of the colleges and others involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the impact of the reduction of agricultural capital grants.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State discussed this subject with representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland both on 10 January and at the union's annual general meeting on 8 March.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a cut in capital cuts for agriculture will have a worrying effect not only on farmers but on small contractors in many rural areas who do the fencing and drainage work? There will be an effect on the whole rural economy. If, because of a reduction in the number of applications for grant, the saving in the present financial year is more than was originally budgeted for, will the right hon. Gentleman review grant rates later in the financial year?

We review the matter frequently anyway. Agriculture receives a massive amount of Exchequer support. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the capital grants figures. Last year, help to agriculture in Scotland was augmented by the doubling of the suckler cow premium, the enhancement of hill livestock compensatory allowances in the Highland Board area and the extension of the less favoured areas. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about contractors being affected by changes in rates of grant, but the matter must be put in perspective. The amounts of grant are still very high in comparison with any other industry. For instance, there is a grant of 70 per cent. for field drainage in less favoured areas. That is a most generous rate of grant.

If my right hon. Friend meets the NFU in the near future, will he discuss the ridiculous suggestion that milk quotas should be transferred from Scotland to any other country within Great Britain? It is vital that every litre of milk quota allocated to Scotland should stay in Scotland. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that that will be so.

That matter is under consideration, and I shall of course discuss it with my colleagues.

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

Last year my Department issued a document inviting views on the present organisation and management structure of the Scottish ambulance service. The comments received are being considered, and the outcome will be announced later.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are great suspicions that the purpose of the consultative document is eventually to hand the service over to private cowboy profiteers, and that considerable pressure is being put on Conservative Back Benchers so that that aim can be achieved? Will he give a categorical assurance that that is not the Government's purpose and that the service will not be handed over to private commercial enterprises, as there is abundant evidence that it is an efficient public enterprise?

The document issued last August discussed whether alterations in the service might improve the service for patients and lead to a more economic and efficient use of resources, especially in the light of the growth of the use of day hospitals and the increasing demands on the ambulance service in running patients to and from day hospitals. Private contractors are already used to a limited extent in some areas for non-emergency routine transport,and there may be scope to extend their use. However, there is no intention at the back of my mind to privatise the whole ambulance service in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman's fertile imagination suggests.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in present circumstances the Scottish ambulace service is chronically under-funded? In my constituency, which has the fastest rate of growth of any part of Britain, new communities which have been asking for ambulance services for years have still not been allocated any. When a road accident occurs, there is sometimes a delay of over an hour before an ambulance arrives. Proposals to close rural maternity hospitals will further increase the strain on the ambulance service, as has the expansion of Aberdeen airport over the past few years. The extra strains have not been adequately supported or funded and there has been no adequate response to representations made.

The hon. Gentleman should check the facts. Current expenditure allocated for this financial year for the Scottish ambulance service is £24·8 million, compared with £11·3 million in 1978–79, when the Liberal party was keeping the Labour Government in power. We have expanded the ambulance service, which now employes more than 2,000 men and has over 800 vehicles. I accept that there is still some way to go in some aspects of the service, but a particular problem is the increasing number of patients who wish to be transported to day hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the most recent unemployment figures.

Although the total numbers unemployed in Scotland fell in March, the seasonally adjusted trend was less favourable. Scotland is expected to share in the 3·5 per cent. growth forecast for the United Kingdom economy this year, and it is our success in producing and selling which will result in more employment opportunities.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the latest figures from Strathclyde show that male unemployment in the Govan and Kinning Park area is now no less than 35 per cent.? Is he further aware that similar figures can be quoted for many other parts of Scotland? In those circumstances, it is quite offensive for the Secretary of State to describe a Budget which will do nothing for Scottish employment as tailor-made for Scotland. If he cannot promise us the major changes in economic policy that are required, can he at least tell us what he is doing about particular threats to jobs in Scotland, such as the 1,000 and more at the British Rail workshops in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and the jobs at the Rowntree Mackintosh factory at Edinburgh, which are to he transferred to England? What is he doing to save those jobs?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's great anxiety about local levels of unemployment in his constituency. That is why his area, which is in the centre of Glasgow, still has the highest priority in Scotland and the highest rates of regional assistance. The right hon. Gentleman will have been as delighted as I was at the Govan shipyard winning a £40 million order for a North sea passenger freight ferry, which will be the biggest passenger ship built on the Clyde for 12 years. The right hon. Gentleman has more reason than most to know how difficult it is to keep businesses competitive when the Government keep putting more impositions on it, such as the Labour Government's decision to impose the national insurance surcharge. Industry in Scotland benefits from the rate revaluation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for the unemployed in Scotland is for the climate for industry to become ever more competitive? Has that not been so under the present Government, and does my right hon. Friend agree that that is why there has been so much inward investment in Scotland in the past 12 months?

My hon. Friend is right. The flood of inward investment—"flood" is the word—in the past 18 months or two years shows clearly that the Government's easing of the burdens on industry is producing results. It is worth remembering how Scottish industry would be faring today if it had still to pay the national insurance surcharge — the tax on jobs — which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) and his party imposed when in office.

Is it not a disgrace that many miners have been dismissed, not because they are SS officers or friends of the royals, but because they wanted to defend jobs and living standards? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that Jack Kane, the former Lord Provost of Edinburgh, be given a further mandate so that the conciliation service in the industry can take effect? Will the right hon. Gentleman support that as a democratic right?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. Some of his constituents are probably worried. Employment with the National Coal Board is a matter for the NCB and its employees, according to the normal procedures. If someone feels that he has been treated unfairly, he should apply for an industrial tribunal to hear his case in the normal way.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the level of unemployment in Blairgowrie is now just below that of Dundee, and that whereas Dundee enjoys special status, Blairgowrie does not? We find that, with the recent revaluation, Perthshire and Angus are again required to sustain Dundee. We are looking for some sanity and fairness. Will my right hon. Friend speak to his colleagues about travel-to-work areas, as Pitlochry and Blairgowrie can never be described as travel-to-work areas?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's views. There are many places in the country where people would wish to see revisions of the travel-to-work areas. This is always looked at very sympathetically when new evidence is produced.

If the Secretary of State believes in the value of indigenous as well as inward investment, will he be more forthright than his hon. Friends in relation to the Trustee Savings Bank in Scotland, which possesses something like £2·5 billion of assets which, if properly deployed, would be advantageous to the Scottish economy? Will he support the view that the TSB should remain a Scottish institution, in the same way as the Scottish Office gave its support to the Royal Bank of Scotland?

As to the events which took place in another place yesterday, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to go further, except to say that the Government will consider the results of that decision. As to the TSB Bill, there has been close consultation with everyone concerned for at least two years, and at all points TSB Scotland has made it clear that it favours the arrangements at present in the Bill.

How much more Scottish unemployment will be caused by today's Government statement on privatising the naval dockyards? Is there no limit to this Government's doctrinaire privatisation programme? Can we eventually expect to see the British armed forces sold to Securicor?

The hon. Gentleman may think that is humourous, but he must have forgotten that the policy of the Labour party is to close down the Trident and Polaris programmes, which means that if there were again to be a Labour Government, which is extremely unlikely, there would be a jobs disaster at both Rosyth and Faslane. The Opposition must face that fact.

For the benefit of those who do not wish to hear, will my right hon. Friend again confirm that the best way to keep down unemployment in Scotland is to ensure the right climate in which industry can compete, by reducing the burdens of national insurance and taxation? Was not the recent Budget one of the best ways of helping to reduce unemployment in Scotland for a long time?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the Budget measures were specifically designed to encourage employers to take on new employees, particularly young ones. The extension of youth employment schemes will also be of great benefit to the unemployed. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that the measures that the Government have been taking over a considerable number of years have led to a great increase in confidence. As the latest CBI survey shows, it is expected that 370,000 new jobs will be created in the United Kingdom in 1985. There is no doubt that investment intentions and confidence throughout Scottish industry are now better than in the past.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with a view to securing employment in the Scottish brewing industry, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries has launched a bid for Matthew Brown pubs and breweries in the north-west of England? Is he aware that Scottish and Newcastle has refused point blank to give any undertakings on both the future of the rural pubs in Cumbria, where 100 are at risk, and on the jobs of those involved in the two breweries in Cumbria? In the light of my protest, will the right hon. Gentleman now go to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask that this matter be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? We do not want the bid to go through.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as he said, this is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Educational Institute for Scotland about salaries.

As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 13 March, the general secretary of the Educational Institute for Scotland was present when I met representatives of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education on 28 January and 15 February 1985. I have had no subsequent approach for a separate meeting, although I stand prepared at any time to discuss matters of mutual concern with the EIS.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by holding out for an independent inquiry, the teachers have provoked and prolonged this strike? Will he make one more effort to bring them together around the table under the proper negotiating procedures to conclude this issue in order to prevent further hindrance to education for our children and difficulty over examinations?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the EIS is now the only teaching union that is holding out against my suggestion that its real and deeply felt grievances should be considered properly by the joint negotiating committee. I also share my hon. Friend's hope that somehow the EIS may be persuaded to attend discussions to air those grievances. I have made it clear that I am only too willing to help.

Does the Secretary of State accept that in our view teachers have an overwhelming case for an independent review? Does he recognise that all the evidence of the last few weeks shows that the teachers are hardening in their determination to advance their just case? Does the Secretary of State further accept that we cannot continue in this way, as it is doing immense damage to our children's education? There is a responsibility on him to come forward with a major new initiative.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, which we all share, but he, as a reasonable person, must agree that during this protracted and unnecessary dispute I have continually made it clear that I do not deny the fact that teachers have grievances; nor do I refuse to discuss those grievances with them. One of their unions refuses to discuss the matter through the normal negotiating procedures. That is deplorable, especially as children's education is suffering.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the wide-ranging review within the framework of the SJNC remains on offer to the teachers, and that they have nothing to lose and probably a considerable amount to gain by accepting that offer?

I can confirm what my hon. Friend says. I have often made that offer, and I am reluctantly forced to the view that the EIS has rejected it. It is getting more difficult every day to find funds to put the matter right. I am still willing to do my best to help.

Is not the Secretary of State guilty of double standards? He chastises the teachers for not using what he describes as the normal conciliation machinery, yet his Government have refused to allow victimised miners to take advantage of the conciliation machinery which has been established in the mining industry since 1946. If the right hon. Gentleman is so vociferous in supporting normal conciliation machinery, why does he not come to the Dispatch Box and defend the victimised miners' right to practice conciliation and use their consultative machinery?

The miners' strike is a completely different subject, and the Government have not done what the hon. Gentleman suggests they did. The matter of dismissed miners is entirely between the Coal Board and its employees. To draw a parallel between the teachers' dispute and the miners' strike is not a happy approach to the problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we have often been asked during the dispute to consider the pay standards awarded by Clegg or Houghton, we should consider what the Conservative Government have given to teachers and the increase in teachers' salaries since we came to power in 1979?

My hon. Friend is right. As I have stressed in many letters to teachers, it is a myth that teachers' pay has fallen behind the cost of living since 1979—indeed, they have done rather better. It is worth drawing that to their attention, while still agreeing that they may feel that they are overworked. I am only too ready to discuss and to help to solve their problems.

May I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State, which may help him out of the difficulties which he has created for teachers, parents and pupils in Scotland? Does he support the Tory-controlled Lothian regional council in setting up its emergency teaching centres and paying teachers £50 a day to work there? If so, why does he not make the same offer as a basis on which to begin negotiations with the EIS?

I have not made such a specific offer as that. I have offered — this cannot be stressed too much — that if the teachers produce within their negotiating committee a package covering pay and conditions of service, I shall consider such a package sympathetically and try to find a way of helping to implement it. As for Lothian education committee, it is responsible for dealing with the education of children in its area, and if it has taken sensible measures to provide some education for children who are deprived of it because of the teachers' strike action, it has the right to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the level of action being taken to curb the trade in hard drugs in Scotland.

Strenuous efforts are being made with considerable success by the police and other agencies to curb traffic in illegal drugs. My right hon. Friend is continuing to give high priority to a range of measures to deal with the serious consequences of drug trafficking.

Although I appreciate the stance that the Government are taking on this matter, I must ask whether they fully realise the nature of the raging epidemic in the use of hard drugs. Is the Minister aware that prevention is the best part of cure, and that only two months ago a Bangladeshi jute liner came into Dundee and was left unattended by the customs service for 24 hours, because, as a result of Government cuts, no customs officers were available in Dundee to deal with it? Does he further realise that two loads of drugs were subsequently found aboard that jute liner? In those circumstances, will he increase the money available to enhance the customs services and the police so that we manage to stop the drugs coming into the country before they do the harm that they can do?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are in no way complacent about the drugs problem in Scotland. As he will know, the number of customs officers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announced last year that manpower in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise would be increased by 185 posts above the previous planning level. That includes 60 temporary posts, made permanent in 1984, to enhance general preventive controls, and 100 new posts specifically to combat drug smuggling in 1985–86. I understand that the Scottish position will be considered when the deployment of those extra 100 officers is decided.

In addition to all attempts to prevent the trade in hard drugs, will my hon. Friend give the widest publicity to the harm caused by soft drugs, which are not only extremely harmful in themselves but which usually lead to an escalation of abuse into the devastating area of hard drugs?

The Government believe that so-called soft drugs are harmful in themselves and often lead to the use of hard drugs. The Government will be taking the appropriate action to prevent those drugs, as well has hard drugs, from being used.

As prevention is better than cure in this area, is the Minister satisfied that there are adequate links among all police authorities in Scotland and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a word with the Prime Minister about giving the tackling of the drug problem a higher political priority than it has now, especially as the Prime Minister's social and economic policies tend to encourage this misuse?

To deal with the hon. Gentleman's last question first, I do not know on what basis he makes that assertion. He will remember that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when employment was high, there was an increase in drug misuse. In countries such as Holland and Switzerland, which have high employment, drug abuse is a serious problem. I accept that intelligence and coordination are important, and we work constantly to improve them. Indeed, six of the eight police forces in Scotland have specialist drug squads, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider sympathetically requests from police authorities for increased complements to deal with drug abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from Grampian regional council concerning the effects of regional policy on employment in the Grampian region.

None directly, although I am aware of representations that the council has made to the Department of Trade and Industry on this subject.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is some concern that jobs are being poached from Grampian region by other areas in Scotland which receive assistance. Can he confirm that the Scottish Development Agency office in Aberdeen, which has been accused of poaching these jobs, has done no such thing? Secondly, can he confirm that that office has been instrumental in attracting substantial amounts of investment and industry into the north-east of Scotland?

I can confirm that the SDA has denied allegations of poaching, and I pay tribute to its success in the north-east since opening the Aberdeen office. The agency has committed assistance to a variety of projects in the north-east, to the value of almost £8 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received about the Scottish teachers' dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Since October 1984 to 12 April some 4,000. As my right hon. Friend told the House earlier, a very reasonable way forward is through discussion within the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Teaching Staff in School Education. The teachers' employers, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the Professional Association of Teachers would all be prepared to begin discussions on that basis, but the Educational Institute of Scotland is proving a stumbling block.

Will the Minister withdraw his ill-informed, outrageous and downright provacative circular calling for striking teachers to be sacked? Instead of looking around for scapegoats, is it not high time that the Government accepted full responsibility for the crisis in Scottish education and agreed to the setting up of an independent review of teachers' salaries, which is a reasonable and legitimate demand supported by a majority of Scottish teachers, parents and Members of Parliament? There are a few notable exceptions, such as the Tory Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and his boss, the governor-general there, who is still sufferyng from the effects of educational deprivation at Winchester.

The hon. Member is a former member of the EIS—

I am still a fully paid up member.

Whether the hon. Gentleman is an advertisement for the Scottish teaching profession is for others to judge. I am not surprised that he is giving full support to the trade union which has taken the unprecedented action of the targeting of schools in the constituencies of Scottish Conservative Members, an action which no other trade union has yet taken. I should have thought that Labour Members should pay more attention to the position taken by other trade unions. Everybody involved in this dispute is prepared to negotiate, except the EIS.

Does my hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that the teaching unions are not prepared to participate in discussions about performance-related pay, as this would provide a possible way forward and could be helpful in negotiations? Is he suggesting that the unions look at this as a possible way out of the problem?

My hon. Friend is referring to the issues that have been raised in England. In Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has suggested a review of pay and conditions of service through the existing negotiating machinery. He has said that if an attractive package results he would be prepared to re-order his public expenditure priorities within the Scottish block. That offer has not been made to any other group of public sector employees.

Why does the Minister not recognise that the teachers, and the EIS in particular, might be prepared to consider the offer if the Secretary of State were to make it clear that he would guarantee any increase agreed by the negotiating machinery? Secondly, is he aware that the teachers do not trust the management side because they know that it consists of the Secretary of State and no one else, and therefore is not independent?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The management side of the SJNC consists in the main of representatives of the education authorities, with only a small minority of representatives of the Secretary of State. I believe that the offer made by my right hon. Friend is entirely fair and reasonable. It is regarded by the management as acceptable, as it has been for some time, and by two of the other unions. By continuing its action the EIS is doing harm to pupils and doing the teachers' case and prospects no good.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to the reform of the rating system; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had urging reform of the domestic rating system.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 14 March last about reform of the rating system. But I would add in response to my hon. Friend that the great majority of some 9,000 representations of various kinds which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received about rates and revaluation have also urged reform of the domestic rating system.

As I do not carry in my head the hon. Gentleman's reply in March, perhaps he will confirm that the Government have not ruled out further assistance in the short term to domestic ratepayers and the consideration even of selective assistance to commercial ratepayers. If they have not ruled out those possibilities, when will they make a statement about them, and will they make sure that the bill is picked up by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman knows that domestic rate relief has been increased from £14 million to £102 million and that £88 million more was put into domestic relief last year. He also knows that the adverse effect of revaluation on domestic ratepayers was some £90 million. Although, obviously, there are variations within any sector of revaluation, the effects of revaluation in the domestic sector have been largely met by the increase that has been made in domestic rate relief. I am concerned about the serious effects on some commercial enterprises. Again, there are others that have gained from the revaluation. There is at present no statutory machinery for helping those who have been affected adversely.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread desire in Scotland for a change in the rating system, which all reasonable people accept is an unfair system of raising local government revenue? Will he confirm that it is only the Conservative party that has the political will to change the rating system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. As he knows, the Conservative party has never been happy with the domestic rating system. Last October a review was set up at ministerial level to look at the system of financing local government. The purpose of the review is to see whether a fairer, simpler and more stable system of local government financing can be found which will strengthen the accountability of local authorities while maintaining a reasonable balance between the interests of central and local government. The review is covering alternatives to domestic rating. It is also concerned with businesses which at present pay rates but do not have a corresponding voice in local government elections. It is too early to predict the outcome of these considerations.

In respect of the commercial ratepayer, the Minister has managed to give the impression that the only factor stopping help for at least those hardest hit is the lack of any statutory machinery for doing so. May I assure him that, if he wishes to create that statutory machinery, the Opposition will give it every facility and will speed it through the House? Therefore, will he say whether he intends to move in that direction?

The hon. Gentleman is asking for confirmation of decisions which are not taken at this time of the year. As he knows, those decisions are taken at the appropriate time of the year. Obviously, we shall consider the position that the hon. Gentleman outlined in his question. We appreciate the fact that there are commercial enterprises which have been very hard hit by the revaluation. The House should not forget, however, that a large number of commercial enterprises have gained substantially as a result of the revaluation.

Can the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State give us his explanation of this paradox? According to Scottish Office figures, the average rates per household are somewhat lower in Scotland than in England. None the less, it is a perceived fact that rates in Scotland, property for property, and specifically in the west end of Glasgow, are much higher than comparable rates in England.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that ratepayers are not confined to the west end of Glasgow or, indeed, to constituencies such as mine. Council house tenants are ratepayers as well. Obviously, the preponderance of council houses in Scotland affects the figures. It would be surprising if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that we should not take council housing into account in compiling these figures.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people in the Strathclyde region were charged with serious offences in 1984; and how this figure compares with those of the previous five years.

Taking serious offences as those prosecuted under solemn procedure, 2,287 persons were prosecuted in this way in Strathclyde region in 1984. This compares with figures of 2,297 in 1983, 2,531 in 1982, 1,774 in 1981, 2,369 in 1980 and 1,711 in 1979. Industrial action by sheriff clerks' staff in 1979 and 1981 is likely to have affected the figures for those years and for 1980 and 1982.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the disquieting extent of serious crime in Strathclyde is such that it is highly irresponsible for Strathclyde regional council to refuse to bring up police numbers to establishment strength? Will my hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial colleagues use all their influence to persuade Strathclyde regional council to employ more policemen and get them back on the beat?

Nothing in the crime figures for Strathclyde that I have given wculd justify any decision to withhold officers from the police force in Strathclyde. Last year the chief constable of Strathclyde took a number of important initiatives in crime prevention, especially in the areas of worst deprivation. I should have thought that the regional authority would want to give every possible encouragement to those initiatives.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many times during the last 10 years his Department has requested or instructed a procurator fiscal to move to a new post.

During the past 10 years, four procurators fiscal, after discussion, were requested to relinquish their commissions granted under the provisions of the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927 and moved to other legal posts in the procurator fiscal service.

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the procurators fiscal are concerned about the pending legislation, which they see as something that will substantially erode their independence. Can he assure the House that when the legislation reaches the statute book it will not achieve that purpose?

It is intended by the proposal in the Bill to provide greater efficiency in the administration within the procurator fiscal service. Neither the Lord Advocate nor I have any oblique or sinister motive in introducing this change. We very much prize the independence that is enjoyed by procurators fiscal in Scotland. The last thing that we would want to do is to impinge in any way upon the integrity for which procurators fiscal are rightly renowned.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that neither he nor the Lord Advocate had any oblique or sinister intention with regard to the legislation before the House. As the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that the position of the procurators fiscal should be maintained, why is it necessary to make any change in the law? Is it not better to quieten all the doubts of the procurators fiscal by leaving matters as they stand?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in Scotland the procurator fiscal enjoys a position of considerable independence, in particular with regard to the police forces and the general public. However, for many years he has been answerable for his actions to the Lord Advocate. All that is sought to be achieved by the change is to make an improvement in the administration and organisation. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, for example, someone who is a fiscal in Stornaway will have far fewer responsibilities than a fiscal in Glasgow. We are seeking this additional power to enable there to be smooth administration.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in the last 12 months in relation to traffic offences by heavy lorries; and what are the comparative figures for the previous 12 months.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in the past 12 months for speeding offences by heavy lorries; and what are the comparative figures for the previous 12 months.

Statistics giving the number of prosecutions for traffic offences committed in respect of heavy lorries only are not kept.

Will the Solicitor-General explain why there was selective administration of law and order during the miners' strike? According to the information that he gave me, none of the cowboy coal convoys were convicted of speeding or dangerous driving, despite evidence submitted that those offences were taking place. Will he give an assurance that that will not happen in the future, in particular in relation to the Yuill and Dodds lorries, which got the South of Scotland Electricity Board contract by a dubious procedure, and which are careering—

Say that outside.

I will. They are careering across the roads of Strathclyde, breaking them up and breaking the law. What action will the Solicitor-General take about those cowboys?

The hon. Gentleman reveals what I have always suspected. He believes that the prosecution system should be used for political purposes. That is a principle which I completely reject. There are proceedings pending with regard to one of the lorries of the firm to which he referred. For the usual and obvious reasons, I make no further comment on that case.

How can the Solicitor-General claim that he represents the party of law and order when it is clear that during the whole of the miners' strike the lorry drivers of those companies operating in and out of Ravenscraig, on the roads in Lanarkshire—I witnessed this on several occasions—were clearly acting in the belief that they could do so outside the traffic law without expectation of prosecution? The Solicitor-General should come to the House and give us those figures. They should be available. It should not be impossible to obtain them. They would show that few of those drivers were prosecuted.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman shows that he wants to introduce a political element into prosecutions. He expects me to be able to identify those cases in which there is a political element. I cannot do that, and I would never seek to do that. I have made inquiries, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and a number of prosecutions are pending. In those circumstances, it is best for me to leave the matter until they have been heard before the court. If he says, as he has in the Chamber, that he has witnessed something, I wish that he would go and see the procurator fiscal and provide his evidence of those incidents.

I could not see the number plates. They were covered in mud.

The Solicitor-General is prevaricating dangerously for someone—[Interruption.] We are not asking for political prosecutions. We are—

Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that we are not asking for political prosecutions? On the contrary, he says that he cannot identify lorries which have been stopped, sometimes charged, but not prosecuted. It is there that the political non-prosecution is taking place. We have already had promises that those deliveries will stop. We are now told that they will continue. Yuill and Dodds will deliver 8,000 tonnes a week, despite the way in which the contract was made. Will he tell his right hon. Friend that the chairman of British Steel told me that no such contract would be made, and yet it has been made? The Government are guilty of political involvement —[Interruption.]— in relation to their legal behaviour and their industrial behaviour during the strike.

I have already answered a question about the independence of the procurators fiscal in Scotland. In essence, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that one or more of the procurators fiscal in Scotland have exercised a political judgment rather than a judgment of integrity in taking prosecution decisions. That is simply not the case.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Does it arise from the events of yesterday? If so, I am prepared to take it after the statement.

I am most grateful.