asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to review the structure of area tourist boards and their relationship to other public bodies with similar promotional responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend does not have any plans to undertake such a review. We consider that area tourist boards remain the most suitable mechanism for involving the private sector and local authorities in local tourism.

I welcome my hon. Friend back to Scotland and wish him well in his new duties.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and agree with him about the importance of tourism in the Scottish economy. I also agree with him about the importance of collaboration and co-operation between the various bodies at national and area level. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that the HIDB, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Tourist Board are ready to co-operate locally to facilitate the advance of tourism in the Moray area.

Will the Minister urgently ask his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the massive job and tourist implications of yesterday's announcement that Glasgow is to be the cultural capital of Europe? For that reason, will he persuade the Minister for the Arts to go back on the statement that there will be no Government funding? We require major Government funding if the proposal is to do a job for the economy and the culture of Scotland and of Britain.

I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at Glasgow's success in winning the contest. Progress in Glasgow during the past few years has been quite remarkable and I am sure that it will fulfil the role satisfactorily. I feel sure that the availability of funding from the private sector and from local authorities will be adequate to maintain the momentum that they are now developing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a likely area for the provision of new jobs in the future? To assist the industry, will he maintain the high Government expenditure on roads, particularly on the A75, where there have been unfortunate accidents lately, and do what he can to help the industry over the rating of caravans and caravan sites?

I, too, attach importance to the A75. Our record on increasing expenditure on roads is remarkable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. That is reflected in the high quality of roads in Scotland available to the tourist industry and others.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister's statement that the area tourist boards play an important and valuable role in the promotion of tourism in Scotland. If that is the case, will he confirm that the Scottish Office block grant to the Scottish Tourist Board for onward transmission to local tourist boards has not kept pace with inflation during the past three years? Many area tourist boards depend heavily on that subvention to promote their activities.

The Scottish Tourist Board certainly has an important role to play, but an important role must also be played locally. The enthusiasm, local enterprise and initiative in area tourist boards are the factors that can generate the most effective tourism for each area in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on general housing provision in the new towns; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reached a decision on the moratorium on house building in new towns in the light of recent submissions of the development corporations.

Representations have been received from each of the new town development corporations, from Fife regional council and from the forum of Scottish local authorities with new towns. We shall take full account of all representations before reaching decisions on the policy review.

Does the Minister accept that there is a need for some urgency in reaching a swift conclusion on this matter and that he should respond positively to the representations that were made to him on Friday 3 October when he met the forum of Scottish local authorities with new towns? Surely today is an opportunity to make such a statement. Failing that, can a statement be made in the next few days so that the local authorities with new towns will know where they are going?

I indeed had a most useful meeting with the representatives of the Scottish local authorities with new towns and with the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). As I made clear to them, the considerations affecting these matters must also take account of the wider implications for the public expenditure survey. However, an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Will the Minister recognise that this housing ban is causing particular hardship to a young community, such as Livingston, where every year 400 young couples marry and seek a home from a development corporation which is not allowed to build houses for them? Does he accept that all five local authorities representing new towns and all five Members of Parliament have called for the ban to be lifted, and that they are now supported by all five development corporations which were appointed by him and his colleagues? As nobody representing the new towns, whether elected or non-elected, now supports the ban, what possible mandate can the Minister claim for sticking to it?

The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is unity, and to some extent there may be. Nevertheless, there are differences between the levels of need as assessed by the new town corporations and by the local authorities. The demographic factor to which the hon. Gentleman refers was also brought out in the SLANT report and it is certainly to be taken into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in Livingston private house ownership doubled within six years.

May I add my personal warm congratulations to my hon. Friend on his new responsibilities? My hon. Friend referred to the increase in house ownership in Livingston. Does he agree that the five Scottish new towns generally have an excellent record on selling their housing to sitting tenants? Can he give the House an indication of the overall position for the other new towns?

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is absolutely right about the importance of increasing private ownership in the new towns. There has been a substantial increase over the years, but ownership is still at 34 per cent., which is rather below the Scottish average. However, he might like to know that the completion rates for private building have doubled during the past four years.

May I add my representations to those of my two colleagues and ask that the decision on lifting the moratorium be given as quickly as possible? Is the Minister aware that in the new town of Irvine not only are second generation families unable to be rehoused, but small businesses cannot attract key workers for the development of those businesses because the priority list is now much longer than the list of most of the other district council tenants?

I accept the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the need to be able to continue to attract industry to the new towns. It is also worth mentioning that this year the HRA capital allocation to Cunninghame district council is 60 per cent. higher than it was two years ago.

Has the rate of purchase of new town development corporation houses by sitting tenants been matched by other local authorities?

I cannot give my hon. Friend those figures now, but I shall write to him.

Does the Minister appreciate that the sale of housing does not meet the needs of many thousands of people? How long will it be before he once again permits the building of houses for rent?

I accept that it is necessary to achieve balanced communities and a proper integration between general and special housing needs. That is one reason why we give close consideration to the reports that we have received.

Will the Minister assure us that the new clause rushed into the Housing and Planning Bill in another place by the Department of the Environment to allow housing in new towns to be privatised will not cover Scotland? If it does not, will he give an assurance that there will be no equivalent legislation in Scotland?

The policy on this matter has not changed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Development Agency concerning the Inverclyde Initiative; and if he will make a statement.

I discussed the work of the initiative with representatives of the Scottish Development Agency when I visited the offices of the initiative in Greenock in July. Accepting the difficulties the initiative faces, I am satisfied that sound progress is being made.

Has not the time arrived to increase the cash injection into the Inverclyde Initiative? If increased funds were made available to the manpower and venture training group, unemployed people, of whom there are thousands in Inverclyde, could be helped to set up businesses and, perhaps more importantly, to develop community enterprises. Recently, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave similar help to those shipbuilding communities which were badly hit by redundancies. Could not the same be done for Inverclyde?

The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the major progress that has already been made. Plans for a £20 million redevelopment of the customs house quay site in Greenock, which could lead to the creation of 700 jobs, are well advanced. In addition, the Scottish Development Agency has acquired land in Port Glasgow for the construction of a new factory. Given that there was a five-year programme for the initiative to achieve about 2,000 jobs, it is encouraging that already projects are in hand which could achieve almost half of that figure.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that congratulations are in order for Mr. Donald Draffan and his colleagues involved with the Inverclyde Initiative on the amazing amount of work that has been accomplished so far? Does he agree that a great deal more might have been achieved had it not been for the carping criticisms by the local Labour party in that area?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those involved with the initiative believe that major progress is being made. I had useful discussions with them when I met members of the Inverclyde Initiative.

Recognising that the Edinburgh Evening News and Lothian regional council have revealed that Leith has the highest unemployment on the east coast of Scotland, would it not be appropriate to give more resources to the Scottish Development Agency to expand the Leith project, so putting people back to work and doing the things which are essential to the community? Would that not be an appropriate use of public money?

I am not certain which part of Inverclyde the hon. Gentleman represents. Although I appreciate that Leith has serious unemployment problems, they come nowhere near to the problems of Inverclyde. That is why the Government have set up the Inverclyde Initiative.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in unemployment in north Lanarkshire since May 1979.

Between May 1979 and September 1986 unemployment rose from 15,531 in the then north Lanarkshire travel-to-work area to 33,659 in the new Lanarkshire travel-to-work area, but because of changes in the travel-to-work area boundaries and in the method of count, these figures are not strictly comparable.

When will the Minister realise the real human misery that lies behind those statistics of failure? What will people make of the contrast between the bland public relations nonsense from New St. Andrews House and the Government's view of the future for Strathclyde and north Lanarkshire contained in the report to the European development fund, which states that there is "little possibility of sufficient expansion in the economy to reduce unemployment significantly in the next few years." Is it not time that the Scottish people realised that we need not new Ministers at the Scottish Office but a new Government?

The Government take the problem of unemployment seriously. That is why we are dedicating almost £3 billion to employment and training measures. That is why almost five times as many Scots as in 1979 qualify for such measures. The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a working document based on figures compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities. A similar document was produced in 1982, and it is highly irresponsible to make the use of it that has been made in certain quarters. This is against the interests of Scotland.

Following the two announcements made in my constituency about Caterpillar and Honeywell, which are not labour intensive firms, but have at least allowed a consolidation of jobs, will the Minister recognise that in the steel industry, particularly in my constituency in the Clydesdale tube works, morale is at a very low level after a large number of redundancies? There could be further redundancies, which will further aggravate the position. Is the Minister aware that in the Strathclyde region, where we have 14·1 per cent. unemployment, this will be catastrophic? Is the Minister thinking of doing something about it?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are already doing a great deal about it, as I have already said. I am glad that he welcomes the announcement made by Caterpillar of the £62 million investment in its Uddingston factory, securing the jobs of some 1,200 employees, and the Honeywell extension opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the other day. Within Lanarkshire there are 4,600 community programme places and about 6,000 youth training places. There is evidence of our commitment to helping to solve the unemployment problem.

Is the Minister aware that none of the £30 million investment — announced by the Secretary of State during the recess—in Ravenscraig is new money, but merely for the relining of an existing blast furnace and for coal injection, and the attempt by the Secretary of State to suggest that there is any security there for the future is fallacious? Is he further aware that the male unemployment rate in Craigneuk in the ward that contains Ravenscraig is already 36 per cent.? Is he aware that there is no alternative but an entirely new industrial initiative, for the the future of Lanarkshire?

The hon. Gentleman's gloom is the last thing that Scotland needs at the moment. It was not my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State who made the announcement by BSC. I suspect that it is only the Labour party that would put £30 million into something that it intended to close.

In an earlier answer the Minister appeared to be casting doubt on the reliability of the figures that the Government have used to support bids for regional assistance from the Community. Does he accept the accuracy of these assumptions, or not?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government do not make employment forecasts. This was a working document compiled as the basis for negotiation for European regional development fund grants, from which Scotland has benefited over the past decade to the tune of around £616 million. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a worthless exercise to submit a detailed document to secure these continuing grants for the benefit of Scotland, he is wrong.

We congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and are immensely relieved that he will not be long in the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) spoke about Ravenscraig. Why is the Scottish Office, in the regional development document, talking consistently about continuing job losses in the steel industry in Scotland—which is obviously the official view of the Scottish Office — when we get double standards from Ministers deceiving the work force at Motherwell into believing that they are in favour of developing the plant? When will the Minister make proposals for investment in the coke ovens, which would be a clear sign of the future security of the Ravenscraig steel plant?

Again, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome the substantial investment already committed by BSC to Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not make employment forecasts. We can rely more substantially on the fact that some 50,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland in the past three years. That is a higher rate of job creation than has been achieved either in Germany or Japan.

asked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Scotland with special reference to youth and long-term unemployment.

The full range of employment and training measures is being brought to bear on the problem. The YTS in particular is showing successes, with over 38,000 participants in Scotland in 1986–87 expected to reach a target of 51,000 for the year as a whole. Under the restart programme over 26,000 long-term unemployed have received assistance towards finding a job or training.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, despite the fiddling of unemployment figures no fewer than 16 times since 1979, the basic brutality is that unemployment is going up and up? There is no indication whatever that they are likely to come down between now and the general election, even if the Government change their policies—which they have no intention of doing. Does the Minister not recognise that 17 people in the dole queue are chasing each vacant job? Is that the image that the Government seek to portray, the image of a caring Government?

If the hon. Gentleman was prepared to use his normal compassionate and flexible attitude in considering these matters, he would acknowledge that the situation in Scotland bears good comparison with the situation in many other parts of the developed industrial world. I remind him that in Italy 54 per cent. of the adult population are in work. In Germany the figure is 59 per cent. and in France it is 60 per cent. In Scotland no less than 63 per cent. of the adult population are in work. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give an objective assessment of employment in Scotland, he should explain why Scotland has more of its adult population in work than any other comparable European country.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the civil servants in his Department to estimate how much unemployment in Scotland would be increased if the Opposition had their way and we saw the cancellation of Trident, the destruction of nuclear power generation in Scotland, with the resulting costs for industry, and the rating of agricultural land and buildings? It is widely believed that those factors would add some 20,000 people to the dole queue. Does he agree that the Opposition are hypocritical on this as on everything else?

My hon. Friend is right. Quite apart from the Opposition's defence policy leaving Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom defenceless, it would result in severe damage to the employment prospects in a number of parts of Scotland, especially parts of the west of Scotland which depend on defence-related jobs. The Opposition have not even begun to come to terms with the employment implications of their foolish policies.

Unemployment in Scotland is terrible. The redundancies in the railway workshops in my constituency mean that in some streets not one young boy or girl has a proper job. The only thing offered to them is the youth training scheme by which young people are being exploited. Will the Minister take action to provide proper jobs in my community?

The hon. Gentleman has made the most disgraceful remark that I have heard for a long time—

I will get the evidence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that of those in Scotland who complete youth training schemes more than 50 per cent. go straight into full-time employment and that a further 10 per cent. go into further training—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is exploitation he should discuss it with the youngsters who have got jobs through youth training schemes.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the SSEB has estimated that the Labour party's nuclear energy policy could increase electricity prices in Scotland by up to 25 per cent.? Is there any better recipe for wiping out manufacturing industry?

My hon. Friend is correct. Not only would such an increase in electricity prices be extremely unpopular with the wider public, but it would also have a devastating effect upon the ability of our industry to compete internationally. That factor gives rise to great anxiety.

What involvement has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in the Department of Employment in the awarding of approved training organisation status under the new two-year YTS scheme? In my constituency young people involved in the scheme and their parents are worried about the lack of reviews and the lack of continuous assessment by many of those companies. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at this problem to ensure that companies that are given approved training organisation status have the structure and the facilities to back up the claims that are made?

Naturally, we shall look very carefully at any suggestion that they are unable to respond and I shall ensure that any information the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw to my attention is properly looked at.

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware, since he has called for objectivity, that there is a feeling abroad in Scotland that, politically, his party has written off Scotland, and vice versa. Is he not concerned about this, particularly when one listens to some of the speeches of his Prime Minister? Unemployment in Scotland, however much the right hon. and learned Gentleman may try to wriggle today, is an absolute disgrace, and something must be done about it.

Given that unemployment is indeed at an unacceptably high level, the unemployment percentage in Scotland, nevertheless, is lower than it is in several parts of England. It is lower than in Wales. It is also lower than in Northern Ireland. It is false to suggest that Scotland has a particular problem that is unique in the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that Scotland's relative position with regard to unemployment is more favourable now than it was in 1979, compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the view that has been expressed in the United States and Japan that the future increase in employment throughout the developed world is almost certain to come from the service sector and that an undue preoccupation, if not obsession, with manufacturing will not help future employment? Will he therefore agree that the main policy thrust should be to seek to take advantage of the service sector, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that this will be the policy of his Department?

I do not agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. While I believe that he is undoubtedly correct that many jobs are coming and will continue to come from the service sector, and while it is also correct that some of the older, traditional industries cannot expect to offer the same employment opportunities in the future as in the past, there is evidence to suggest that a large number of small businesses are being created in the manufacturing sector that will be able to produce important employment opportunities both in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his Government's application for assistance under the regional development fund. Does he seriously agree with his junior colleague who suggested that it was highly irresponsible for either the Opposition or anybody else to take an interest in what clearly was a considered judgment and prediction by the Department of Trade and Industry? Will the Secretary of State say whether he accepts the quite clear prediction that there will be no significant reduction in unemployment in Strathclyde and in most of Scotland in the year 1990?

As the hon. Gentleman has said, in putting forward its proposals to the European Commission the DTI seriously considered the case that needs to be put to create the maximum opportunities for regional investment in the various parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are talking about 17 volumes of evidence and that that part of it which refers to Scotland covers some 200 pages. If, in seeking to acquire regional funds for Scotland, the hon. Gentleman were to put a submission to Brussels which concentrated purely on what had already been achieved and on the remarkable achievements in many areas of employment, he would have very little prospect of a continuance of the major funds that we have obtained from the European Community. No fewer than £600 million of regional funds has been acquired from the European Community to be spent in Scotland. It is on that basis that that report ought to be accepted.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can escape for a moment from the mass of verbiage in which he has sought to bury that question, can he tell us whether the DTI was seeking to mislead the Commission, or whether it was telling the truth?

I am always happy to accept advice from the right hon. Gentleman on questions of verbiage. We were seeking to highlight those aspects of the situation in the United Kingdom that would maximise our prospects for achieving—[Interruption.]

Order. I am trying to get on so that we can reach Question 14.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well how the European Commission operates. He knows exactly the criteria which would best achieve maximum regional funds for Scotland as well as the United Kingdom as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

I last met members of the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 20 June. Subjects discussed included shipbuilding, the steel and coal industries and the British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops at Springburn.

In view of that reply, does the Secretary of State intend to meet the STUC again in the near future, and will he then discuss the findings and recommendations of the Main committee report on teachers' pay and conditions of service? Will he make a statement to the House now as to his intentions regarding the cost of implementing that report?

I have not received any further request from the STUC for such a meeting. With regard to the Main inquiry, the Government, the Education Institute of Scotland and others involved in educational matters are giving serious and deep consideration to all the recommendations of the Main report. The EIS, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, has not come to any conclusion on these matters and neither have the Government. However, as soon as we are in a position to indicate our findings we shall make a statement to the House.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the general council, will he draw its attention to the highly successful job creation work of local enterprise trusts? Is he aware that last Monday at the annual general meeting of the Moray local enterprise trust it was announced that several jobs had been created or saved? [Interruption.] A significant number of jobs in the Moray area were saved or created at the remarkably low figure of £124 per job. In the light of that, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Scottish Development Agency can continue to give full funding assistance, as it has done in the past year, of some £15,000 towards that excellent work?

The enterprise trusts are yet another initiative by the Government to help employment prospects and to achieve maximum co-operation between local business men and others. I pay tribute to what has already been achieved in that area.

How will the Secretary of State explain to the STUC that the Government are unable to give it a forecast of unemployment in Scotland and are unable to give the House such a forecast but are able to tell the European Commission that the Government's estimate is 3311,000 in the year 1990? Is that to be regarded as lining on the begging bowl, or is it a real estimate?

If the right hon. Gentleman had read the report rather than a press release he would have seen that it makes it clear that the Government are making no forecast about employment, because we follow the same practice as previous Labour Governments and never make forecasts of that kind.

I accept the Secretary of State's point about the need to look carefully at the Main recommendations. We all agree that the teachers, as well as the Government, must look at the package as a whole. We certainly do not want a rushed decision perhaps turning on one or two of the more complicated elements in an interlocking and important package. However, will the Secretary of State accept that the Government have their part to play? is it not essential that the Government make it clear at an early stage that they will be prepared to fund their share of any settlement that is reached on the basis of Main and that they will also be prepared to look constructively and positively at the other parts of the Main package that require funding of staffing levels, which are set out or referred to in the Main proposals? Is it not also important that the Secretary of State makes it clear that local authorities, which will no doubt have to bear some part of the burden, should not find themselves caught under the guideline provision and paying penalties for honouring an agreement that may be reached on the basis of the report? Does he not accept that it is essential that teachers know where the Government stand, because that must be an important factor when they come to strike the final balance?

I have not the slightest doubt that the members of the EIS and other teachers' unions will need to know the Government's views on the recommendations of the Main report when they come to a conclusion on this matter.

rose—

Order. May I say that there is a later question on this matter, and I am trying to get there.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the Housing Corporation in Scotland on the policy review report of the Scottish Special Housing Association; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received no advice from the Housing Corporation. The chairman of the corporation and the Scottish Special Housing Association have, however, offered full co-operation on follow-up action.

It is so long since I tabled the question that I have almost forgotten why.

Before we get to the consultation document, I have asked the SSHA for a progress report on the policy review. I have asked the association and the Housing Corporation about a joint liaison group to examine matters of mutual interest. I think that that is in the interests of housing in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the prospects for the remainder of the current financial year for the construction industry in Scotland; what contribution he expects the oil-related sector to make in this context; and if he will make a statement.

Current assessments suggest that the construction industry's output this financial year will be similar to that in 1985 and thus maintain the substantial improvement made over the past four years or so.

Does the Minister recognise that the oil-related sector of the construction industry is essential to the highlands of Scotland and that recently the Kishorn yard has gone into receivership? Is he aware that, using the Government's unemployment statistics, the development department for the Highlands region has calculated that when the receiver has seen over the finishing of the current contract in the Skye and Wester Ross travel-to-work area unemployment within the next two months will rise from 17 to 23 per cent.? Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact that that will have on the communities there, in addition to the deepening gloom in Easter Ross? What do the Government propose to do?

Fabrication yards are regarded as being part of manufacturing industry, not of the construction industry. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the news from the Kishorn yard. We are watching the situation closely to see what develops. We hope that the receiver can achieve a satisfactory outcome.

Does the Minister accept that in answer to a question tabled some time ago the Secretary of State requested the oil companies in the oil-related sector to take a long-term view? Are the present redundancies being announced in Aberdeen and elsewhere a result of the Secretary of State's overtures to the oil companies, or can we expect a continuing diminution of oil-related employment in Scotland, particularly in the light of the diminution of seafaring employment referred to in the excellent document submitted by the National Union of Seamen? Perhaps the Minister can give us his view when he has had time to consider.

The hon. Member, who knows a great deal about these matters, knows that the oil industry's perception of oil prices in the 1990s and beyond will determine investment decisions and, hence, employment in those industries. Forecasting has always been a difficult business and in relation to the price of oil it must be the most difficult business of all. A wide range of estimates have been quoted. Future oil industry investment decisions will depend upon the perception of what is likely to happen.

Is it not the case that the present output of the construction industry is at record levels and that there has been a dramatic increase in expenditure for the construction of roads and on the Health Service?

My hon. Friend is right. Since 1981 total construction output has grown by about 74½ per cent., with substantially faster growth in sectors such as private housebuilding, private commercial work and repair and maintenance work. My hon. Friend knows of my past involvement in the Health Service. I can confirm that a vigorous building programme is going on in the Health Service, and that will continue in future.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's response, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the west of Scotland.

Most of Strathclyde benefits from development area status, and I am encouraged by the 18,100 new jobs associated with offers of new regional development grant in Strathclyde in the year to end September. In addition, several area initiatives are currently under way in the region.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, while he might be quite content with the figures in Strathclyde, no one else is? My colleagues and I have sat in this Chamber for the past three quarters of an hour listening to many slick answers on unemployment. Not one answer will give any comfort to the thousands of people in Scotland who are unemployed. As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answers on the regional development fund application, I am bound to say that I have never heard such nonsense and rubbish in the time I have been a Member of Parliament. The documents were submitted by the DTI with a voice from the Secretary of State for Scotland. If there is to be only a plateau in the unemployment rate over the next decade, surely to goodness the Secretary of State should be man enough to stand up and admit that the Government have made mistakes in policy and that something must be done now to change it.

I am not sure what comfort the unemployed will have received from the right hon. Gentleman's question. There was not one constructive item in his question, despite his protests to the contrary. I am not saying to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are content with the level of unemployment in Strathclyde. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when he was in government unemployment in Strathclyde went up dramatically. He knows perfectly well that it has continued to do so since he ceased to be a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman might be more impressive if he were prepared to admit the failings of the Government of which he was a member.

Does the Secretary of State remember that he and I spent part of the first day of the Labour party conference inside a disused brick kiln in Waterside in the Doon Valley? That area has the highest level of unemployment, not just in Strathclyde and Scotland, but in the whole of Europe. Does the Secretary of State recall the constructive proposals that were put to him by Cadet, the enterprise trust, the local authority and the Dalmellington trust? Has he had time to consider the proposals? Can he say something positive today? If not, when will he be able to say something positive to give some hope to the people of the Doon Valley?

I do recall that memorable experience in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have a sense of guilt at keeping him away from his Labour party conference. I found the visit extremely helpful. Many suggestions were made, especially regarding the role of the Scottish Development Agency in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. I have had an opportunity to have informal discussions with the agency on some of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the councillors of Cunninghame district council to discuss the future of Hunterston.

The district council has asked for such a meeting, in a letter it sent on 8 October, about a proposed oil rig repair facility. We are considering that request.

I am disappointed with the reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the port of Hunterston is stagnating, with the Clyde Port Authority, the SSEB, British Steel and the Hunterston company all involved in the development? Is it not about time that the port of Hunterston was split from the Clyde Port Authority and a Hunterston development corporation was set up to organise the future development of the port and the industrial areas, involving organisations such as the Scottish Development Agency, Strathclyde regional council and Cunninghame district council?

I am interested in what I can only presume is Labour party policy for that area. The reason for taking time to consider whether a meeting is necessary is that consideration is being given to a planning application relating to the area. That is obviously a matter that we shall have to take into context in considering whether a meeting is either necessary or desirable. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Hunterston site is of particular value because of its deep-water access. It is also an area of high amenity that should be developed only for industries that can exploit its particular advantages and bring major benefits to the entire Scottish economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he has in mind to increase employment in the Glasgow area.

We aim to improve employment prospects in Glasgow as elsewhere by our policy of encouraging the build-up of a strong, competitive economy. Investment by the Scottish Development Agency and the full range of the Manpower Services Commission's employment and training measures will further help to create jobs in Glasgow.

I asked the Minister what new initiatives he had, and it appears that he has brought forward none. With 77,000 out of jobs in Glasgow, will he have a word with his hon. Friend in the housing department to ascertain whether there are ways in which extra employment can be generated in the city by taking on new construction projects? Will the Minister ensure that Glasgow is getting its fair share of Government purchasing?

There are a number of specific initiatives that I could mention to the hon. Gentleman — for example, the GEAR project, whereby £281 million of Government money has generated a further £173 million of private money. The garden festival in 1988 will be a tremendous boost to Glasgow, and work on that project is already well advanced. Glasgow is benefiting enormously from the urban aid programme and receives about a quarter of the Scottish Development Agency's project programme moneys.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the procurator fiscal at Cupar to discuss prosecution policy.

I hope to visit Cupar in the near future and will be glad to discuss with him any points that he raises.

I am glad to hear that from my hon. and learned Friend. Will he discuss the merits, and possibly some of the difficulties, of extending the principle of fixed penalties for a wider variety of motoring offences?

Perhaps I should emphasise that the fixed penalty system that was introduced in England and Wales and involves the police is not a system that is currently in operation in Scotland. There is a fixed penalty scheme for moving traffic offences involving the procurator fiscal service, which is working extremely well and going a considerable way towards alleviating pressure on the courts. Fiscals have reported that there has been some criticism of the form of notice sent out to those who are offered the opportunity of a fixed penalty. I am examining this to ensure that the notice is properly understandable by members of the public.

If the Solicitor-General were to go to Cupar, would he discuss what policy the procurator fiscal should follow? Should he, through absence of the sheriff-clerk, find that the sheriff court does not operate, will he be able to assure the procurator fiscal in Cupar that that court will not have the same fate as Kirkwall sheriff court in the last week in August, when, because of public expenditure cuts, the so-called Government of law and order could not stand the court keeping open?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is more interested in this matter than in shipping and terminals in Orkney and Shetland, a topic which was raised earlier this afternoon. If he wants to raise with me a specific issue relating to the cover of the sheriff clerks in any court in his constituency, I hope that he will let me know. We want to ensure that throughout Scotland criminal trials and civil cases can come before the courts to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock to discuss staffing levels.

I have no plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock to discuss staffing levels, which are kept under review by the Crown Agent, who has, in the first instance, responsibility for those matters.

If the Solicitor-General has an opportunity to visit Kilmarnock, I am sure that he will enjoy it. Should he meet the procurator fiscal and discuss staffing levels with him, he will find that they are almost up to the required level, but that the accommodation is somewhat overcrowded. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman carry to Kilmarnock and the procurator fiscal the good news that some money will be provided for the refurbishment of the old Kilmarnock court so that accommodation can be made available in that building for the procurator fiscal's staff?

As the hon. Gentleman says, the staff in Kilmarnock are one short, which is expected to be made up in the very near future. As he will also appreciate, I am aware that there are also accommodation difficulties in Kilmarnock, particularly in relation to the sheriff court, but I think he will readily accept that what is more important is that we ensure that there is proper representation for the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock and that he has adequate staff. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that at present that is so.

We now go back to question No. 14. Sir Hector Monro.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I see that I have the next question—No. 40.

That question is to the Paymaster General, but today the questions are to the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Allow me to deal with it afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on teachers' salaries and conditions of service.

The report of the committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Main was published on 2 October. I am giving the report close and urgent consideration and have urged the teachers and their employers to do likewise.

Contrary to what the Order Paper says, my constituency is Dumfries, not Dunfermline.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that many teachers are refusing to involve themselves in curriculum development and parental liaison, which are matters identified in the Main report as crucial to the role of the modern teacher. That is a regrettable factor. One hopes very much that teachers will return to full, normal activity that is compatible with the professional status they enjoy.

I understand the need for the Secretary of State to study the report closely, but would he be prepared to deny at this stage the belief that he will expect the increased pay to be funded by the wholesale closure of rural schools?

I know of no suggestion that the funding of the recommendations in the Main report should come about through the closure of rural schools. I noted that in the Main report the committee mentioned that some closures of schools would be justified, given the fall in pupil numbers, but neither the committee nor the Government have argued that the funding of teachers' pay should be brought about by the closure of schools. There are arguments that in certain areas certain schools are no longer required in the interests of the children's education opportunities, but that is a different matter.

In answer to an earlier question the Secretary of State implied that he would make a statement soon. Is he aware that it is no use him welcoming the Main report unless he gives the commitment that he will meet his share of the salary increases recommended in the report through the rate support grant system, and also by increasing the guidelines correspondingly, otherwise we shall have the absurd situation of the local authorities being penalised for implementing the salary recommendations?

When the Government give their conclusions on the Main report, that statement will cover the financial aspects, including whether the Government's own contribution should be in a form recommended by the Main committee. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment further until we have concluded our consideration of the report.

When my right hon. and learned Friend announces his plans for education in Scotland, having considered the Main committee recommendations, will he make it clear whether the city technology centre initiative announced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will also be open to people in Scotland, and whether Scots will benefit from the principle of direct funding of schools in the state sector?

We are considering whether the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be useful in Scotland, but we have not yet come to a conclusion.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that until he makes clear his position on the funding of the proposed settlement from the Main committee it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get normal working going and obtain a settlement? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least tell us that he will come to the House as quickly as possible with a firm and clear statement to that effect?

The hon. Gentleman should be the first to acknowledge that, once the Main inquiry was established earlier this year, there was no justification for teachers not returning to normal working. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it was right to cause continuing disruption in the schools even while an independent inquiry was considering the matter, he should consult parents in his constituency to find out whether they agree with him.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider the response that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), when he spoke about the Government's responsibilities? Many of us are anxious about the responsibilities that will fall on local government in respect of the guidelines. In his statement, will the Secretary of State take account of the implications of any wage rises to be funded by local authorities in respect of the guidelines that they have to meet at his diktat?

There is no question but that if the Main committee's recommendations were accepted they would place an additional burden on central Government and on local authorities. Ratepayers would have to take that burden on their shoulders. Thus, responsibilities would lie with both local authorities and central Government as a result of the Main committee's recommendations. That is why it is sensible to look at such matters in detail instead of reaching a premature conclusion.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that teachers are justifiably concerned about some aspects of the document, including, not least, the anti-trade union bias that seems to pervade parts of the report? In those circumstances, it is crucial that not only the Secretary of State but the Cabinet should be prepared to adopt a wholly different approach to Scottish education. It would be a disaster if the Government failed to secure the negotiated settlement with the teachers that would enable us to reverse the decline in our schools.

I am rather puzzled, because the hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the Government should accept the Main report, while saying that it has an anti-trade union bias. It would be interesting to hear his explanation.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the Main report also raises some important long-term questions, including the proposal for an independent review body for pay and conditions? Can he outline the likely time scale for the Government's response to those recommendations?

I accept that the Government's view of the committee's starred recommendations should be available to the unions before they and their members reach a conclusion about what their assessment should be. It would clearly be relevant for teachers in Scotland to take that consideration into account when determining their attitude towards the Main committee.

I shall be brief, as to some extent my point has been met in the past 30 seconds. Does the Secretary of State accept that the largest teaching union and others who are affected are now going through a set timetable for consulting their members? For example, I believe that the EIS has a special delegate conference at the beginning of November and will then ballot. It is desirable and, indeed, essential, that the Government should make a statement. I accept that the decision has big implications, but the statement should be made before that special delegate conference takes place.

I agree that it would be desirable to make a statement. However, it is open to the EIS to determine its timetable in the light of the information that it feels it needs to know before deciding on the recommendation to make to its members.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Does it arise out of the questions?

It arises directly out of questions. It is important that Ministers should make accurate statements to the House, but I believe that the Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Moray (Mr Pollock) he claimed that the enterprise trust movement in Scotland was a Government initiative. He must know that that is simply not accurate. The enterprise trust movement was born out of Scottish Business in the Community. The worst thing that could happen to Scottish Business in the Community and the enterprise trust movement—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone well beyond the original question.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it is equally correct to point out that, through the Scottish Development Agency, the Government have taken the initiative in giving full support to that enterprise