asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish police forces are currently under establishment strength; and if he will make a statement.

With the exception of Strathclyde police, all Scottish police forces are currently operating close to their authorised establishment levels. Allowing for officers on secondment to central service, Strathclyde is some 180 officers below establishment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is a matter of serious concern that Strathclyde regional council has persistently refused to bring its police force up to establishment strength? Is my hon. Friend aware that that is causing operational problems for the police? Will he and his ministerial colleagues tell the regional council to do everything it can to bring the police force up to establishment strength as quickly as possible?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. The Government continue to give the highest priority to law and order in their expenditure plans. We are ready to pay our share of the cost of a fully manned force in Strathclyde. It is up to the regional council to show the same determination.

Was undermanning the cause of the death of Gary McGregor, a young constituent, who was knocked down and killed by a speeding police car? If I provide the details to the hon. Gentleman, will he investigate the matter?

If the hon. Gentleman provides me with the details, I shall certainly look into the case.

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the police forces in Scotland for their outstanding work" Will he encourage all local authorities to do everything they can to keep their police forces up to strength and to provide them with adequate equipment?

I am happy to respond to my hon Friend's invitation to pay tribute to policemen throughout Britain. They do a splendid job, and it is essential that they have the best and most modern equipment available in their fight against crime.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the establishment figures are probably too low? Some regional forces in widespread rural areas, such as the Highlands, are terribly stretched in trying to provide proper cover.

I recall the problems of the northern constabulary. I would not like to say that they were caused by establishment figures being too low. These figures are arrived at with the clear aim of meeting the operational needs of the police forces of the various authorities.

Is the Minister aware that the great surge in recruitment came as a result of the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies commission, which was set up by the Labour Government? Does he agree that the underestablishment at Strathclyde is out of a force of more than 6,000 officers? The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said that underestablishment was causing operational difficulties. Has the chief constable of Strathclyde approached the Minister or the Secretary of State and expressed anxiety about operational difficulties because of an underestablishment of 100 officers out of a force of more than 6,000?

It is 180 officers out of a force of more than 6,000. The chief constable has not approached me directly and officially about that, but I know from my predecessors that the previous chief constable was worried. We must all share his concern. It is obviously best if the police force is up to its establishment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will receive a delegation from the work force at British Rail Engineering Limited, Springburn, to discuss compulsory redundancies at the workshops; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, is to meet the hon. Member shortly on this subject. Accordingly, no additional meeting is felt to be necessary.

Is the Minister aware that this is the first time in the history of BREL that there have been compulsory redundancies? He knows that Springburn is the only remaining railway workshop in Scotland. Although I shall be meeting the Minister of State, Department of Transport, it is important that the Scottish Office gets involved in this serious problem. The Government claim that they want a return to an industrialised society and to increase industry in Scotland. We must therefore have an efficient railway system. Will the Minister meet the delegation?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the future of the works is a matter for the commercial judgment of the British Railways Board and BREL. It is for the board to take account of the need to provide adequate repair and maintenance capacity to meet current and future needs.

If the Dornoch firth railway bridge project went ahead, might it not provide further job opportunities for the BREL work force at Springburn?

That is still a matter for the British Railways Board to consider. The board and BREL are considering future as well as present requirements and will take account of that when making a decision.

Does the Minister agree that the Springburn works have a long record of excellence in the railway industry and that the threatened loss of 1,100 jobs in an area of high unemployment is something about which the Scottish Office must be deeply worried, especially as a new crisis has blown up with the recently announced reorganisation of rail workshops which relegates Glasgow to maintenance—very much the second league? Will he use his influence and have positive discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Transport and with the British Railways Board, because our fear is that, once again, the Scottish Office will end up being nothing more than a spectator at the funeral?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recently announced reorganisation. British Rail has made it clear that more work is needed to determine the effect of its proposals on the work load. At this stage, the board has decided only its general principles. The level of staffing required at Springburn to enable it to fulfil its new role will be a matter for the board to determine in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish Her Majesty's Government's proposals for reform of local government finance.

I did so yesterday.

I am deeply touched by the Government's response to this question, which I tabled a fortnight ago. Concerning commercial and non-domestic rates, I understand that there will be an interim transitional period and that there will be a revaluation. When the day dawns that a national business rate is set, what system of litigation will there be for regions such as mine which are traditionally low-rated? Any level of national rate must militate against the south-east of Scotland and the borders and lead to further closures of small businesses there.

Any question of a national rate is a good number of years ahead. We have proposed that, in the first years of the new system, there should be an effective freeze on the level of existing non-domestic rates, any increase being accorded to some national index, such as the cost of living or the rate of inflation. I do not have the slightest doubt that that will be a significant improvement for small businesses, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Order. There is to be a statement on this matter, but we shall have a short run on it.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that English ratepayers are looking with envy at the speed with which he and his hon. Friends are proceeding with the excellent reform of local government finance? We hope that England will follow the initiative taking place north of the border at the earliest possible date.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

When the Secretary of State came round to the idea of a penal poll tax on the domestic sector in Scotland, was it because he had forgotten about the two Green Papers published by previous Conservative Governments which rejected the idea? Was he simply so busy with foreign affairs in recent years that he forgot the history of England? The poll tax of 1380 led to the peasants' revolt.

If the hon. Gentleman has read the Green Paper, he must realise that such a selective reference is misleading, because the Green Paper states that the proposal of the kind that the Government have put forward will

"strengthen the accountability of authorities to their electorates"

"would have a very broad base and would be suitable for all tiers of local government."

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) were truly worried about small businesses in his constituency he would drop his party's absurd view that we should have a local income tax? That would have the effect of small businesses having to find an extra 11p in the pound under the PAYE and almost certainly mean their sacking staff and going out of business.

My hon Friend is quite right. The standard rate of local income tax would be increased by between 2p and 11p in the pound. The least prosperous areas would attract the higher increase in the standard rate of income tax. If the Liberal party believes in that policy, it will take some time to convince the people of Scotland of its desirability.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish representative of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to discuss the future of Gartcosh and Ravenscraig and the implications for the Scottish economy.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, including its Scottish representative, on 20 January. He also met representatives of the STUC, including the assistant general secretary of the ISTC, on 23 January. There are no plans for a further meeting.

Does the Minister accept that that was more than the Prime Minister did when the men marched more than 500 miles to state their case? Will he join me in paying tribute to the dignity and commitment of the workers of Gartcosh, especially in recent weeks? Will he respond to their demand that the plant should be retained on a care and maintenance basis and not canabalised, in view of the promised upturn in our country's economic fortunes?

Hon. Members on boh sides of the House have the highest respect for the Scottish steelworkers. The Prime Minister was unable to see the marchers at the time that they had requested. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry wrote to the marchers explaining the position. He offered a meeting either with himself or with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are discussing a matter as important as Gartcosh, is it not a contempt of the House for Conservative Members to be lying down? Will you remind—

Order. I call Mr. Fletcher.

Will my hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to make it clear to the British Steel Corporation that, while he has accepted its advice that the closure of Gartcosh will not prejudice the future of Ravenscraig, he will not accept similar advice from the BSC if it proposes to close any other significant steelworks in Scotland?

The Government have consistently made it clear that any question about Ravenscraig is a strategic matter involving the Government. I have no reason to doubt that there is no question mark over the future of Dalzell.

Has the Minister's new boss yet told him whether he, like his predecessor, is willing to threaten to resign if there is any possibility of the Government and the British Steel Corporation closing Ravenscraig?

What has become important about the long debate over the Scottish steel industry in recent months is the clear implication and unambiguous statement from the British Steel Corporation that it does not believe that the closure of Gartcosh in any way affects the viability or will determine the future of Ravenscraig. The Government's commitment to Ravenscraig is clear.

When my hon. Friend next meets ISTC representatives, will he draw their attention to the fact that if more of them bought British cars that would more effectively ensure the survival of Ravenscraig, and that if more of them supported the Trident programme that would also affect the BSC?

My hon. Friend's points, especially in relation to Trident, are well made.

Will the Minister advise his new colleague, the Secretary of State, not to rush into a decision about the moth-balling or maintenance in working order of Gartcosh until he has had time properly to examine the evidence? He did not have time to examine the evidence before taking a decision on Gartcosh, but its maintenence in working order is a different matter.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend fully briefed himself from all the papers about that matter. He is arranging to meet the chairman and chairman elect of BSC.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the ISTC that Ravenscraig is of strategic importance to the Scottish economy? No good is done to that by continually suggesting that the future of Ravenscraig is dependent on Gartcosh. Does he also agree that the wholly unparliamentary demonstration after the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on 20 January will do no good to the cause of Scottish steel and shows a curious sense of priorities when many more of our constituents work and are involved in higher education than ever worked at Gartcosh?

I thought that the debate on higher education in which my hon. Friend took part was a good one. I was not there for the subsequent demonstration to which he referred. There is a serious danger of talking down the future of the Scottish steel industry. I hope that no Opposition Members will fall into that trap.

Whatever disagreements there may be on the link between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, does the Minister accept that there is an important continuing role for the Dalzell plate mill and that it is essential for Ravenscraig's future? He said a few minutes ago that he knew of no plans to close it. Is he aware that there are strong rumours—apparently based on information reaching the trade union side—that there is such a plan? Has he investigated that possibility? Can he give a positive assurance that there is no threat to the future of Dalzell? I ask him to be specific on this. Will he make it clear that any plans to close Dalzell will require political and Cabinet approval and will not be left in the hands of the BSC management as some kind of tactical decision.

I have no reason to doubt Dalzell's future. As the House is aware, it serves the offshore industry. There has been scaremongering, and I do not think that that is in anyone's interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to stimulate the Scottish industrial economy; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's economic policies are already securing growth in the Scottish and United Kingdom economies. The latest figures show strong growth in Scottish industrial output in the first half of last year. A further rise in activity is expected.

The Secretary of State's reply is complacent. Does he recognise that the worldwide difficulties of the electronics industry bode ill for the future of the 40,000 jobs in the central belt, and that the downward pressure on oil prices must call in question some of the activities in the marginal areas of the North sea? Is it not the Government's duty to take counter-cyclical measures to stimulate the building industry, in particular, which is depressed?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there have been some problems in the electronics industry, especially regarding semi-conductors, but that does not apply to the whole of the industry. My first responsibility as Secretary of State for Scotland was to take part in setting up a new company in Cumbernauld—Isola, from Germany—providing 200 jobs in the electronics industry.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it a sad reflection on the Scottish media that although during the past month the Department of Trade and Industry has assisted in bring two major job-creating projects to Scotland, there has been virtually no publicity for the fact that TMC and English Sewing Cotton are moving to Scotland and creating as many jobs as are lost at Gartcosh?

My hon. Friend is correct. Sadly, there is a much greater willingness to announce job losses than job gains. The media's responsibility should be to give equal publicity to both.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Scottish Development Agency, from which we expect development of the Scottish economy, should not be using the rate of return as a test? One can get a high rate of return by spending money on financial instruments. The SDA should be spending it on getting more jobs and improving industry. Its success should be judged against those objectives, not against the rate of return.

I am willing to listen to any suggestions that the SDA wishes to put to me for an improvement in its performance. I must emphasise that the SDA has a high budget and has been extremely successful in attracting investment and building up our economic infrastructure.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scottish economy will not be stimulated, certainly in rural areas, if there is a re-rating of agricultural land? Does he recall that until recently that appeared to be the policy of the alliance? Does he expect the alliance to reaffirm that policy in our debate later this afternoon?

That may well have been the agreed policy of the alliance, but we can confidently expect to hear little about it in the months to come.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Confederation of British Industry has stated that it expects a reduction in manufacturing industry and that that will mean an increase in unemployment in Scotland? In addition to the closure of Gartcosh with the loss of 700 jobs, 460 jobs will be lost at the Clydesdale and other tube manufacturing works. Is he aware that, because of that, Lanarkshire is fast becoming an industrial desert? Is it not time that the Secretary of State did something about that, and paid attention to the point about the SDA made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

Lanarkshire's problems are indeed serious, especially regarding employment. The SDA already has a substantial role in both the Motherwell and Coatbridge projects. It hopes to enable those projects to continue and, if possible, to expand. In addition to the money that the BSC provides in areas of steel closures, and new money from the European regional development fund, there are substantial sums of both public money and private investment in Lanarkshire. We welcome and encourage that.

Why is the Secretary of State allowing Scottish Office officials to stop a Finnish company from constructing a paper mill in Irvine, which will create 700 jobs? Surely that is interference in the commercial judgment of the company, which wants to come to Irvine?

That is an absurd remark. Obviously we are extremely anxious to attract pulp mill facilities to Scotland, and naturally we will do all that we can to facilitate that. The Government cannot direct which part of Scotland shall have such a facility. If the hon. Gentleman has the interests of Scotland at heart he should do all that he can to ensure that the facility comes to Scotland, and should not deter that prospect by irresponsible comments.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Icarus Trucks is going to Austria rather than Prestwick freeport because his Department refused the company a grant? Is he further aware that Argyll Sports Cars will go to another part of Scotland rather than Prestwick freeport because it has been directed to do so by the Scottish Development Association? Will the Secretary of State investigate why it is that Customs and Excise, the SDA and, indeed, his own Department are undermining Prestwick freeport?

On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that the SDA cannot direct anyone to go anywhere. The Government and the SDA have a responsibility to attract investment to Scotland. The precise location chosen by an investor is determined by that investor in the light of all the circumstances.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no lack of demand in Scotland, and that the Government's proposals on rating reform by making more people accountable, will, certainly help industry? The proposed Buy British campaign will also stimulate demand. These things will do a lot to offset the imbalance in imports.

My hon. Friend is correct. Scotland is doing reasonably well compared to the United Kingdom as a whole. The latest figures show an increase in manufacturing output in Scotland of 5½ per cent. compared with 3 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. From a Scottish point of view that is an encouraging development.

Does no one in ministerial offices tell Ministers anything now? Has no one in the Secretary of State's office drawn his attention to the CBI survey published in today's Glasgow Herald? That survey shows that orders are down, employment is down and output and investment are back to 1963 levels, not 1979 levels. Against the background of that CBI survey, how on earth can the Secretary of State say that the Scottish economy is flourishing? It is precisely because the Secretary of State and his colleagues have presided over the destruction of the Scottish industrial economy that they will be completely wiped out at the next general election.

The hon. Gentleman is quoting the CBI. He might like to find out from the CBI, including the CBI in Scotland, whether it would welcome the return of a Labour Government in preference to the present one.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he applies in determining the provision of new schools to serve developing areas; and what criteria are used by regional authorities when school closures are proposed.

In determining capital allocations, priority is given to projects designed to provide additional places in areas where the school population is growing and there is insufficient accommodation, and to rationalisation proposals. The criteria for most school closures are determined by education authorities without reference to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Is the Minister aware that there is a crying need for a new school in the developing area of Balloch/Eastfield in my constituency? Is he further aware that the policy he has just mentioned means that a new school will be built only if another school closes, possibly Seafar primary school? Will the Minister see to it that Strathclyde regional council is given sufficient funds to build a new school and maintain the existing primary school provision throughout Cumbernauld and Kilsyth?

There is substantial overprovision of primary places in Cumbernauld, and simply to add a primary school at Balloch-Eastfield would worsen that problem. That would be bad educationally and a waste of resources. As part of a process of rationalisation, the capital allocation for education authorities shortly to be announced will include provision for a new primary school at Balloch-Eastfield. Work on that school will start next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in my constituency, in the greatly expanding village of Houston, there is a legitimate demand for extra school places and additional school building? That is a highly rated area. It is extremely dangerous for some of the children to travel the miles expected of them to the nearest school.

I note with interest and sympathy what my hon. Friend has said. As she will appreciate, proposals have to come through Strathclyde region to the Scottish Office, but I shall investigate the up-to-date position on Houston.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following the DAFS paper on agricultural advisory services in Scotland.

A substantial number of comments have been received on the Department's consultation paper. Further responses are expected. Careful consideration will be given to the views before a conclusion is reached.

Is the Minister aware that the maintenance of research and development services is vital for Scottish agriculture and that the intentions announced are causing grave disquiet throughout Scotland? Those are in addition to action such as the removal of the MacCaulay institute from Aberdeen and the curtailment of the veterinary investigation services, which will lead to a decrease in the supervision of diseases communicable to man. All the cuts are having effects on the industry, on employment and possibly on health. What action does the Minister intend to take?

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman greatly overstates the case. The Government fully recognise the value of advisory services on the ground. For that reason we believe that producers, as direct beneficiaries, should themselves make a contribution towards costs, besides the major and continuing funding from Government.

Will the Minister accept that the consultative document has nothing to do with priorities for agriculture in Scotland, but has everything to do with Treasury cuts? We have a 41 per cent. cut in the advisory services, downright dangerous proposals for the state veterinary service in Scotland, and now the moronic idea of removing the Macaulay institute from Aberdeen. Is there no end to the sacrifices which rural Scotland will have to make under the Tory Administration?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to do a check on the amount of money that the Government spend on rural Scotland. He will then see the absolute fallacy of his case. On the future of the Macaulay institute, the rationale behind the proposals was set out in the paper published in December. Further study will be required before a decision can be taken on whether the new amalgamated institute should be in Aberdeen or in Edinburgh.

Notwithstanding what has been said by other hon. Members, will the Minister acknowledge that the 41 per cent. cut is proving extremely difficult to implement and will be very damaging if implemented on the time scale that the Government want? Even if he will. not rescind the cut, will he agree to extend the time scale to give the colleges a reasonable opportunity to cope with what is being asked of them? To implement the time scale as proposed will prove very damaging.

I have no plans to adjust the timetable already announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the teachers' dispute in Scotland.

I am in no doubt of the urgent need to get a resolution of this protracted and damaging dispute. I believe that that can be found only through negotiation between teachers and employers on the basis of the resources which the Government have already said they are prepared to make available in return for a suitable agreement on teachers' duties and conditions of service.

The Secretary of State was reported as saying to parents at Balerno high school that there had to be some compromise. What does he have in mind as regards compromise?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I had in mind. In response to the wishes of the unions, the Government indicated in an unprecedented way that they were able and willing to make £125 million available on top of whatever was negotiated in the normal fashion. I believe the union response to that proposal was depressing and unjustified.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although we have been arguing for about 18 months, there is no sign of a welcome from the Educational Institute of Scotland for the very generous offer of £125 million that my right hon. and learned Friend has said he will make available? In view of the fact that many parents are reaching the stage of despair about their children's education, will he make a last effort to get the EIS to meet him to resolve salaries and conditions of service through the proper channels?

The proposal which the Government made would, if accepted, add an average of about £1,000 to a teacher's salary on top of what might be negotiated otherwise in the normal fashion. I have received a request from the Churches, which have been helping in this matter, to come and see me, and I have said that I will be very happy to see them.

To what extent is the settlement of this dispute being held up by the lack of a settlement in the parallel dispute in England and Wales? In the course of seeking a compromise, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk further to his colleagues in the Treasury about securing more for the current year's settlement? Is he aware that the Scottish Examination Board says that it will be one-third short of the number of markers that it needs, which surely brings into danger the whole academic year for many of our pupils?

We all welcome the prospect of an end to disruption in England and Wales. We have to note that the agreement seems to have been reached on the basis of no new resources being available from the Government in addition to those already promised. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the position concerning examinations in Scotland is very worrying. The Scottish Examination Board is doing all in its power to minimise the problems that will be caused, and the Scottish Office will be giving full support to efforts of that kind. Nevertheless, one cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion that if this disruption continues it will be impossible to provide a normal examination service.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the wisest decision of the EIS in the past year has been to hold its annual conference in St. Andrews next week? Is he aware that I will be addressing that conference? Is there any message that he would like me to give to the Scottish teachers on that occasion?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend will be addressing the EIS conference in his constituency. I hope that he will put to the EIS the very clear view of the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland that, whatever view they take of the merits of the dispute, this disruption of our schools and the threat to Scottish examinations is not justified.

Now that the initiative of the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church has been cautiously noted by the EIS, and the management side has agreed to a continuing commitment to an independent pay review, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he probably has a better chance now than his predecessor had of resolving a dispute which is seriously blighting the future of many Scottish schoolchildren? Will he, therefore, make every effort to come forward with a positive initiative or response when he meets the Church leaders on 10 February?

The views which Mr. Pollock is reported to have put to his colleagues in the EIS were, as the hon. Gentleman says, noted rather than approved, and Mr. Pollock himself expressed considerable disappointment at the response of his colleagues. Naturally, I will listen with great interest to the Church leaders. I must emphasise that this, as we all know, is a dispute not just about pay but about conditions of service. It has to be pointed out that all the local authorities in Scotland, Labour-controlled as well as Conservative, have emphasised to the teachers that any final package must include conditions of service as well as pay. It is not just the Government, not just Conservative authorities, who are saying that. Labour authorities are saying it as well, and that is a very important consideration.

Instead of merely repeating the bland statements of his predecessor, when will the Secretary of State get it into his head that the surest way of bringing to an end this very damaging dispute is to set up an independent pay review? In the meantime, will he investigate one aspect of the examination boycott, namely, the alleged inconsistencies in the marking of SCE examination papers, possibly caused by the methods used by the examination board to recruit markers, some of them scabs and blacklegs with dubious qualifications and little, if any, experience of presenting pupils for Scottish examinations?

I have every confidence in the Scottish Examination Board. The hon. Gentleman is showing disgraceful contempt for many honourable people who have given time and energy to assisting Scottish youngsters in the pursuit of their education. The hon. Gentleman really should substantiate his disgraceful allegations, or withdraw them.

Even allowing for the responsibilities of local authorities in this matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend lay his best proposals for teachers' pay and conditions of service on the table, if only to make it abundantly clear that the responsibility for this damaging and protracted dispute lies with the EIS?

The Government have put their proposals on the table. Eighteen months into the dispute, the EIS and teachers' unions have yet to put forward a claim, and that itself is a most extraordinary position to be in.

Is the Secretary of State aware that for the first time he has conceded today that the examinations are in serious jeopardy? So far his predecessor has given the impression that the examinations would go ahead uninterrupted. Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Secretary of State, has he approached the EIS and other teaching unions with a view to discussing this serious dispute? Will he be a bit more flexible about conditions of service, against the background of the introduction of the standard grades and Munn and Dunning? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will concede that even teachers find it difficult to know what their conditions of service will be until the introduction of the standard grades and Munn and Dunning have settled down. That will take some considerable time, so may we have some flexibility on that point as well?

The teachers' unions have said that they would like me to meet the delegation from the Churches. I have already said that I shall be doing so, and a meeting has been arranged.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Will the Secretary of State take an initiative in this matter? When he was appointed to his present office he took the view—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Order. I should not have called the hon. Member, but I have. Please carry on.

Will the Secretary of State take an initiative in relation to the education dispute, because one of the grounds on which his appointment to his present office was welcomed was that a new incumbent might be able to take steps which his predecessor could not? Does he understand just how deeply feelings run in relation to this matter and that we look to him for some initiative?

Not only do I understand how deeply feelings run, but I share those feelings. No one who has the best interests of Scottish education at heart can simply look with equanimity at the major problems that are being caused, not simply in regard to examinations, important though they are, but in relation to the long-term damage being done to the education system as long as the dispute continues. That is why I have said that a compromise is necessary. There will be no victors and vanquished in this dispute, and it is necessary for the unions as well as others to show a willingness to achieve an acceptable package, acceptable not just to themselves and the Government, but to the local authorities, which are their employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the youth training scheme run by the volunteer centre in the west of Scotland.

Since the decision by the Glasgow volunteer centre to discontinue its participation in the YTS when the two-year scheme begins in April was announced on 15 January, the centre has sought further clarification from the Manpower Services Commission on a number of points — I understand with a view to its possible continued involvement with YTS.

Is the Minister aware that there will be a loss of 213 training places on the scheme and 50 full-time jobs if the volunteer centre is forced to close because of the financing now given by the MSC? That will also apply to many other voluntary organisations throughout Scotland. Will he meet the MSC urgently to ensure that such schemes continue, otherwise there will be a loss of places, which will make nonsense of the Government's promise that every youngster will get a training place?

I am in touch with the MSC on this matter, but I emphasise that the MSC has gone to great lengths to accommodate the current mode B1 providers. In addition to the standard monthly payments and management agents' fee, such providers would get premium funding of £110 per month and transitional funding over the first two years of up to £70 per filled place per month. Naturally I would regret it if the centre withdrew, but my understanding is that out of 15 voluntary organisations currently providing the one-year YTS only four have said that for various reasons they will not participate in the two-year scheme.

Is the Minister aware that widespread dismay is being caused by the prospect of the cessation of the centre's work in this respect? As this is due to take effect in March, owing to a change in the method of funding, will he at least ensure the postponement of that change so that the matter can be discussed in depth to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found?

I repeat that detailed discussions are continuing. On the general point, the funding arrangements take full account of representations on behalf of voluntary bodies at the youth training board and were agreed by the MSC, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, represents a wide range of interests.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems in Glasgow have also occurred elsewhere? Is he further aware that experience in other areas shows that disabled individuals can be offered training under the schemes and that an approach by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and myself in relation to this problem has met with a very positive response?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about provision for disabled youngsters. On the point that he and others have raised with me, I can reassure him that there are applications on the Dundee schemes.

Is the Minister aware that more than one third of the people involved in this come from my constituency in Paisley? Is he further aware that the real problem is the alteration in funding, because certain organisations are not in a position to raise, as it were, employer money? Does he accept that this means not only a social loss for the young people, who could not easily adapt to participation in a Government scheme, but the loss of the social work carried out by them, which includes the decoration of 2,000 houses in my constituency, which otherwise could not have taken place?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's constituency concern, as he has written to us about it. I must emphasise, however, that employer placement is an important aspect of the two-year YTS because it provides wholly realistic work experience and enables employers to contribute directly to the cost.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many drivers were prosecuted for drink-driving offences alleged to have been committed between 24 December 1985 and 3 January 1986.

As at 22 January 1986, 22 offenders had appeared in court and proceedings have been instituted against another 15 in respect of drink-driving offences committed during the period to which the hon. Member refers.

Can the Minister say how many of those cases were just above the limit, how many a fair bit above the limit and how many a great deal above the limit? Is he aware of the very large increase in drink-driving offences since the new year, especially in Strathclyde? Will he guarantee to wage war on drunk drivers all year round and not just during the festive season?

I regret that at this stage I cannot give any idea of the levels applying in the particular cases. As the figures that I have given relate only to cases that have already reached the procurator fiscal or gone into court, I expect that there will be a considerable number in addition to that. As I told the House recently, in 1984 the total number of people successfully prosecuted for drunk driving in Scotland was about 13,500. As far as I and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate are concerned, there will certainly be no let-up in the prosecution of those who drink and drive.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the message from the Scottish police forces at Christmas that they intended to get tough on drunk drivers was successful in making people think twice about drinking and then driving? As so many road accidents after dark are drink-related, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an acceptable infringement of personal liberty for the police to be able to carry out random breath tests at the roadside?

At the moment it is difficult to say whether the campaign has been wholly successful. The point that I should like to emphasise to my hon. Friend, and more generally, is that I do not believe that it is simply a campaign that needs to be waged at Christmas and the new year. It must be maintained throughout the year, because, contrary to popular belief, there is still an unhappily high incidence of drink-driving at other times. On the matter of random testing, I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not strictly a matter for me. However, he may already be aware that under the Road Traffic Act 1972 the police have a general power to stop such people from driving.

Does the Minister recall the case that I brought to his attention where a drunken driver who was three times above the limit killed a 69-year-old woman in my constituency and was given a slap over the wrists for it? Does he not recognise that there is widespread anger throughout the United Kingdom over the leniency of sentences given to those potential murderers? What steps are the Government taking to see that sentences reflect the seriousness of the case against the drivers? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any figures of the sentences imposed on such people during the winter season, over the Christmas season in particular, and over the year in general in Scotland?

I certainly remember the case to which the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have already referred. I think he will appreciate that in Scotland we try to separate the prosecution and the judiciary as rigorously as possible. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for me to comment on any sentence. However, I take into account what he has to say and the feelings that are expressed by others on this matter. That is always taken into account when deciding whether a particular case is more appropriately dealt with summarily, by a sheriff and jury or possibly by the High Court itself.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what consideration has been given by the Crown Office to the implications for prosecution policy of changes in Crown immunity.

In the event of any change in Crown immunity whereby persons who at present are not subject to prosecution could become liable, no special consideration would be necessary. The same criteria as are applied in all criminal cases would be used.

In view of the revelations last week about the deplorable standards of kitchen hygiene in hospitals such as Stanley Royd hospital in Wakefield and Woodilee hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), where cockroaches were found in the kitchen, is it not time that hospital premises were deprived of Crown immunity so that the Solicitor-General could, if necessary, take out a prosecution against the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, as Minister responsible for the Health Service in Scotland, is primarily reponsible for putting the health of patients in our hospitals at risk?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is not strictly a matter for me. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already said that there is to be a review of the matter in relation to the National Health Service. In any event, I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, flamboyant as it may sound, my right hon. and learned Friend would not be someone who is subject to prosecution.

When this matter was raised in a much earlier Scottish Question Time, the Solicitor-General referred to the internal review that was taking place. He may recall that I asked whether his Department had been in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security south of the border, which is instituting the review and had tried to put something in to it. It had not then. Has it now?

In view of the observations that have been made about advice from my counterpart south of the border in relation to other Departments and any legal advice that might have emanated from the Law Officers in Scotland, I think that in the circumstances I should decline to answer.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that if the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is concerned about dirty conditions in hospital kitchens he should advise the health boards to contract out the services, and the contractors would enjoy no such Crown immunity?

My hon. Friend is correct. If there were a private contractor providing those services, because of its relationship, it would not enjoy Crown immunity.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there was great concern in my constituency about the disclosures in Woodilee hospital, and one of his hon. Friends, the Minister responsible for health, was kind enough to meet me? Notwithstanding that, will he give an assurance to the House that the review to which he referred will be completed in the near future and that action will be taken as a matter of extreme urgency?

I have to say that that is not a matter for me. However, I will say, as I said in my original answer, that if there were to be a change in Crown immunity I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one who is in breach of the criminal law, whatever position he holds, would be afforded any special treatment. They would all be treated in the same way, with the same criteria applying to anyone who breaks the law.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any plans to initiate a more vigorous prosecution policy in respect of abusive language and threatening behaviour generally, and in particular when directed against persons in positions of responsibility, including the police; and if he will make a statement.

Procurators fiscal presently give full and proper consideration to reports of such behaviour and criminal proceedings are taken where appropriate. I am not aware of any cases where that has not been done, but if my hon. Friend will provide me with details of any case concerning him, I shall certainly investigate.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in some sections of society there seems to be an idea that people in positions of responsibility, such as teachers and policemen, are fair game for the abuse referred to in my question? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the opposite is the case? We, as a society, put those people in a particular position of responsibility, and abuse of them is an abuse of society, and should be treated much more seriously than it sometimes is.

As I have said, the policy that we try to follow in prosecution is to make no special distinction between ordinary members of society and those who hold other positions. I accept that sometimes it seems to be the view that police officers, in particular, are fair game for assault and violence, whereas they are entitled to the protection of the law as much as are ordinary citizens.

Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that the only two recent incidents of abuse and such offences against people of public standing were in the Tory-held constituencies of Tayside, North, against the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and in Perth and Kinross, against the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn)? Is there not a lesson to be learnt when there is all that violence in Tory heartland? Nothing like that ever happens in any of the 41 Labour-held constituencies.

I am certainly aware of the two incidents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He talked about the incident at Tayside. I am pleased to say that no such incident has happened on the eastern seaboard, in Angus.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that the last question to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland drew attention to an assault on me. The individual who was charged and convicted of that assault was judged to be in need of medical attention. I suggest that the question was unworthy of the House, and did nothing for the standard, conduct or reputation of the House.

I am not responsible for the way in which questions are presented.