asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Football Association, and chief fire officers in Scotland, on the safety of football grounds in both senior and junior leagues; and what steps are being taken before the new football season commences in August.

I met representatives of the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Football League, the British Transport Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) on 1 July to review crowd control measures. Scottish fire brigades have at my request recently visited football grounds and other stadiums in their areas. Managements are being advised of any measures needed to improve fire safety in their grounds. The committee of inquiry into crowd safety and control at sports grounds will provide interim advice about crowd safety before the opening of the new season.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome the steps that the Scottish Office has taken towards improving crowd control and safety at football grounds. Can he say when the Popplewell report will be published? Can he also say whether there is the possibility of financial support being provided by the Football Trust to clubs which are not eligible for assistance from that source because they are not included on the football pools list? The smaller clubs are experiencing difficulty over their stands because of the ecommendations of the fire officers.

The interim report of the committee under Mr. Justic Popplewell's chairmanship has just been received by the Government, and we hope to publish it before the House rises for the summer recess. The non-league grounds to which my hon. Friend referred, such as Peterhead in his constituency, are covered by the fire masters' review. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the primary responsibility for the safety of individual facilities must lie with the operators of those grounds. However, the position of non-league clubs has been drawn to the attention of the Football Trust by the Scottish Sports Council.

Scotland can rightly take a great deal of credit for the steps that it has taken to improve its football grounds and to reduce alcohol abuse. However, does my hon. Friend accept that there are absolutely no grounds for complacency? Car he say what steps are being taken this summer, before the start of the football season next month, to improve grounds in the interests of sports safety?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend I do not believe that there is any complacency whatsoever in Scotland. There was no complacency at the meeting that I held on 1 July. I can assure my hon. Friend that the review of safety by the Football Grounds Improvement Trust includes all league grounds in Scotland; and safety is, of course, being considered by Mr. Justice Popplewell's committee.

I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State on winning the argument against Home Office Ministers in relation to clause 1 versus clause 10 of the Bill which is at present before another place. It would have been preposterous if the staff of British Rail had been held responsible for alcohol being carried on trains going to football matches. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that during his recent visit Mr. Justice Popplewell praised highly the safety standards at Scottish football grounds? May I also ask him not to single out football? The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will appreciate that attendances at many rugby matches in Scotland are far higher than attendances at football matches. It is important to consider safety at all sports grounds.

The hon. Gentleman raised the first part of his question on Second Reading of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Bill. Home Office Ministers have reached agreement with us on appropriate changes to clause 1.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when he next meets the Scottish Trades Union Congress he will discuss the implications for Government policy on employment in Scotland of the recent miners' strike.

I am always willing to discuss with the STUC the implications for Government policy of important events. The most damaging effects of the recent miners' strike have been on employment in the industry itself.

As Ian MacGregor represents man's inhumanity to man—not forgetting wives and bairns—will the Secretary of State intervene to ensure that victimised miners are returned to work? Or is the highly placed, highly salaried chairman of the NCB doing the dirty work for the Government? When I met Mr. MacGregor at Edinburgh airport on Thursday, he was not interested in fair play. Indeed, when I mentioned conciliation, he thought that that was a brand of rye whisky. Will the Secretary of State intervene and do something to resolve this almighty problem, which affects a large section of the community in Scotland?

Dismissed miners who have complaints can go to industrial tribunals. They have a perfectly good course under the normal law.

When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he emphasise to the congress that the steel industry in Scotland would be in a much safer position and that the BSC would be in profit if it had not been for the destructive effects of the coal strike? The example which the STUC set in wanting the steelworkers to come out was highly destructive for other jobs.

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the splendid efforts of the steelworkers in Scotland were made considerably more difficult by the efforts of the NUM, which tried and failed to close Ravenscraig.

rose—

Order. I appeal for brief supplementary questions.

Why is the NCB pursuing its policy of victimisation with such vengeance, particularly in Scotland? Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that innocent men and their families are being sacrificed and that this is a human rights issue. When will the right hon. Gentleman face up to that fact?

The truly innocent men, and their families, are the working miners who have been victimised shamefully. If striking miners have a case against them in law, they should come before the courts in the proper way. If they have complaints about their treatment by the NCB, they have recourse to an industrial tribunal, which is a perfectly fair process.

Will my right hon. Friend stress to the STUC that the disastrous consequences of the strike for the potentially profitable coal faces at Frances and Seafield collieries have resulted in a considerable loss of jobs and opportunities for the Fife economy? Does that not show that strikes rarely do anyone any good, and frequently do many people a great deal of harm?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those coal faces and jobs in Fife were lost by the deliberate actions of the NUM in calling a strike. I am extremely apprehensive that for many years to come there will be many effects from this disastrous strike.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on his answers? We have moved from the strike and are anxious that the union should be allowed to represent its members on an individual basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman lend his good offices to ensure, with the STUC and the NUM, that the NCB considers each of the more than 200 cases individually? Will he further lend his good offices to ensure that good industrial relations are reinstated in the Scottish coalfield, in the interests of the coalfield, of the Scottish economy and of re-establishing a good coal industry in Scotland?

The question of relations between the NCB and its employees is one which must be pursued with the NCB. If the unions wish to do so, they can represent members who appear before industrial tribunals. The NUM has caused the real damage. It would be much better if it put its weight behind recovery in the industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of an inefficient mining industry is unnecessarily high coal prices, and that that is potentially far more damaging to the many industries in Scotland which depend on energy? Does he further agree that if the NCB does not have the resources available to invest in uneconomic pits, they should be offered to private buyers? Will he say that when he next meets the STUC?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions. A few weeks ago I had a long discussion with the STUC about the effects of the miners' strike. My hon. Friend is right to point out that if coal prices are made higher by industrial action, that must reduce the potential market for coal and jobs arising from the mining of coal. That comes back to the point that the NUM's actions have done a great deal of damage to the Scottish coalfield.

Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to his meeting with the officials of the Polmaise colliery, Stirling district council and the central region, before the miners' strike started, about the potential closure of that colliery—the reason why the strike was started in the first place? Will he assure the House, as he did my constituents and local government colleagues, that he will do everything in his power to support that colliery and enable it to produce the coal that is so desperately needed in the central region? Will he assure us that the Scottish Office will back the colliery against Mr. MacGregor's wishes for closure?

The hon. Gentleman's reference to that meeting makes me feel extremely sad, as it took place shortly before the strike, and I offered to do all that I could to help. I shall always try to do anything that I can to help employment in Scotland, wherever it is. However, since then the same people whom I met and to whom I offered help were solidly on strike for almost a year and did immense damage both to their pit and to the entire industry. They cannot wipe the slate clean. The blame for the disastrous effects on the Scottish coal industry lies with Mr. Scargill and the entire NUM.

Can the Minister confirm that, as has been stated recently by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment, an individual review is being conducted by the board? If so, does he agree that the rules of natural justice should be observed and that the men concerned should have the right to a hearing and to representation? Without that, we shall never escape from the conclusion that any review is merely tokenism and a gesture to get the board out of a difficult position over a wide spectrum of Scottish opinion.

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the Secretary of State for Energy wrote me a letter, which was publicised, in which he said that he had made it clear that the National Coal Board would be examining the cases which had been in dispute, but that that did not alter the fact that the proper course is to go before the industrial tribunals. There is a right to representation before the tribunals and the men concerned have recourse to proper procedure in that way.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the report on the quinquennial review of the Teachers Superannuation Scheme (Scotland) has been received by him; and if he will give a date when it will be laid before Parliament.

My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report from the Government Actuary. I am not therefore in a position to say when it will be laid before Parliament.

You must be outraged by that answer, Mr. Speaker. The English counterpart for this period, which is 1976 to 1981, was dealt with in December 1983, and the Scottish Office is dragging almost four years behind. I ask for an assurance that no sort of Machiavellian trick will feature in the negotiations over teachers' conditions. It is a disgrace that teachers' working conditions and pensions have not been reported on and that the current information is four years out of date. Will the Minister give an assurance that if the employers have to increase their contributions, the Scottish Office will back the additional contributions with increased budgets?

The hon. Gentleman will know from his obviously deep knowledge of the subject that the production of the report is a matter for the independent Government Actuary. It is not a matter over which we in the Scottish Office have direct control. However, I expect to receive the report shortly.

As a teacher's superannuation is dependent on his final year's salary, will the Minister give an assurance that he will begin a new initiative to try to resolve the present industrial dispute within Scottish schools following the decisions reached at the recent annual conference of the Educational Institute of Scotland at Inverness?

Negotiations on teachers' pay do not fall within my responsibility when they involve superannuation matters. Such matters are for my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, my right hon. Friend is prepared to meet the teachers and the management side at any time to discuss the way forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish National Farmers Union to discuss the impact of cuts in the agricultural research and advisory services on farms in the less favoured areas.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union on 22 March 1985, when the future funding of agricultural research and development and of the advisory services was discussed. He has arranged to discuss this subject, among others, when he meets the president of the union next week.

I am surprised that it is so long since the Government met the union, in view of the great concern among farmers in Scotland about the Government's policy. Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues met senior representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union this week, when they expressed deep concern about Government policy on cutting advisory services and capital grants? Nearly 90 per cent. of Scotland's farmers are in less favoured areas, and they require the Secretary of State and his Ministers to stand up and fight for them. There are problems which are peculiar to Scotland, and so far the Government's policy is causing loss of morale and deep despair. Many farmers will be forced out of business and off the hill, and that will undermine rural communities.

My right hon. and hon. Friends meet the Scottish National Farmers Union at the times that I have stated, and they will meet representatives next week. when they will discuss these matters yet again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the SNFU briefly at Ingliston, where these matters were discussed. It is worth reporting to the House, before we believe all the histrionics of the hon. Gentleman, that, even after the expenditure reductions are made, almost £29 million will be spent every year on research and development and advisory services in Scotland.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the need for a comprehensive research and advisory service for Scottish agriculture in the difficult years of change that lie ahead? How can such a comprehensive research and advisory service be established if in the coming 18 months the Government go ahead with a 41 per cent. cut in the budget for this work?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that I said that, even after the reductions in expenditure, about £29 million will be spent on research and development in 1987–88. That is a considerable sum of public money which is still being spent on research and development.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cutback may be a good measure, as imports of agricultural machinery increased by 112 per cent. during that period?

My hon. Friend is correct to point to what has happened during the past few years. The claims of Opposition parties about the effect of research and development are exaggerated. Research is conducted in many more places than just the Government research institutes. The industry conducts research into a number of matters.

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that his reply is causing concern to some of us. I had an Adjournment debate on this subject, because this matter affects my constituents on the Bush estate, Penicuik area. The Monister's colleague, Lord Gray, has written to me saying that the whole matter will be considered in relation to the submissions. Overwhelming Scottish opinion is that the Government's policy is wrong. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Department has reconsidered this matter since Lord Gray wrote to me?

A consultation paper on future strategy for research and development was issued on 30 May. Consideration is being given to the comments that were received. I think that I explained the position to the hon. Gentleman in his Adjournment debate. That is still the position.

I accept that £29 million will be available in 1986–87, but is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern that has been expressed by universities, colleges and farmers in the less favoured areas? Will my hon. Friend continue with the consultation to which he referred in a written parliamentary answer to ensure that that cut is not implemented until there is a satisfactory solution to the problem?

We shall take account of all the observations made to us as a result of the research and development consultative paper. A similar paper on the advisory service will be published shortly. We shall take account of all those matters. I am sure that the colleges, in their observations, will be mindful of the importance of the advisory services keeping a high profile in the less favoured areas.

Why did the hon. Gentleman tamely pass on to the Scottish advisory services the cuts that had first been produced in England? Does he realise that a high proportion of the farms in ill favoured areas will not be able to afford the fees for the advice that they need to cope with the changes that will be imposed through the common agricultural policy?

The reductions in expenditure were not passed on from England. They were part and parcel of the negotiations with the Treasury on the total amount of spending on agriculture in England, Wales and Scotland. Even after these reductions are made, £29 million will still be spent on research and development. A total of £34 million will still be spent on research and development and the advisory services.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that £29 million is 41 per cent. less than the amount being spent at present? Has he and, more importantly, his noble Friend come to understand that the link in Scotland between research and development and the advisory services is much greater than that which prevails in England and Wales? Is he aware that the cuts in Scotland will do irreparable damage to agriculture? The Minister should withdraw these proposals.

I cannot believe that a continuing total expenditure of £34 million for 1987–88 represents irreparable damage. We shall be considering how to make those reductions after discussions with the colleges and research institutes, after taking the advice of the Priorities Board on priorities for research and development and after listening to the observations of the National Farmers Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current situation within Scottish agriculture.

Last year good weather conditions and improved efficiency contributed towards the significant recovery in Scottish farm incomes.

Is the Minister aware that the new capital grants scheme which has just been announced by the Government has already been described by the president of the National Farmers Union in Scotland as a further attack on United Kingdom farm competitiveness? As some of the more marginal smaller farmers in Ross-shire are going to the wall, will he explain why the cuts which have been announced in the new scheme go far beyond what was anticipated or expected by Europe?

The new scheme, which gives grant rates of 30 per cent. for the less favoured areas and 15 per cent. for other areas, provides meaningful levels of assistance which will allow adequate investment in farming.

My hon. Friend will be aware that barley is important to Scottish agriculture. He will also realise that it is an essential ingredient in the manufacture of Scotch. When distilleries close, that affects the market for barley. Is my hon. Friend aware that Arthur Bell and Sons is the only company in Scotland which has been opening distilleries? Will he advise Mr. Ernest Saunders of Guinness that hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in the current problem, which is of importance to us all?

My hon. Friend has rather ingeniously introduced matters that are rather far from agriculture. I shall leave the matter at my boundary of responsibility by confirming that barley makes splendid whisky.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to the West Lothian district council evidence to the Cooper committee on Polkemmet, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

My right hon. Friend does not propose to comment on this document. The closure of collieries is a management matter for the NCB in which it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.

Do Ministers dispute the West Lothian figures?

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy told the hon. Gentleman on Monday, he will be responding to the council's statement and the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Surely the Minister recognises that it is unsatisfactory to say that he will not respond. It sounds almost as if he is saying that he has no interest in the matter. It is an area which has already been traumatised by the British Leyland closure at Bathgate, where unemployment is appallingly high, where Polkemmet is an important source of jobs, and which is interrelated with the whole Ravenscraig issue. Does he not recognise that the Government have a duty to take an interest and to make it clear that they will help an area which is determined to help itself, as the Cooper report underlines?

I can only repeat what I have told the House, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy will be responding to the point about that document. I shall underline the Government's commitment to the Bathgate area. Good progress has been made on the Bathgate working party's various recommendations. For example, I am pleased to note that agreement has been reached on the financing of the restoration work on the Bathgate-Edinburgh rail link, which will commence shortly with a view to the line re-opening in about May 1986. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the range of other measures that have resulted from the joint working party on Bathgate.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given to imposing a trout protection order on the Tay system under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

My right hon. Friend has before him the formal proposals for a protection order, the objections and representations resulting from the advertisement of the proposals, and the views of the consultative committee on freshwater fisheries, which met recently.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the widespread concern felt about trout stock levels in the Tay, and also more generally about salmon and freshwater fish stock levels?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking this order, as we do all others, seriously. As he correctly points out, there will be a danger to the future of brown trout fishing if the current rise in various unsavoury fishing practices using set lines and the like continue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that bringing in an order in one area merely puts pressure on other areas throughout Scotland? We must be careful to ensure that we do not slowly shut off some places as a result of the dreadful pressure on areas such as the south-west of Scotland.

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. We have some experience of it in my constituency. But, simply because of the drawback, we should not decline to implement the Labour Government's Act and put protection orders on those parts of the country which come forward with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to attract new industries to Springburn in view of the British Rail Engineering Ltd., redundancy announcements.

A contract was recently placed for a privately funded 130,000 sq ft business park at Port Dundas, which is expected to accommodate 300 jobs. In addition, the SDA and BREL have jointly funded a study into alternative employment opportunities in Springburn.

When the Secretary of State last spoke to this House about Springburn, he said that a study would be before the House soon. Exactly when will we get the results of the study? He knows full well that it will take more than an industrial park at Port Dundas to resolve the problems of Springburn.

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern that the study is urgently needed. I understand that the agency has received a draft report and expects the final version any time now. It will then move to assess the recommendations as quickly as possible.

As I also have constituents in Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch who will be affected by the proposed redundancies at BREL, will my right hon. Friend make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the establishment of an enterprise zone at Springburn?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. He may be aware that a great deal of good news has been apparent in Glasgow in recent months. Glasgow-based companies have been winning contracts or committing investment at the rate of a staggering £33 million a month. Many of the projects are designed to refurbish the city—a £5 million contract for the business park at Port Dundas, a new £2·5 million meat market, £7 million to refurbish Gartnavel hospital, a multi-channel cable system costing £15 million, new investment at Glasgow airport, a new commercial centre for Bridgeton. and a £10 million extension to a city centre hotel

In view of the despairingly high level of unemployment in the north of the city—and particularly of a long-term nature—will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will take a personal interest in trying to generate more employment in the north of the city?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be taking a very close interest. It is for BREL to decide on its operations. As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, there has been a great deal of help for Glasgow recently. In the past six years there has been over £735 million of new investment, and 33,000 new and safeguarded jobs in the Glasgow travel-to-work area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech delivered at the Royal Highland Show on 17 June.

No speech was delivered, but my right hon. Friend answered some questions asked by representatives of the press.

When, in those summarised remarks, the Secretary of State accepted that the Government still intended to support the farming industry, he was greeted with total incredulity. Does the Minister realise that, since the announcement of the capital grant cuts of a week ago, with reductions from 70 to 30 per cent. in the less favoured areas, in grants available for re-seeding, fencing and drainage, the Government will be regarded as completely opposed to the interests of farming in 87 per cent. of the areas covered?

I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's point about 30 and 15 per cent. still being fairly high levels of grant, which we believe will keep up agricultural investment. On the livestock compensatory allowances the Government spent £37·9 million; on the beef premium scheme we spent £22·4 million; on the Buckler cow premium scheme £9·4 million; and on the sheep variable premium scheme £23·9 million. I suggest that the hon. Member takes a more balanced view.

Had my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State been able to make a speech at the Royal Highland Show, would he have taken the opportunity to respond to the remarks by the chairman of the Countryside Commission, who has expressed considerable concern that tax avoidance schemes are resulting in the development of large-scale commercial forestry operations in Scotland? These are threatening fishing and tourist interests, and are resulting in inflated land values which threaten the future of hill farming. As he did not have an opportunity to make such a speech, will he undertake to investigate this matter?

I shall not attempt to say what my right hon. Friend would have said if he had made a speech. Forestry has an important role to play in the countryside. I accept that forests must be planted in such a way as to be compatible with the interests of agriculture and with the environment in general. For the long term benefit of the country and for employment, the forestry industry has an important role to play.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many designated places under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 have been established; whether any current applications are being considered; and if he will make a statement.

One, at Albyn House, Aberdeen. Applications for grant are currently being considered for designated places in Dundee, Paisley and Peterhead.

Where does the Minister place most of the blame for the delay and poor response to an idea that has been accepted by everyone in the field as being urgent, necessary and useful?

I shall resist the temptation to place blame. As the hon. Member knows, I have encouraged the concept of these places. The Government's powers are restricted to helping voluntary organisations, and local authorities are expected to play their part in assisting schemes of direct local benefit. I hope that some of the schemes which are currently coming to us will prove to be ones we can support, and which local authorities can also play their part in supporting.

Designated places, while most welcome, tackle only a small area of alcohol abuse— public drunkenness. When will the Government consider giving a part of the massive revenues which accrue from the sale of alcohol to educational programmes, particularly those for the young?

It is important that we convince people that drinking sensibly and in moderation is perfectly satisfactory, and that alcohol abuse can be dangerous. The Scottish health education group carries out advertising campaigns and distributes packs of various kinds to help on the issue. We also encourage schools, as part and parcel of their general health education scheme, to draw attention to that programme.

My hon. Friend mentioned Peterhead. He will be aware that there is an application from Whitehill House in Peterhead which is run by a voluntary organisation. The application was made in May this year. When is my hon. Friend likely to come to a decision on that application? I hope that the answer will be favourable.

We are looking carefully at the applications from Peterhead, Dundee and Paisley. I cannot say when I shall reach a conclusion. We shall try to do it as quickly as possible.

The Minister said that he had three proposals before him. How many applications have there been in total from voluntary bodies and local authorities for detoxification centres? Will the Minister have another look at the three-year funding arrangements?

I cannot answer in detail the first part of the hon. Member's question. I have no evidence that the funding arrangements are stopping the programmes from coming forward. If there were evidence that that was the case I would look at that as I have looked recently at joint funding between health boards and local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received about the operation of the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985.

I have received a small number of representations on various points. Many of these points were the subject of debates in both Houses of Parliament before the passage of the Act last month. The others, relating more to the detail of the rebate scheme, have all been the subject of discussion with officials of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, rating authorities and assessors.

What has happened to the £20 million shortfall of the £50 million promised at Perth to hard-pressed ratepayers? Will the Minister reconsider the matter in the light of the statement by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who said publicly that he is in favour, as we are, of the entire £50 million being used? Has the Minister received any representations to that effect from the Solicitor-General?

First, there is no £20 million shortfall. The scheme was always designed to be demand-led—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may mock that, but I remember that about three months ago they were talking about figures considerably below £30 million, which is unprecedented and generous support at this time. I have discussed the matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He is content with the scheme that we shall debate tonight, and he assures me that he will join us in the Lobby.

As my hon. Friend is in the almost unique position of having been promised more money by the Treasury than he needs, will he use that example to ensure that the Treasury agrees forthwith with the Secretary of State and abolishes the distinction between guidelines and assessed needs, so that the inequity suffered by those who are above the guidelines but below the assessed needs can also be abolished forthwith?

My hon. and learned Friend has raised this matter previously. He will be aware from statements by me and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this matter is being seriously considered by the Government.

Do the Government still intend to replace the rating system during this Parliament?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are reviewing the system of local government finance. We have made it clear that we hope to introduce proposals at about the year end. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the consideration that leads to those proposals.

Is my hon. Friend aware that several large companies, including Roche and Shell in my area, will receive no rebate under this order? Will he ensure that their appeals are heard reasonably soon, because they face large rate increases this year?

I appreciate the need for appeals to be heard as swiftly as possible. Obviously, that is in the interests not only of the appellants but of the assessors, and I shall try to keep an eye on the matter.

Does the Minister stand by the statement of the Secretary of State that a manifesto pledge on rating reform will not be good enough for Scottish Conservatives at the next election? Does the Minister accept that he cannot shrug off the £20 million as though it was small change? Is it not a scandal that the Secretary of State should parade the £50 million that he extracted from the Treasury as a battle honour at the Conservative party conference, and then simply not deliver? What does the Minister mean by the phrase "demand-led"? Is he trying to say that there is no demand from Scotland's hard-pressed ratepayers for the additional £20 million which they were promised, but out of which they are now being cheated?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because we have debated the matter several times, that the Government had to decide on a multiplier beyond which the effects of revaluation would be unfair on those who had to bear them. We decided to have a multiplier of three, which was below the overall effect of the Labour Government's revaluation, when no help was given to ratepayers. It is a fair figure. When I say that the system is demand-led, I mean that the amount spent under the scheme depends on the number of those eligible under that multiplier.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about current economic prospects in Scotland.

Last month the Scottish CBI reported optimism in manufacturing continuing to grow with orders and output showing strong positive trends, investment in plant and machinery showing an upturn, and employment trends strengthening.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply and I welcome the action that the Government have taken to stimulate the creation of new jobs in Scotland. Does he agree, however, that uncertainty over the future of Ravenscraig is casting a long shadow over economic and employment prospects in Scotland? While I accept that the BSC corporate plan is not yet available, will he reassure me and the House that he and his ministerial colleagues will fight like tigers for steel jobs in Scotland?

I appreciate that there is widespread concern about the future of Ravenscraig and, when the BSC has submitted its corporate plan, I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers will have to consider it very carefully. At present, however, there are many other good developments in the Scottish economy, including a record level of investment in new projects, which I expect to continue.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, contrary to some suggestions in the press and elsewhere, there is widespread concern in Scotland at the Guinness takeover bid for the highly successful Scottish company of Arthur Bell and Sons, and that some of the statements by Guinness are not only unpersuasive but positively misleading? Will he put his weight behind the pressure for a reference of this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a strictly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I of course remain extremely interested in the subject, and I have personally seen representatives of both companies.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will give details of the instructions which his Department has given to procurators fiscal in connection with the prosecution of individuals charged with acts of terrorism.

No, Sir.

I realise that my hon. and learned Friend cannot make a statement on specific cases, but does he agree that, had it not been for the powers which the police in Strathclyde had under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the explosives which were discovered there recently would never have been found?

Clearly, I cannot comment on any individual case. However, I think that my hon. Friend's more general proposition is correct. We have a very real problem with terrorism, and the powers which are now given under the Act to allow for detention for a longer period seem in many circumstances to be more than justified.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that not so long ago an hon. Member was detained and roughed up by the Glasgow police—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I refer of course to myself. Will the Solicitor-General ensure that this does not happen again to other Members of Parliament or to trade unionists, because repeatedly the Prevention of Terrorism Act is used against trade unionists?

I certainly was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had ever been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. However, if he has a complaint to make against the police he should, as a responsible Member of Parliament, make that complaint properly so that it can be investigated, so that such allegations do not remain unsubstantiated and, if necessary, can be properly tested in the courts.

Will the Solicitor-General resist any temptations from the extreme Right or the extreme Left to put political pressure on the procurators fiscal?

I am wholly at one with the hon. Gentleman in believing that the system of procurators fiscal in Scotland is a fine feature of our legal system. They stand independent and objective in the prosecution of crime in Scotland. Both my noble and learned Friend and I would be very anxious to ensure that that status is always maintained.

Will my hon. and learned Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and urge them to urge on the Metropolitan police the discretion of the Strathclyde police? The apparent desire of the Metropolitan police to advertise their genius in London did a great deal to undermine the magnificent work of the Strathclyde police force, which would probably have resulted in more arrests and more fines in the matter which it had under review.

I take the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes, but I cannot comment on the individual case. He will be aware that where people are awaiting trial, given the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, it would be extremely ill-advised for anyone—police officer, Minister or anyone else—to comment on such cases lest, in one way or another, that might prejudice the right to a fair trial.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland against how many people proceedings have been instituted for rape and related offences in the last three months.

Proceedings were taken against 76 people in April, May and June.

During the course of a recent rape trial in the High Court at Paisley. the names and addresses of the the two accused were published in the Greenock Telegraph. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in the interests of fairness, the names and addresses of the accused in rape trials should not be permitted to be published unless or until they are found guilty?

I have seen the press reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I see no breach of the law in the way in which publication was made in the journal concerned. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that during our proceedings on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, we considered that very matter in Committee. A new clause was moved to deal with it but, after consideration, it was withdrawn. Provision is made for the anonymity of complainers, but in Scotland, if the accused are adults, the giving of names and addresses is permitted.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what are the most recent conveniently available statistics he has for prosecutions during the miners' dispute.

In all. 1,012 people have been prosecuted for incidents arising out of the miners' dispute; 721 of those have been convicted; while 227 have been acquitted. There are still 64 cases pending.

What is the Minister's attitude towards the forthcoming Ealing meeting between Mr. McGahey and Mr. Loudon on this subject.

As Solicitor-General for Scotland, I have no opinion on that matter. As I have said repeatedly in answers to questions on the subject, it is a matter of prosecutions before the criminal courts. Issues of industrial dispute and questions of unfair dismissal are to be resolved either as a matter of negotiation or before the tribunals that are established to determine whether there has been an unfair dismissal. It is not for me to comment on that.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, among those acquitted, there have been reported instances of people who have also been dismissed? Will he, with his legal background and training, explain to the Secretary of State for Energy the distinction between unfair dismissal cases, which can lead to compensation but not necessarily to reinstatement, and the conciliation procedure, which can lead to people who have been unfairly dismissed being reinstated in their jobs?

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is wrong to assume that either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Energy fails to understand the issues. My right hon. Friends and I have said repeatedly that it is a matter for the National Coal Board to determine. If it has it wrong, there are tribunals that deal with matters of unfair dismissal, where remedies of one sort or another are available to those who complain.

In view of persistent rumours that there has been harassment of miners who worked during the strike and their families, will my hon. and learned Friend say whether there have been any prosecutions of that nature since the dispute?

It is obviously difficult for me to identify that or to give any statistical information. However, on an anecdotal basis, I am aware that cases have come before the courts involving assaults and breach of the peace in which those who were involved have been working miners or those who have been on strike. How directly those come out of the miners' strike is an issue on which I cannot give a concluded view.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the NCB has written to chief constables asking that the NCB be allowed to precognosce police officers before they attend industrial tribunals? Apart from any question concerning the legality of that, does the hon. and learned Gentleman not think that it would be a waste of time as well as interference?

No. Generally, in Scotland, if people are to be required as witnesses before courts or tribunals, it would seem good sense that before they come into the court or the tribunal to give evidence, some sign as to what their evidence is likely to be should be given. If people are seeking to precognosce policemen, that would seem a sensible step.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that I have written to him about a specific case that is illustrative of the issue generally, the case of Mr. Allan Collins. Sheriff Reid in Dunfermline has shown his concern that the miner involved in that case should not suffer the double jeopardy of being fined by the court and being dismissed by the Coal Board. Whatever else may be at issue, the Solicitor-General has some responsibility for saying clearly to the House and the country that, in the interests of justice, miners who have expunged their responsibilities to society should not suffer the severe penalty of being dismissed by the Coal Board.

The hon. Gentleman used the term double jeopardy, which I might use in a rather more technical sense. I am aware of the case, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that, following the concern that the sheriff has shown, steps were taken to have that case adjourned and brought before him at a later stage. I understand that that later stage has not yet occurred. Once again, I have to say that in those circumstances it would be wholly inappropriate for me in any way to express a view on it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Does it arise out of questions?

It arises directly out of questions, Mr. Speaker, and you will probably know the point that I am about to raise.

In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I agree that we did not make good progress. I interrupted on two occasions, and many times from a sedentary position, as both questions and answers were very long.