asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to allow independent local public inquiries to be held when education authorities seek to close small rural schools and the local community has made objections.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

Is the Minister aware that that is a disappointing answer? Is he not aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about the process of consultation that local authorities have implemented north of the border for the closure of rural schools? The Borders regional council went through a period of consultation last year that was exemplary, but there are still problems about getting an independent element or some form of appeal procedure into the existing machinery. Will he reconsider that?

The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires that parents must be fully consulted, and a standard form of consultation is set out in the regulations. I believe that it is right, after consultation, for the majority of cases of school closures to be decided by the locally elected representatives, the education authority.

Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to change the basis of funding of schools so that it is on the basis of the number of pupils attending a school? Will he allow parents who wish to set up their own schools, perhaps in rural areas, to receive the equivalent of the state funding which would otherwise be provided?

I note with interest my hon. Friend's points. I underline to him the Government's commitment to parental choice in education.

Given the example that we all had to live through in Tayside when Tayside decided to close not only rural schools, but schools in the inner city, will the Minister think again and allow an independent local inquiry when, as in the case of Tayside, there are justified arguments for not leaving it to the local authority?

The provisions are that, in the majority of cases, the decisions should be made by the education authority. It is the elected representative of the people and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support local democracy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effects of the teachers' action in support of their campaign for an independent pay review; and if he will make a statement.

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

I receive a great many representations which deplore, as I do, the immense damage being caused by teachers' action in this dispute. Further escalation now will not bring a settlement of the dispute any closer. Only by realistic negotiation will a solution be found.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, in addition to the real harm to which he has already referred, teachers and parents are alarmed at the prospect of disruption to this year's O-grade and higher examinations? Is he also aware that the teachers are more determined than ever and that the Government have a responsibility to provide education for our children? The Educational Institute of Scotland is prepared to negotiate when new proposals are put forward, and the one thing that is needed to settle the dispute is a new initiative from the Government. When will the Government bring forward a new initiative?

The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the damage that could be done to examinations by the disruption that the teachers are proposing. That must bear heavily on the individual teachers if they carry out the kind of threat that is being made. I hope that, on reflection, they will decide that that would not be appropriate.

Does the Secretary of State recall that some six weeks ago, when he was appointed to his present high office, there was hope that he, as a new broom, would be able to look afresh at the teachers dispute? Notwithstanding what he has said, what initiative does he propose to take as a response to the meeting that he had with the Scottish churches? Does he not realise that many parents, not to mention teachers, were looking towards negotiations between himself and the churches to come up with a settlement?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that after the meeting the Church representatives said that, like me, they found the meeting to have been useful in helping to clarify a number of points. At that meeting I said that the objectives of both the education authorities and the Government on conditions of service make it right and proper that those who wish to see changes in conditions of service and contractual matters should be dealt with on a flexible basis. We accept that if the teachers do not receive all that they would like on pay, the other changes that many would wish to see in the education service may have to take that into account. Compromise is required all round. I emphasise that the EIS must show flexibility. It has not yet put a claim on the table or shown any willingness to consider conditions of service as part of the package, despite reported signs that its leader, Mr. John Pollock, has suggested that this might be appropriate.

To a parent or any unbiased observer, it is incredible that the EIS will not discuss the favourable terms that my right hon. and learned Friend has offered it. Does he hope to have meetings in the next two weeks or so that will bring this unfortunate dispute to a conclusion, bearing in mind that all the weight of evidence now is that the teachers, parents and others have had more than enough of this strike

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the £125 million of new resources that the Government have said would be available for teachers' salaries on top of what might be negotiated in the normal way. It is also worth pointing out that Scottish teachers should reflect on the fact that their colleagues in England and Wales have today balloted by a two to one majority in favour of an interim settlement on the basis of the resources available in England and Wales, which are comparable to the resources available in Scotland.

May we take it from the previous exchanges that my right hon. and learned Friend still values the good intentions of the Churches in their desire to act as honest brokers in this—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I know that there is another question on the Order Paper about this.

Do the Government still value—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of this question?

Yes it does. There seems little point in tabling questions if hon. Members are called beforehand to ask supplementary questions on the exact wording of those questions.

Order. This question is on the effects of the teachers' strike for an independent pay review. I judge that the supplementaries are in order. However, I draw the attention of the House, as I was about to when the first supplementary question was asked, to the fact that there are subsequent questions—Nos. 12 and 13—on this matter.

May we take it from the earlier exchanges that my right hon. and learned Friend values the efforts of the Churches to act as honest brokers in this unhappy affair? At the same time, will he take pains to emphasise that real progress depends entirely on the parties directly involved in the dispute negotiating. and seeking a reasonable and responsible settlement?

My hon. Friend is correct. The outcome to the problem has to be primarily for the employers and the employees. I emphasise to the Opposition and those who criticise the Government that the education authorities across the political spectrum have emphasised the need for package proposals covering conditions of service as well as pay. The Government have shown their willingness, in an unprecedented way, to help in the dispute by offering at this stage, before any claim is put forward, no less than £125 million of new resources.

I must ask the House to keep off the subject of Churches in this question.

Does the Secretary of State understand that his free market economy is not working in connection with the supply of teachers? Does he share my concern about the recent loss of teachers in Kilmarnock academy, and, in particular, the loss of a biology teacher who has just gone into industry for a 65 per cent. increase in salary? When will the Secretary of State meet the EIS and start negotiating properly to ensure that there is an independent inquiry, which may not resolve that anomaly, but will at least get the teachers back to work?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are certain shortages of mathematics and science teachers. However, when considering the whole of the teaching profession, there are far more qualified and able people wishing to take up posts in teaching than there are posts available. The teacher's unions would be the first to reject any suggestion that differential salaries should be paid to teachers in different departments. The shortages of teachers in any areas could be corrected if the unions were prepared to contemplate such action. There is not, however, the slightest suggestion that the teachers' unions are interested in that course of action.

Does my right hon. Friend know that a number of parents cannot understand why the teachers, who have a just claim for more money, do not appear to be picking up last year's normal annual increment, and the forthcoming year's annual increment, which, I understand, is available without strings attached? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a sensible basis on which to start negotiations, with all the factors involved, if the teachers want a relative increase in wages in relation to other groups of graduate workers in local government?

My hon. Friend is correct, and Scottish teachers must be asking themselves whether the tactics of their union negotiators are correct as those tactics have led to no increase in their pay packets during the dispute. That cannot be in the teachers' interest, nor is it a necessary part of the dispute.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to take some independent initiative on this matter, which many hon. Members hoped for when he was appointed to his position, or is he tied across the board, like a tin to a cat's tail, to the policies of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which show every sign of being an unprecedented disaster for education at all levels?

The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that conditions of service and matters affecting contracts of employment are quite distinct in Scotland, and clearly any solutions to these problems would be geared to Scottish requirements. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise the matter of overall resources for teachers' pay, he would be the first to accept that the teachers' unions in the various parts of the United Kingdom would be the first to draw attention to any significant difference between the pay offered to teachers in Scotland and that offered to those in England. Whichever group was offered more, the other unions would expect equity and parity of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman would not dispute the accuracy of that view.

With practically every secondary school in my constituency affected by strike action, may I remind my right hon. Friend of the deep anxiety felt by parents and pupils alike, as well as the anxiety felt by many reasonable teachers, who want to see an end to the strike? Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the teachers' demand for a more realistic salary structure is a legitimate one, it must be accompanied by fair and reasonable conditions of service which avoid a recurrence of what has happened? As this wretched dispute has dragged on for nearly 18 months, will my right hon. Friend personally intervene to get negotiations under way?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am very willing to do all that is in my power to help bring the dispute to an early end. If teachers wish to be paid for the work that they do, it is not unreasonable that their contracts and conditions of service should also reflect what they actually do.

The Secretary of State talks as though the £125 million were Government money, but will not the bulk of it have to come from local authorities and thus from ratepayers? In any event, does he appreciate that 10 per cent. spread over four years on top of an indeterminate base will not settle the dispute and that more money must be put on the table? Will he take an initiative in that respect in the hope of bringing forward what he calls sensible negotiations?

The £125 million is new Government money which the Government are prepared to provide for local authorities to help finance increases in teacher's salaries above that which would be negotiated in the normal way. It would represent an average of about £1,000 in the salary of a teacher in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Over four years."] It would mean that at the end of that period a teacher would have £1,000 more than he would otherwise have had. I think that most people would acknowledge that that is a fairly significant increase. I genuinely put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's proposal and the additional sums to which I have referred should surely be the basis for negotiations to begin between the teachers unions and the education authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, fair or not, there is great disappointment that there has been no movement since he became Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he consider convening all-party discussions with the teachers to see whether there is any way of ending the long deadlock in a spirit of compromise? Does he agree that unless there is a settlement by the end of March we look set to have a strike lasting until the next general election, with irreparable damage to schoolchildren?

I think that there is, indeed, all-party agreement that an outcome to the dispute must be a package including conditions of service as well as pay. If the hon. Gentleman can make representations to the EIS to the effect that it should accept that as an essential part of any satisfactory outcome I think that that would enable significant progress to be made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are parents fed up with the disruption of teaching, but they are terribly concerned about the possibility of this year's examinations producing disastrous results for the children's futures? Will he confirm that he does not rule out the possibility that he may be required to take measures to have the necessary powers for him to impose on the teachers' unions a review of the conditions of service under which they now work and are remunerated—

Briefly, please.

so that teachers are adequately rewarded for the work that they do?

With regard to examinations, I think that the Scottish Examination Board should be congratulated on the splendid work that it is doing in trying to ensure that the maximum possible number of markers will be available. The latest estimate suggests that slightly more than two thirds of the necessary number will be available. Although that will not prevent all disruption, it will ensure that the bulk of the work is properly done.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the difference between him and the leaders of the EIS is that they enjoy the overwhelming support of their members for the action that they are taking, whereas he enjoys no support from anyone in Scotland for what he is doing about the dispute? Is he further aware that since he took up his high office he has done absolutely nothing to bring about a resolution of the dispute, despite the promises that he made when he was appointed? He rightly referred to John Pollock's statement at Galashiels yesterday. Many I now plead with him to take up the offer made by Mr. Pollock yesterday in asking for a substantial offer to be made so as to allow negotiations to begin? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if he does not take up that offer he will be solely responsible for the severe and serious damage being done to education in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman would have made a more positive and helpful contribution to the resolution of the dispute if he had given his unqualified support to Strathclyde, Central and Fife regional councils in their demand, with other local authorities, that the EIS should accept a package involving conditions of service a well as pay. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in helping to resolve the dispute, let him support the Labour education authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress of Government measures to seek to counter drug addiction in Scotland.

We have introduced many positive measures with the aim of reducing both the supply of and the demand for drugs. Earlier this month I launched the second stage of the Scottish campaign against drug misuse; and I announced a substantial increase in the strength of the Scottish crime squad specifically to tackle drug-related crime.

Does the Minister not understand that this is a national emergency—an emergency compounded by the fact that many heroin users unfortunately now have AIDS? Will the Minister provide the resources for dealing with this problem, even if it means providing clean needles? More important, will he listen to Dr. Martin Plant and his colleagues, who have confirmed the link between unemployment and drug abuse? Will the Minister study their report and bear in mind that it was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for suggesting that needles should be made available to drug addicts in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. I believe that it is a serious step to take, as it could be interpreted as encouraging heroin abuse and leading to its increase. However, I am deeply concerned both about heroin addiction and the spread of AIDS. My chief medical officer has set up a committee of experts to advise him and me of the spread of this virus. I shall take very seriously any advice made to me by the chief medical officer or by the committee.

Will my hon. Friend accept that drug addiction is affecting children at a very early age? Will he have discussions with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), so that lectures can be given in schools to give children some idea of the horrendous problems that drugs cause and which may lead to death?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Some people have not approved of the advertising campaign conducted by my Department and by the Scottish Health Education Group. It is right that we should warn the public, especially youngsters, of the dangers of drug misuse, and not just heroin abuse. I can tell my hon. Friend that today my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has announced the setting up of a working group to develop in-service training courses on drug misuse for community education workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to establish an elected Scottish Assembly.

No, Sir.

As we approach the seventh anniversary of the referendum in which the Scottish people voted, by a majority of over 77,000, including, I understand, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to establish a directly elected Scottish Assembly, will the Minister accept that the minority administration of Scotland is becoming intolerable? I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware that I am introducing a private Member's Bill on Tuesday based on the principles which nine years ago in this House he himself suggested were good. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to sponsor my Bill and, if not, what has changed in the interim period?

I must congratulate the hon. Member on his singlemindedness and consistency in bringing up this subject every year. I remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he wound up the debate which repealed the Scotland Act 1978. He recognised that the referendum had displayed a lack of demand — two thirds of the Scottish people eligible to vote did not vote in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member would be more honest in his approach to the Scottish people if he were to explain to them that the effect of his proposals would be to increase taxation for Scottish people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scots already are grotesquely over-represented at every level in Parliament? We already have Scottish Question Time and Scottish Grand Committees, and the general obsession with Scottish affairs is positively unhealthy. If the suggestion of an Assembly were ever to be taken up, would he undertake to reduce or eliminate Scottish Question Time, Scottish Grand Committees and all other elements of over-representation in the House?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that Scotland is over-represented. It is well represented, although we will have to wait until after the next general election to see Scotland represented in a more proper way—when more Conservatives are elected.

I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is not answering the question himself. May I ask the junior Minister, who is presumably empowered to speak for the Scottish Office, what the position on devolution is in the Scottish Office? The Minister said that the Secretary of State advocated or supported, presumably reluctantly, the repeal of the Scotland Act 1978 on the basis that there was a lack of demand in Scotland. Does the Scottish Office team believe that the Scottish people do not want devolution, or that it is not right in principle? If it is the lack of demand, there is now clear evidence that, if the Scottish people were consulted, they would over-whelmingly support the principle of devolution.

The hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to opinion polls, which ask a simple question, but do not ask whether the Scottish people would be prepared to vote for an Assembly that involved an extra tier of taxation, which the Labour party proposes, and an extra tier of bureaucracy, which it also proposes. If they were honest enough to ask the Scottish people that question, they would get a resounding no in reply.

Will the Minister acknowledge that his reply is the best possible argument for the Government to sponsor a constitutional convention to establish the ground rules for an Assembly? Does the Minister recognise that the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people have accepted that there is a degree of devolution to the Scottish Office, but no accountability to the Scottish people? The Conservative party, with 14 per cent. of the votes, does not represent the Scottish people.

The hon. Gentleman has a rather lowly opinion of the role that he plays in the House. He is supposed to be part of the democratic process by which the Government are accountable. His party, among others, has put forward proposals on devolution, and suggests that that is a panacea for all Scotland's ills. When proposals were put forward in legislation making clear to the Scottish people the extra costs and burdens that they would have to bear, two thirds refused to vote in favour of them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subisdy was paid to the Civil Aviation Authority for the running of the highlands and islands airports for each of the last 10 years.

I have deposited in the Library details of the subsidy paid in each of the past five years. No separately indentifiable figures for grant-in-aid paid prior to 1980 are available.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the public purse, properly, supports the operations of the highlands and islands airports. Can he confirm that after the passage of the Airports Bill the highlands and islands airports, like the local authority airports, will be required to obtain the best possible services, if necessary by seeking outside tenders?

The new arrangements, whereby the CAA will operate aerodromes in Scotland as a separate company, follow a long period of uncertainty about their future. It is only right that the arrangements are given time to work. I agree with my hon. Friend that we expect better value for money from the arrangements. He will accept that the first priority is that the present service to the communities involved with the aerodromes should continue.

Does the Minister accept that some airports in the highlands and islands are extensively used by the military? Stornoway airport, for example, is a Ministry of Defence airport. If these installations are to be dumped on us, should not the Government foot the bill?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Stornoway airport is owned by the Ministry of Defence and operated by the CAA. He must understand that the Government have recognised the essential social function of the aerodromes, which is why we continue to subsidise their operation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the airports were offered for sale some time ago no commercial interest was shown in them? Will he give an undertaking to my constituents in Moray that he recognises the Government's social obligations to provide an adequate service for them?

The Government recognise the essential social functions of the aerodromes, which is why we have subsidised them and will continue to do so as necessary. Our reason for not pursuing their privatisation was precisely that none of the interested parties offered adequate assurances of continuity of service. That is what we intend to provide.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently from the National Union of Students (Scotland) concerning the level of the student grant.

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and education has received a letter dated 15 January from the president of the National Union of Students (Scotland) on the subject. He has agreed to meet representatives of the union on 17 March 1986.

When the Minister meets representatives of the NUS, will he take into account the changes both in the assessment of parental contribution and in housing and supplementary benefits? As a result of those changes, one student in my constituency is expected to survive the summer vacation on £2 a week.

The changes in supplementary benefit relate to the short vacations and not to the long summer vacation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that even taking into account the changes that are proposed the United Kingdom will continue to have by far the most generous system of grants for students of any major country in the Western world.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the best universities in Scotland have withdrawn from the National Union of Students? Because most of the English universities still adhere to the National Union of Students is no reason why we should not review yet again the amount of grants paid to the National Union of Students.

That is quite a separate matter, but clearly the authority with which the NUS speaks in Scotland is influenced by the number of universities affiliated to it.

Does the Minister accept that there is now genuine hardship not only among students but among parents who have to support them? Clearly the increase for 1986–87 of 2 per cent. represents a cut in real terms in student incomes. Does the Minister accept the NUS compilation that under this Government there has been a fall in the purchasing power of the basic grant by 20 per cent.? If he does accept that, is he prepared to defend it, or will he use his good offices with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to do something about it? Has the Secretary of State no sympathy with the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council's argument, which links the level of grant, the availability of student finance, to access to higher education?

Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have to say to him that notwithstanding the decisions that have been made on student grants over the last few years, the number of those actively seeking admission to higher education in Scotland is greater than ever before. This year there are 5,000 more Scottish students than there were in 1979, when this Government came into office. The suggestion that somehow the Government's policy on grants is deterring youngsters from coming into higher education is not true. If the Government were to accede to the NUS demand for a minimum of £35 per student per week, that would add £550 million to the cost of supporting students. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman would wish to commit a future Labour Government to costs of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total revenue value of equity realised by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the financial year 1984–85.

The total value of share investments realised was £419,701.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the provision in the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) piloted through the House in 1968 to allow the Highlands and Islands Development Board to keep revenue from equity realised, was designed to enhance the financial viability of the board to support projects in the highlands and islands? Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that this will continue beyond the present financial year, particularly at a time when there is a great squeeze on the board's finances? Will he continue the guarantee given by his predecessor, that any viable scheme presented to the Highlands and Islands Development Board will not fail because of the board having inadequate funding?

The expected receipts of the board are always taken into account when grant-in-aid is being determined. I can give an absolute assurance to the hon. Gentleman that none of the commitments that the board has entered into this year will not be met because of any financial constraint. The board will be able to meet all the commitments it has entered into. Since this Government came into office, resources available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board have been increased from £17 million in 1979 to £30 million in the current year.

The Secretary of State is always going on about the need to give incentives. What incentive is available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board if, every time it makes a profit on investments, the Secretary of State takes it back?

The hon. Gentleman puts forward a proposition that no one else has put forward and then tries to criticise it. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has had the advantage of the receipts it has received over the last few years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about how the economics of new afforestation schemes on upland areas are assessed by him.

Forestry grant schemes are administered by the Forestry Commission, whose consideration of an application for planting grants embraces agricultural, land use and environmental aspects. The expected return from the commission's own planting schemes is assessed on the basis of net discounted revenue.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but since upland sites generally result in the least economic afforestation schemes, should not Government policy ensure that commercial tree planting in our nation's uplands must not be at the expense of highly important and sensitive landscaped areas? Will he confirm that some recent schemes have had a deleterious effect on such environments?

Without knowing exactly what schemes my hon. Friend has in mind, I would rather not comment on the last part of his question. The expected rate of return from private planting is entirely up to the owner who is proposing the private planting, but I accept that the right balance must be sought between forestry and the needs of nature conservation. The commission will accept for grant-aid only those proposals which are sound in forestry and environmental terms. The Forestry Commission consults the Nature Conservancy Council on SSSIs and such matters.

Have the SSSIs been taken into account in the contingency plans for the transfer of Forestry Commission property to private ownership?

The matter has not gone nearly as far as to consider the impact of SSSIs, but the commission, either for its own planting or for the making of grants to the private sector, must take the SSSIs into account and must consult the NCC in these matters.

When blanket afforestation is given the go-ahead over a large area, is any consideration given to environmental matters?

Yes, indeed it is. The private forestry industry and the commission are more mindful now than perhaps they have been in times past about the environmental consequences of planting. The commission and the private sector take those matters into account along with the NCC and, where necessary, they have spoken to bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other environmental groups.

The Minister has said that the economic rate of return for private forestry companies is a matter for them, but how does he propose to safeguard the public interest in wide-scale afforestation? Does it not strengthen the case for extending planning controls over forestry to ensure that all considerations which ought to be kept in mind, including conservation and proper land use, are subject to the review of the local authority?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, because I am aware of the problems in his constituency, which is heavily forested, like my own. The Forestry Commission consults the planning authority—the district council—when it comes to planting, along with the other bodies that it consults before it comes to a decision either about its own planting or about grants to the private sector.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, with the enormous excesses of food production, not only in Britain but throughout Europe, and the enormous cost to Britain of timber imports, if in future the rural areas are to survive, there will have to be a move towards forestry and therefore grades of land that are not allowed to be planted now may have to be allowed to be planted in future? Does my hon. Friend accept that forestry, properly planted with a mixture of hard and soft woods, does not spoil the environment?

My hon. Friend is right. My Department is considering redefining the land that might be freed for planting in future. Against the background of increasing food surpluses, forestry offers a sensible use of land and one which employs a lot of people in the countryside, which must be something that both sides of the House would welcome.

It is supposed to be part of my job to make life difficult for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but just this once I am prepared to allow the Scottish Office in on the act. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the universal opposition to the idea of handing over the precious national asset of the Scottish Forestry Commission forestry enterprise to the private sector? Will he categorically reject the principle of privatising the forestry enterprise of the Forestry Commission? The hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend, the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the matter had not gone that far, but just how far has it gone?

The policy on the sale of Forestry Commission land was set out in a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), on 8 November 1984. That remains the position.

We have all read inspired reports about how the Secretary of State for Scotland has been fighting against his Cabinet colleagues to stop a change in that policy. It remains the policy at the moment, but is the Minister able to give an undertaking that it will remain the policy during the lifetime of this Government?

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not have experience of Government matters and, therefore, perhaps does not appreciate that the Government keep their policy on all fronts continuously under review. There have been informal discussions between Forestry Ministers about various aspects of forestry policy, but, as I said a few minutes ago, the policy remains that stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now announce the line of route of the Dunblane bypass; and if he will indicate the proposed starting date for construction (a) if there is no public inquiry and (b) if a public inquiry is held.

The orders for the main line and associated side roads for the Dunblane bypass are to be published in draft on 28 February. If no public inquiry is necessary, construction will begin as soon as the statutory procedures are completed and funds can be made available. I hope that this will be possible during the financial year 1987–88. If an inquiry is required, the scheme would be unlikely to start before mid-1988.

As this bypass was originally promised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was a candidate in my constituency, may I, on behalf of my constituents, welcome the announcement that my hon. Friend has made? I welcome his assurance that it will be given priority and that it will be under construction in 1987–88 provided that there are no strong objections to the line of route. I am very grateful.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to my announcement. I can confirm that we attach priority to this scheme, and we are well aware of the beneficial effects that it will have on the community in Dunblane.

If the Minister is able to say something about Dunblane, can he say when we will be told the line of the M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs?

The hon. Gentleman will just have to be patient.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on meetings between his office and the Churches in Scotland on the current dispute in Scottish schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Church representatives and the parties involved in the teachers' dispute.

My right hon. and learned. Friend had a useful exchange of views with representatives of the Churches on 10 February. He emphasised that any final package had to deal with teachers' duties and conditions of service as well as pay, and said that he recognised that a balance had to be struck between the aspirations of both sides if an early end to the dispute was to be found. He expressed the hope that the negotiations between teachers and employers would now begin on the basis of the resources available.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary admit that it was the Churches in Scotland that met the Secretary of State and that they showed an inclination and desire to preserve the distinctiveness of Scottish education? Does lie therefore agree that no comparison should be made between negotiations in England and Wales and the Scottish position? He ought to know, and the Secretary of State ought to recognise, that the Scottish teachers are determined to have their claim conceded, and the Minister ought to take some action to get this vexatious dispute settled as soon as possible.

The House will recognise that the Scottish Churches have had a long interest in education. The hon. Gentleman referred to conceding the teachers' claim, but the teachers have not put in a claim.

Does the Minister agree that while the Churches' initiative is greatly welcome, the complicated tripartite nature of these negotiations makes agreement particularly difficult? Will he confirm that he has received the suggestion from a number of quarters, including myself, that the appointment of an independent conciliator, who could identify the position of all the parties involved, as well as the level of flexibility on this issue, might help towards an agreement? Does he agree that there is nothing to be lost, and possibly everything to be gained, by the appointment of a conciliator, and will the Government give this further consideration?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout this dispute he has made one or two constructive suggestions and he has generally received a much more favourable response from the Government than from the EIS. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the NAS/UWT has suggested that the Scottish dispute should be referred to ACAS, but the EIS has refused.

Does the Minister agree that during this long, drawn-out and damaging dispute, the running has increasingly been made by initiatives from the Churches, all the Opposition parties in Scotland and other interested bodies? As all the Opposition parties, and the Churches, were willing to give the Secretary of State every possible support, or at least every good wish, in bringing in a new broom to settle the dispute, it is a matter of profound disappointment that, although the personalities may have changed, the tune remains the same? Can the Minister offer something more constructive?

I repudiate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government have taken initiative after initiative to try to resolve the dispute. The problem with the dispute in Scotland is that the EIS refuses to enter into normal pay negotiations by putting in any pay claim. It also refuses to negotiate on the basis of the type of pay and conditions package that has been put forward by the Labour-led education authorities. The sooner realistic negotiations start to resolve the dispute, the better.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, like parents, the Churches have a real interest in finding a solution to the problem? Does he agree that the only solution that could make any sense is one that embraces conditions so that we know exactly what teachers are being paid for and, more important, one that ensures that teachers are rewarded adequately for what they do?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that the smaller unions have at various times suggested pay and conditions packages. I understand that the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association recently put forward such a package and that it was rejected by the EIS.

Is the Minister aware that, when I joined parents in Lenzie in my constituency a week last Saturday, in extremely cold weather, they supported the Churches' initiative and the teachers and had great difficulty understanding why the Government will not agree to an independent pay tribunal? They concluded that that was the Government's stance because they know that an independent inquiry would be bound to support the teachers' case.

Parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in the rest of Scotland, want the dispute ended. The Government and the education authorities, including those led by the hon. Gentleman's party, have consistently and rightly said that a lasting resolution of the dispute must involve conditions of service as well as pay. I believe that the great majority of teachers now realise that. I urge the EIS to enter into negotiations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, the submission of a normal pay claim would at least get negotiations under way. That would be a major step forward.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the law on warrant sales.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission to discuss proposals for changes in the law on warrant sales; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the chairman and members of the Scottish Law Commission both formally and informally from time to time. The Government are seeking public comments on the commission's report on diligence and debtor protection, including its proposals for reform of the warrant sale procedure. Once the period of consultation is over, I anticipate meeting the Scottish Law Commission again before final policy decisions on implementation of the proposals are taken.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when he was an up-and-coming young Back-Bench Member of Parliament, before he was sucked into the Westminster Establishment by patronage and appointments to being the Solicitor-General for Scotland and a Queen's counsel and all that, he and his ministerial mate, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) were very sympathetic to a private Member's Bill which I introduced to abolish warrant sale and to replace it with a system of debt arbitration? Now that the hon. and learned Gentleman is Solicitor-General for Scotland, with all of the power that that entails, does he not have a responsibility to do something about warrant sales and to tell the Scottish Law Commission that it has been dithering about this matter for 13 or 14 years? Is it not high time that the Government took the initiative and introduced legislation to abolish this barbaric practice?

The Law Commission's report has been published. We wished to have consultation over a short period, and the period of consultation that we suggested should end in the middle of March. Several views have been expressed in Scotland about the proposals of the Law Commission, which were favourable in the main. If the hon. Gentleman, who I know is concerned about the matter, or any organisation with which he is connected, wishes to express an opinion about the proposals, I would be grateful if they would do so at the earliest possible moment, and certainly before the middle of next month. I remain of the view that I expressed some time ago. We wish to make warrant sale procedures more humane and sensible, but we do not wish to leave ourselves in the position where those who find credit most difficult to obtain cannot do so because of the changes.

Does the Solicitor-General share my abhorrence of those who pursue that squalid type of action, which seldom realises the initial debt, but seeks to humiliate people and at the end of the day deprives poor people of the few bits and sticks of furniture that they might have and takes away their essential household contents? In the light of the investigations, it would be better to end warrant sales.

The report to which I have already referred deals carefully with that problem. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider the details of the report, he will see that it addresses his complaints. I urge him to do so. If he believes that changes should be made to the proposals, I extend the invitation to him and to any organisation to let me know as soon as possible. I would be grateful for such action. I recognise that there is a need for change.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that warrant sales are anachronistic, an undignified experience for anybody and should have no place in civilised society?

My hon. Friend will recollect that in our manifesto at the general election we expressed a clear commitment to bring to an end what we believed to be inhumane procedures which currently apply. If it is difficult to do away with all the processes so that nothing can be done about getting payment for the debt due, at least we wish to ensure at the earliest possible date a distinction between those who can pay and those who will not pay.

Will the Solicitor-General give a guarantee that those undignified and anachronistic procedures will be swept away before there is any possibility of those defaulting on the community charge becoming subjected to them?

The hon. Gentleman's own party is among the organisations and parties that have failed to comment on the warrant sales. As a member of the Faculty of Advocates, I am sure that he has taken the opportunity of reading that valuable, albeit long, report. I look forward to an immediate expression of his view on what is right and what is wrong.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he last met the Lord Justice General; and what subjects were discussed.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I met the Lord Justice General on 21 February, when we discussed various matters relating to the administration of the criminal justice system in Scotland.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable concern in Scotland about the impact of the large number of criminal appeals on the progress of civil business in the courts? Can he advise us whether any consultation with the Lord Justice General has enabled him to take any step to remedy the problem?

The problem to which my hon. Friend refers is, unhappily, a real one. We have time limits in criminal business and, accordingly, at first instance and on appeal it must have priority. Because of the problem of civil business, my hon. Friend should be aware that the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Maxwell, has been invited to consider the way in which we might more effectively use judicial time in the superior courts. I hope that that problem will be carefully addressed by the chairman. If my hon. Friend has any view on better arrangements for judicial time in the superior courts, it would be welcome.

As the Lord Justice General has an obvious interest in the housing of the High Court, does the Solicitor-General for Scotland intend to discuss with the Lord Justice General plans to remodel the High Court in Glasgow, and if so, are those plans going ahead?

That has been a matter under discussion with the Lord President, but not on Friday. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the buildings of the High Court and gaol square are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that the Lord Justice General is aware that there is a long tradition of Labour Members bellyaching about social problems, a good example of which is warrant sales?

I did not discuss warrant sales with the Lord President, but to go back a question, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that is often the case.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will discuss with procurators fiscal the number of prosecutions for the sale of cigarettes to children.

No. I am satisfied that procurators fiscal are aware of the relevant provision, which is section 18 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, and that they will give every proper consideration to such reports received by them.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that the latest figures show that the illegal sales of cigarettes to children in Scotland amounted to £9·5 million last year? Why does he not take some action to stop that? It is the law of the land, like any other law. Will he take vigorous action to ensure that it is enforced and to stop tobacco companies hooking children on this fatal habit in their relentless pursuit of profit?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that figure or how he ascertained it—

From an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys document.

Whatever view he or I take of the matter, unhappily for him, the Scottish courts still require evidence and it must be corroborated. I have recently emphasised to procurators fiscal that if evidence of sales is available, prosecutions should be mounted.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing problem of children buying cigarettes from cigarette machines? Will he ask the appropriate authorities whether those machines can be put in sites where they can be carefully watched, so that the number of prosecutions can be reduced, not increased?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but he highlights the point that it is extremely difficult to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children from vending machines. I hope that his point: will be properly appreciated.

As so many people die from smoking-related diseases and there is increasing evidence that very few people start to smoke in adulthood—it is usually in childhood —will the Solicitor-General ensure that the Government support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to strengthen the law in this area? Will he also, as his colleagues do in England and Wales, collect evidence about the sale of cigarettes to under-16s, which his office does not do at present?

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is aware, even if the hon. Gentleman is not, that the Government support his Bill. The hon. Gentleman must accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for health in Scotland is positively aggressive in the way that he puts forward his views on the campaign to prevent or dissuade children from starting to smoke, whether they are aged under 16 or not. However, that is a matter of persuasion. I am responsible for those who break the law under the 1937 Act, and I have already said that we are considering the matter carefully.