asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase the period available for training of constables in order to operate the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 and to police domestic violence generally.

The 1981 Act and the problem of domestic violence generally already feature prominently in the training programme at the Scottish police college. That programme is kept under regular review.

Does the Minister really think that two 50-minute periods during an eight-week course are adequate when he says that the problem features prominently? Can he confirm that those two 50-minute periods take place? How can he assess the use of the video "Getting over the Fear", produced by Strathclyde regional council and Scottish Women's Aid, as an aid to the training of the officers under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act when the Scottish Office has neither borrowed nor purchased a copy of the video?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that training is kept under careful consideration. Proper emphasis is given at the Scottish police college as well as at individual force level. The relevance of the video "Getting over the Fear" is being assessed at present by the Scottish police college.

In view of the drastic need for additional hostel accommodation for women who are the victims of domestic violence—I understand that at the moment there are 184 places in Scotland compared with a minimum of 500 recommended by a Select Committee over a decade ago—does the Minister agree that it is not simply a matter of detection and prosecution, important though it is, but is a matter of making adequate resources available so that we can deal with that dreadful problem of women's rights and the defence of them?

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new role. The point that he raises is worthy of further consideration, although it does not relate directly to the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last attended a meeting of the EEC Council of Fisheries Ministers.

As Minister responsible for Scottish fisheries I attend meetings of the Council of Fisheries Ministers and was present at the most recent one on 5 November.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Whether he or the Secretary of State attends the next meeting, on the agenda one will expect to see a report on the negotiations between the European Community and Norway on the share-out of North sea herring for next year. Is the Minister aware that the share given to Norway last year was unacceptable to the Scottish fishing industry? Can he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government, through the Community, will press for a fairer share-out for the Scottish fishing industry in the coming year?

I should expect the negotiations between the Community and Norway to be reported to us at the next Council meeting. In fact, the negotiations resumed today. Our objectives are, first, a fair allocation of the joint herring stock between Norway and the Community based on the recent scientific report on the zonal attachment of stocks and, secondly, to agree the transfers of herring and other species in return for transfers of white fish from Norway, which are so important to our industry.

Did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss at the meeting the funding difficulties experienced by the Scottish fleet? Now that the Community structural programmes are running out, has the Commission put forward any new proposals? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if possible, it would be desirable for such proposals to be in place by the beginning of 1987, so as to provide continuity of employment and support for the hard-pressed boat building yards in Scottish coastal areas?

At our last meeting we discussed the structure proposals put forward by the Commission, but did not reach any conclusions. These matters are currently subject to negotiations in the Community and we expect to return to them at the meeting to be held on 3 December.

Has the Council considered the implications of the Falkland Island fisheries zone for EEC vessel activities?

That was not raised at the last meeting.

Although it is important to accept scientific evidence up to a point, does my hon. Friend agree that in negotiations with our European partners it is important to maintain the closest relationship with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which generally gives extremely good and wise advice to Ministers?

Yes, I maintain very close contact with the Scottish fishing industry. As my hon. Friend rightly says, we must look to the future of the industry, not just to the year ahead in terms of total allowable catches, and so on, and to the long-term health of the stocks, which are so important to the future of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Strathclyde regional council about the urban aid programme.

I met Strathclyde representatives last on this subject on 18 April 1986.

Will the Minister meet Strathclyde representatives again to discuss the very disturbing situation that has arisen? With regard to the suggestion in a recent Scottish Office report that there might be deliberate discrimination against urban aid projects from the west of Scotland, will he give an assurance that there is no such intention and that all projects, whether from the east or the west of Scotland, will be judged strictly on their merits? Will he also discuss the crisis arising from urban aid projects running out in the current year and the pernicious penalty system which means that Strathclyde now faces a burden of £13 million compared with £1½ million previously? Will he exclude the urban aid programme, at least, from the penalty system, as is the intention with teachers' pay?

I have agreed to meet representatives of Strathclyde region in London on 2 December and I am sure that a number of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman will come up again then. All projects put forward within the urban programme are considered strictly on their merits, within the limits set some 18 months ago after consultation with Strathclyde and Glasgow as to maximum planning figures for both those authorities. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the past four years Strathclyde, taken as a whole with all its districts, has received about 80 per cent. of urban programme funding—both capital and current. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that. I am sure he will also welcome the fact that under this Government the amount of money being made available for the urban programme, both capital and current, is now double what it was in 1979.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread discontent about the urban aid projects, many of which go straight into mainline finance when they finish, thus starving constituencies such as mine of vital resources?

I accept the need to look carefully at projects funded through the urban programme. In the past two years we have attempted to tighten the criteria to ensure that only the best projects receive funding. The urban programme is based on a pump-priming principle and it is for the local authority to decide whether it wishes to take the projects on mainline.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that the discussions that he intends to hold with Strathclyde regional council will be meaningful? He is, of course, aware that I wish two of the areas in my constituency to be mentioned—Harthill and Newmains, which are very deprived areas, with no social amenities whatsoever. Will he give those areas serious thought and consideration and ensure that, above all, the discussions are meaningful?

The position in Strathclyde has not arisen out of the blue. Strathclyde knew that it was coming for at least the past two years. If it had wanted to take these programmes on mainline, it could have made spending provision to do so. After all, its estimate of the cost of the projects was £2·6 million. That must be set against a total guideline for this year of £1·2 billion for Strathclyde region.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), does my hon. Friend recall the representations that I made to him on the need to consult hon. Members about potentially controversial urban programme projects in their constituencies? When he meets representatives of Strathclyde region, will he ask them how many of their projects employ Labour councillors, or is that practice limited to my constituency?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that Strathclyde region will also have noted it and will wish to comment when we meet. I am concerned to ensure that only the best and most viable and innovative projects are funded by central taxpayers' money in this way. That is how I am trying to operate the urban programme.

First, I hope that the Minister will ignore the cheap remarks by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) about urban aid projects. Is the Minister aware that many of the projects employ many people and that they help many more very poor people in the poorest parts of Strathclyde? Unless he is prepared to disregard for penalty purposes the funding of these projects by Strathclyde region, when Government funding ceases many of them will close. That would cause considerable social distress throughout Strathclyde.

When the projects are first put forward and sponsored by the local authorities, they are fully aware of the need to decide whether to take them on mainline at the end of the period when they are funded by the urban programme. Strathclyde knew for at least two years that the urban programme funding for those projects would end this year. It was perfectly capable of making provision for them within its spending guidelines.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the design capacity of each of Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland and the present population of each institution.

As the information can most conveniently be given in tabular form, I will arrange for this to be published in the Official Report.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is it the case that, in 1985, 47 per cent. of receptions to Scottish prisons were for default of payment of fines and that 52 per cent. of those going to prison were entering for a sentence of 30 days or less? What can be done to reduce those worrying figures?

The hon. Gentleman has identified a real problem. He will be aware that two or three years ago we introduced fines enforcement officers. It is hoped that they will lead to a reduction in the number of people admitted to prison for short periods. I accept what I believe is the hon. Gentleman's view; clearly it is highly undesirable that a person for whom the courts have found a fine to be an adequate punishment should end up in prison, although that position normally arises through failure to pay the fine that has been imposed.

In regard to the design capacity of the proposed new Peterhead prison, will my right hon. and learned Friend place a copy of the plans in the library at Peterhead so that people in that part of my constituency can see the sort of prison that will be erected there, which we hope will be commenced in March 1987?

I shall be happy to ensure that the fullest possible information is made available to my hon. Friend and his constituents. Clearly the co-operation of the local community in the town of Peterhead is an important factor in developing the prison in that town.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a sort of Parkinson's law of penology which suggests that the space available will be filled by ever-increasing numbers of prisoners, and that we should be extremely careful about sanctioning any further extensions to our prison space? All that the Secretary of State will get is a larger prison population. Therefore, will the Secretary of State consider very carefully any plans that he has to extend prison populations by this method, and especially the siting of another facility in a place which is so far removed from the centre of Scotland as Peterhead?

When the second phase of Shotts prison is opened early next year, the capacity of the Scottish prison system will be greater than the number of people presently in Scottish prisons. Of course, there is still an imbalance, with significant overcapacity in young offenders' establishments and overcrowding in some adult establishments. We are trying to rationalise to ensure that all prison establishments are properly used.

In relation to the recent disturbances at Saughton and Peterhead, is it within the remit of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons to consider the general question of congestion and what impact it has had in occasioning those disturbances? If not, will the Secretary of State ensure that the remit is expanded to include that?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that in Peterhead the problem is not one of congestion. The design capacity of Peterhead is 281 and there are only 181 prisoners at Peterhead now. Whatever caused the problem, it clearly was not overcrowding.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present overcrowding could be relieved by sending people convicted of drunk and disorderly offences to detoxification centres and hospitals rather than giving them prison sentences? Does he also agree that, given the present overcrowding, there is a place for Low Moss prison in Bishopbriggs? Will he take this opportunity to place on record his admiration for the work done at that prison during the recent period of uncertainty about the future?

I happily pay tribute to the staff of Low Moss. We have decided to keep open Low Moss, at least for a further year, because of the present position in the prison establishment. As a general principle, it is desirable to keep imprisonment for those for whom no alternative source of punishment is available to the courts. Ultimately, it is for the courts to decide whether imprisonment is appropriate in any case, but I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has enunciated.

Before the Secretary of State places plans for the proposed new Peterhead prison in Peterhead library, or in any other library, will he suspend a decision until the Chief Inspector of Prisons reports? There must be the possibility of using capacity in the new Shotts prison.

Even when phase 2 of Shotts prison is opened, the need to refurbish two halls at Barlinnie will mean continued problems of overcrowding, although we hope only for a reasonably short time. I hope that the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons will be available in the relatively near future. If it made fundamental recommendations such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, one could take them into account.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regret having paid little attention to the stringent criticisms of the Parole Board of Scotland in its annual report in July? Was it not a mistake to have changed the parole system on the basis of administrative diktat instead of having wide debate and discussion, especially in the House?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Under the present rules the Parole Board can take into account any exceptional circumstances that it may believe to be appropriate in recommending to the Secretary of State that parole should he granted to an individual prisoner. It has exercised that discretion in some cases and is free to do so whenever it thinks it appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration his Department has given to providing assistance to the ski development at Aonach Mor in Lochaber; and if he will make a statement.

A thorough assessment has been undertaken. We now await a response from the sponsoring bodies to the questions raised by the Industry Department for Scotland.

Such a response is on its way to the Minister. Is he aware that there is great disappointment in Lochaber that the delay in reaching a decision has already cost a year of this project? Can the Minister assure me that, in making the decision, he will take into account not only the notional cost per job but the economic activity in Lochaber, and more widely in Scotland, which the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency believe the scheme would generate?

We shall certainly take those points into account. When I tell the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of public funding for this project would be about 84 per cent.—£4·8 million out of a total cost of £5·7 million—and that the cost per job would be a minimum of about £60,000, and possibly as much as £80,000, he will realise that it is important to study the matter closely.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are few places in Scotland where regular skiing is possible? That being so, will he do everything that he can, through the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency and local authorities, in consultation with conservation bodies, to provide better skiing facilities in Scotland in the interests of tourism and so that the Scots can have good recreational facilities themselves?

We are keen to encourage the development of skiing in the north of Scotland wherever this can reasonably be achieved. We must consider such development closely, since so much public funding is required for a specific project.

Ski development at Lochaber or elsewhere may be important, but is it not barbaric that prisoners Kinnon and Smith are placed in cages—

Order. There is a further question to which the hon. Gentleman could easily attach that supplementary question. He cannot attach it to the question that is now before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to have discussions with the Scottish fishermen's organisations on the quota decision taken at the recent Council of Ministers meeting.

I met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 19 November, when we discussed among other matters the decision taken at the last Council of Ministers meeting enabling the Commission to close a fishery when the total allowable catch is exhausted.

I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to meet the Scottish fishermen's organisations to discuss this matter. Is he aware that the proposal to grant power to EEC officials to ban fishing once an allocation has been exceeded is abhorrent to the fishermen in my constituency and in the rest of Scotland? Is he aware also of what will happen when TACs are exceeded by other member states? The answer is that the penal effect will bear only on Scottish fishermen who continue to look after their total allowable catch? Will my hon. Friend explain how compensation is to be paid and how the fish will be collected?

The fishermen who came to see me expressed the same points as my hon. Friend has mentioned. If we are to conserve stocks and ensure that the total allowable catch is not exceeded, there must be some mechanism to ensure that those who exceed their quota are punished. The proposal is that the Commission will punish them in the following year by taking some of their catch from them and giving it to those who suffered because of the over-fishing. I think that that is sensible. It punishes the offender and compensates the person who suffers. Above all, it conserves the stocks.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the proposed community charge.

In addition to a response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I received 37 responses from individual local authorities on the Green Paper and on the subsequent Scottish Office paper on operational issues.

How have the Government managed to come up with a system of local taxation that will be even more arbitrary than the rating system? As the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on 17 November that under a poll tax people would pay the same bill for a given level of service, how can it be that someone on the Island of Mull, who might have access to limited levels of local services, will have to pay the same regional poll tax as someone who enjoys all the benefits of life in places such as Bearsden or Eastwood?

I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman concedes that the rating system is arbitrary. As one of the Opposition's spokesmen on agriculture, I hope that he will seek to persuade his party not to impose rating on agricultural property, which he knows would devastate Scotland's agricultural economy.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the majority of those who pay domestic rates in Scotland are eagerly awaiting the publication of a Bill that will distribute the cost of local authority services more evenly among those who use them?

Indeed, yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is interesting to note that among those who have welcomed the proposals for a community charge and the Government's other proposals are the ratepayers associations in Scotland, the chambers of commerce, which represent small businesses, and the CBI in Scotland, which represents industry. These organisations have all given a full welcome to the Government's proposals. As they represent pretty well all the ratepayers of Scotland, that is something from which we can take great satisfaction.

Has the Secretary of State calculated what proportion of total local authority expenditure will be constituted, on average, by the community charge?

It will be broadly that proportion of local authority expenditure that is presently funded by domestic rates.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this long overdue reform is being watched eagerly by people south of the border to see how successful it is, so that we can follow Scotland as quickly as possible? Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise the burden of responsibility that he carries in that regard? Will he take with him my best wishes, and the best wishes of my constituents and everyone south of the border, in making this a very successful measure?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I think that I can cheer him up even more. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that legislation will be introduced to enact similar provisions for England, even before the Scottish measure has come into effect.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the list that he read out of friends who support the community charge is very small indeed compared with the number of ratepayers who forcefully demonstrated during the last municipal elections that they did not like the idea at all? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should drop this pernicious tax. Why are we in Scotland to be punished when the people of England and Wales will not be punished in this way?

I have just said that similar proposals are to be implemented for England and Wales, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made clear. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that one of the basic defects of the present electoral system is that a substantial proportion of the electorate make no financial contribution to the revenue of local authorities through the present rating system. Therefore, it is not surprising that they should be happy to vote for high spending.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it cannot be fair that a widow in a small bungalow should have to pay the same rates as another household where four wage earners are living? The sooner the leglislation is enacted, the better. It will be warmly welcomed by many householders in Scotland.

It is interesting that the Labour party, which is now the only political party in Scotland that wishes to keep the present domestic rating system, seems to equate Socialism with the outcome that my hon. Friend has just described.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the position of crofters under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 in so far as it relates to the reduction from gross to net value in the valuation of their houses, in the context of the proposed legislation on the abolition of domestic rates in Scotland.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations on this matter from the Western Isles islands council, the Crofters Commission, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Crofters Union and the Harris Council of Social Service, as well as from a number of individuals in the crofting areas.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that the arrangement for rating crofts has been accepted for a long time by all Administrations as being fully justified and essential, and that if it is changed as a result of the legislation there will be severe social and economic consequences? There will be no incentive whatever for crofts to remain in the outlying areas of the islands or mainland.

I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, but he is as aware as I am that the reliefs at present attach to property, and that the Green Paper's proposals suggest the abolition of a property tax and its replacement with a personal community charge. A community charge will be much simpler, in that there will be a flat rate per adult, with a rebate available through the social security system to protect those on low incomes. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, on this year's expenditure, a community charge in the Western Isles would be about half the average applied in mainland Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that because of lower incomes and the narrowness of the tax base in the crofting areas, a local income tax, as suggested by the SNP and the alliance, would have a catastrophic effect on Crofters and would add a substantial burden to the amount that they would have to pay in income tax?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister recall that I recently sent him a letter on behalf of a crofter in the rural area of Kilmarnock and Loudoun? That crofter is complaining that he does not qualify for the crofters grant because he is not in the designated area. Why is the Minister discriminating against my crofters?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is always helpful. We can end this discrimination by removing the property tax element of local government financing and introducing a community charge.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the expenditure per pupil in Scottish schools for the year 1987–88, indicating the comparable figures in real terms for 1977–78.

In 1977–78 actual expenditure by local authorities per pupil was £883. The provision made for schools in the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement represents an expenditure of £1,332 per pupil. The figures are at 1984–85 prices.

Will my right hon and learned Friend say whether these figures are reflected in better pupil-teacher ratios over the same period and state the extent to which teachers pay is also included?

Yes, I can confirm that pupil-teacher ratios, both for secondary and primary schools, have improved during the period in question.

In view of the decline in pupil numbers over the decade, will the Secretary of State tell us what in real terms, has been the reduction of expenditure on school maintenance during those years?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a specific figure at this moment. Undoubtedly one of the problems that educational authorities are experiencing is the result of the disinclination to close half-empty schools. They are having to spend a substantial proportion of resources on the maintenance and heating of buildings when those resources could otherwise be used for text books or educational materials, which would be of more immediate benefit to their pupils.

I am sure the Secretary of State will accept that the overwhelming aspect of the educational scene is the teachers' pay dispute. According to information that has reached me, in an 89 per cent. poll the EIS membership voted against his proposition by 84 cent. to 16 per cent.? Does this not underline the tragic blunder that he made in refusing to honour the essential financial recommedations made in Main?

I have yet to receive any official notification of the figures. Therefore, one would clearly wish to consider them when they are made available. I think the hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that Scottish teachers have been offered one of the most generous settlements that have been offered in the public sector in recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the proposed legislation to replace rates.

My right hon. and learned Friend received about 750 representations during the consultation period on the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" and the Scottish Office paper on operational issues. Further representations have been received since the end of the formal consultation periods.

Will the Minister acknowledge that among those representations there is genuine concern about the implications of replacing the existing system with a poll tax or a community charge, first, because of the administrative difficulties associated with it and, secondly—and he received these representations from Grampian regional council even when it was under Conservative control—because the system will adversely affect the young and pensioner couples and is much more repressive than local income tax? Does he agree that the Labour party's position of opposing both the existing system and the Government's alternative is wholly untenable, given that it has no policy of its own?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Green Paper, so he must be aware that among those who will gain from the community charge are single pensioners and single-parent families. Given what he has said in the past about those categories, I am sure that he will welcome that. We have looked closely at the representations that have been made to us about the administration of the community charge and when the Bill is introduced the hon. Gentleman will see that we have taken account of many representations. I know that he supports a system of local income tax with an equalisation grant to make it work fairly. That surprises me, as the area that he represents in Grampian region would cross-subsidise other areas. I am sure that that would not be welcomed in his constituency.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received an enormous number of representations from elderly and single people in places such as Newton Mearns and Giffnock who are in favour of the community charge? I know that my hon. Friend does not pay much attention to opinion polls, but he may have seen a recent one showing a huge swing to the Conservative party. Could that be because more people are now recognising the Government's determination to push through the community charge Bill?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House about the most recent opinion poll. Usually alter the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has mentioned the previous one we go up six points in the poll the next day. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is worth reminding the House that under the community charge proposals single pensioners will do particularly well. Over 85 per cent. of them will gain, and of those, 30 per cent. stand to gain over £1 a week. Other single adult households will fare well, with 18 per cent. gaining and of those more than half gaining more than £1 a week. Within that last group are one-parent families. More than 80 per cent. of them will gain from the community charge, with about half of those gaining more than £1 a week. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all those categories and by the House in general.

Which Scottish local authorities have responded favourably to the proposed legislation? If it is such a wonderful idea, why is there not a Bill running in tandem with this legislation to make the same wonderful provision for England and Wales?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that our hon. Friends in England intend to follow this path next year. That is the timetable that they have set themselves. It is hardly surprising that Scottish local authorities have opposed the community charge proposals, because at present they have a cosy arrangement under which only a minority of their electors pay for their spending decisions. I would be extremely surprised if local authorities were willing to give that up easily.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the community charge is no more arbitrary than the circumstances in which we all pay the same price for a postage stamp, and that the capitation charge is much closer to the present regime, being a tax on the consumption of services? Does he further agree that we have quite enough tax on income?

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is also worth remembering that the community charge will finance only about 13 per cent. of local government expenditure in Scotland. Fifty-nine per cent. will continue to be financed by the central taxpayer through rate support grant and rebates, where the ability to pay is fully recognised.

Will the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and say how many local authorities in Scotland have approved of the scheme, how many officials who will have to administer it have approved of it, and how many other professional bodies who are involved have approved of it? Will he also tell the House what percentage of householders in Scotland are widows who are paying rates at present?

A number of authorities have said that they support general or specific parts of the proposals. It would be surprising if local authorities were prepared to give up a system which at the moment works wholly and exclusively to their advantage and to the disadvantage of ratepayers. It is the ratepayers about whom we are concerned. I find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman does not regard single parents and single pensioners as vulnerable sections of the community who deserve the protection that the community charge would give them.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any intention to review the inshore limits within which trawlers can fish in the Firth of Clyde.

There are no fishing limits in the Firth of Clyde, but there is a ban on vessels over 70ft fishing for white fish. We have no plans at present to review that ban, although we have discussed the matter with interested fishermen's organisations.

Is the Minister aware that when the Saltcoats Sea Angling Association recently held its annual sea angling competition, I was not able to hand over the first prize of about £2,000 because that prize was for the heaviest cod and not one cod was caught. In order to protect the activities of the sea angling industry in the Firth of Clyde, is the Minister prepared to ban trawlers from fishing within the present limits, which are there no matter what the Minister says?

Obviously I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman was not able to present the prize. Perhaps if he had invited a better quality of angler to the competition they might have done better. I appreciate that sea anglers wish to catch fish and that historically the Clyde has a good record on cod. I could not agree to banning commerical fishermen from the Firth of Clyde, many of whom are my constituents. It would be quite wrong, and I see no reason to do that.

My hon. Friend should be aware that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) was referring to an international angling conference and that over 1,000 people took part in it. They did not catch one white fish. My hon. Friend should look at that matter to see whether there is the possibility of having some form of restriction to allow anglers at least to catch fish.

I always accept the advice of my hon. Friend on fishing matters. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) wishes to write to me and draw my attention to the competition and when it took place, I shall look into the matter. I have to reinforce what I just said. I do not believe that we should consider banning the Clyde fishermen from the traditional fishing which they have always had in the Firth of Clyde.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current ratio of prison officers to prisoners in each of the Scottish prisons; and what was the corresponding ratio in 1980.

I shall arrange to have the figures for each establishment published in the Official Report. The overall ratio is 1:2·07 compared with 1:2·14 in 1980.

What effects do staff turnover rates have on those ratios? Is the Minister satisfied with the recruitment, selection and training of recruits to the service, and does he agree that there seems to be a thousand times more formal job security for a prison officer than for a shipyard worker, especially if the latter works at Scott Lithgow? I hope that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will agree to a meeting with me to discuss today's announcement by Scott Lithgow concerning the massive number of people who are to be made redundant.

The hon. Gentleman is very inventive in his supplementary question. Close attention is given to the training of prison officers. They have a six-week initial course and a further week a short time after. That seems to meet most of the basic requirements for training. Great care is taken in the matter.

Is it not clear that Messrs Smith and Kinnon are being placed in cages in Inverness as punishment for the recent protest at Saughton prison? Is that not barbaric? As Mr. Smith is one of my constituents, I am entitled to speak about him. Is it not also an abuse of human rights or is it simply a question of Victorian values coming to the fore and the Government, who talk about enlightenment, really putting the boot in, not just for prison officers but for prisoners themselves?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the ratio of prison officers to inmates in Inverness is 1:1·64, which is a considerable improvement, even on the Scottish average.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the action which he is taking to promote peace, stability and progress in Scotland's schools.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement on the Main report made by my right hon. and learned Friend on 30 October.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the position of the SSTA, in seeking negotiations with Ministers rather than resorting to strike action, is infinitely preferable to the position of the other union, which has threatened to impose disruptive and vexatious action on schools in Scotland as a result of strikes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The SSTA came to talk to my Department about a number of specific concerns. I would be delighted if the EIS would like similar discussions, but the position remains that the formal negotiations are with the Scottish joint negotiating committee, and we have urged all along that the negotiations should take place.

If the EIS ballot result is as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has suggested, will the Secretary of State cease to adopt this holier-than-thou attitude in blaming everybody but himself for the teachers' situation? Does he not recognise that if he does not exercise some flexibility and humility in these matters, the fault for the ensuing strike will be his and not the teachers'?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I am not in the least surprised to hear him make such an accusation. Obviously, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will have to study the details of the ballot, but although there has been a no vote, as I understand it, that leaves the door open to negotiations, and that is what we are urging. Surely that is what all parents will want.

I am glad the Minister has said that he would welcome negotiations. All of us, particularly in the light of what appears to be an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the Government's proposals, want to find a way forward—certainly every Labour Member wants to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we, too, want to see negotiations started? However, the Minister cannot argue that there should be negotiations while imposing on negotiations conditions so restrictive as to mean that they have to produce the same result as the offer that has been rejected. On what basis will the Minister welcome negotiations, and on what basis, and with what remit, will he allow the parties to sit down at the negotiating table?

If the hon. Gentleman were to re-read what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on 30 October, he would see the basis on which we can move ahead. However, it is clear that the overall cost laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend and the timing of the two phases of the pay increase are not negotiable, but that still leaves a good deal of room for manoeuvre. The SSTA clearly felt that when it came to discuss this. Within these parameters, we can discuss something, and something could be negotiated on the SJNC.

Is the Minister aware that that is not good enough and that he must now admit that the Government were wrong to break up the Main proposals? Is not the only hope of securing some peace to recognise this, because the outcome of that ballot has been a devastating rejection of the Minister's proposals?

The hon. Gentleman says that, but he may recall that EIS meetings were rejecting the Main proposals before my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 30 October. I understand that part of the ballot rejects the Main proposals. The EIS has gone a long way to throw out the proposals of this independent committee. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that we accept the main points of this proposal. Our only point is that the overall cost and the timing in two phases have to be within the terms of the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Order. We started with a point of order and I have allowed injury time on this question. We have three questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, so we may be able to return to question 14 if there is time.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what action has been taken by the Crown Office following the complaint of illegal fishing by the Duke of Argyll or his associates.

No proceedings have been instructed, but the trustees of the tenth Duke of Argyll have been advised that Crown counsel consider the method of fishing used on Loch Shira is illegal. I understand they are now seeking legal advice.

In view of the complaint submitted last month by Jimmy Reid, is it not a glaring case of double standards for the Tory Government to introduce Draconian legislation in the House of Lords to penalise working-class poachers when a member of the other place is allowed to indulge in illegal net fishing on Loch Fyne near Inverary castle? Is it not another glaring example of double standards for the procurator fiscal at Dunoon to tell the Glasgow Herald that he submits cases involving the hierarchy to the Crown Office in Edinburgh? Is there one law for the dukes and another for the rest of us? The whole thing looks distinctly fishy to me.

The hon. Gentleman's pun was certainly predictable. As I said, Crown counsel have said that in their view the method of fishing used on Loch Shira, part of Loch Fyne, is illegal. That method of fishing has been used at that location throughout the century without challenge and there has been nothing surreptitious about it. Thousands of tourists have seen it happening. There is no salmon fishing going on at the moment. There should not be anywhere in Scotland because of the regional restrictions, but it has been made clear to us that if, following a consideration of the particular legal situation in Loch Shira, that method of fishing is found to be illegal, it is not intended to resume it.

Has my hon. and learned Friend received any complaints about illegal fishing by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and his associates?

No, Mr. Speaker. I have received none at all.

The Solicitor-General said that now that the Duke of Argyll has been found to have behaved illegally he has promised not to do it again if the case is dropped. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman apply that to the full range of criminal actions?

The hon. Gentleman should listen. I said that the Duke of Argyll has been advised that Crown counsel take the view that the particular form of fishing there is illegal. As the hon. Gentleman might appreciate if he knew anything about fishing in Scotland, a variety of techniques are used and various——

May I go out and break a window?

If the hon. Gentleman really wants an answer I shall give it to him.

May I ask the Solicitor-General this matter? Since the last time a Duke of Argyll was beheaded it was on the orders of the English, by a machine called "The Maiden", without evidence, would it not at least be reasonable for the Scots not to attempt to prosecute another one when there is no evidence either?

I can only repeat to my hon. and learned Friend that, following the information that was given to us, we have looked at the matter. There is nothing surreptitious about what is being done. If the hon. Gentleman had ever been to Lock Fyne he would appreciate that thousands of tourists have stood and watched this activity in the past. Nothing has been concealed from anyone. If, technically speaking, the manner that is being deployed is illegal, that will not be resumed.

Since the procurator fiscal at Dunoon evidently understood that it was his duty to refer the case to his superiors in Edinburgh on the grounds that the Duke of Argyll was a member of the hierarchy, will the Solicitor-General give clear instructions to procurators fiscal throughout Scotland to deal with all alleged offenders equally?

As the hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate, where there are cases involving any difficulty, particularly those relating to ancient fishing rights and those in which particular specialties may be involved, it is only sensible that they should be referred to the Crown Office. I seem to recall that on previous occasions the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends took exception to the fact that such difficult matters were not reported to the Crown Office. In particular, in relation to the miners' strike I was enjoined to make sure that exactly that happened.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will arrange for regular meetings with the procurators fiscal to discuss prosecution policies.

Prosecution policy is discussed at monthly meetings between the Crown Agent and regional procurators fiscal who, in turn, meet regularly with their district fiscals. Additionally, the law officers and the Crown Agent visit individual procurators fiscal in their offices from time to time and meet them in the Crown Office.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his meeting on Saturday with solicitors in Cupar was extremely useful? Is he able to say whether complaints against police and prison officers, while being rigorously pursued, could result in prosecutions if they are found to be malicious or frivolous?

Yes. Particular arrangements are set out for complaints that are made against the police. They are dealt with at local level and they are also reported to the Crown Office. By the same token, to ensure that we are even handed, if the view is taken that the complaint is malicious or is wasting the time of the police, in turn the complaint, if there is sufficient evidence against him, may find himself being prosecuted.

Is my hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House whether are not the fiscal's offices within the sheriffdom of Grampian and the Highlands are adequately staffed for the purposes required of them?

At present, there is no significant shortfall of either legal or non-legal staff within the area. There are certain problems with regard to accommodation in fiscal offices in Scotland, though not particularly in Grampian. However, where there are deficiencies, we hope that shortly they will be remedied.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all the organisations that have received the consultation paper on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976; and when he hopes to make a statement in response to representations received.

Yes, Sir. Copies of the consultation paper have also been placed in the Library of the House. The closing date for comments is July 1987 and a statement will be made after they have been fully considered.

I do not know whether the Minister was as surprised as I was that this question was reached, but it means that I do not have a carefully rehearsed supplementary. However, is it not far too leisurely that the consultation period should be to the end of July on a consultation paper that is of no great significance in any case?

Given the wide range of interests that are involved, it is probably appropriate to have a fairly leisurely period of consultation. At the end of that period, I hope that we shall be that much better equipped to react to the consultation process.

Following is the information:

• List of Organisation in Receipt of Consultative Document on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976
• Alcohol Studies Centre
• Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)
• Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce
• Association of Superintendents of Police (Scotland)
• Baptist Union
• Bishop's Conference of Scotland
• Boy Scouts' Association
• Brewers' Association of Scotland
• Brewers' Society
• British Airports Authority
• British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association (Scottish Division)
• BP Petroleum Development Limited
• Catering Managers' Association of Great Britain
• Church of Scotland
• Confederation of British Industry (Scotland)
• Congregational Union of Scotland
• Council on Alcohol (Belfast)
• Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
• Educational Institute of Scotland
• Episcopal Church in Scotland
• Faculty of Advocates
• Federation of Scottish Junior Chambers of Commerce
• Free Church of Scotland
• Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
• Girls' Brigade and Boys' Brigade
• Girl Guides Association
• Headteachers Association of Scotland
• Highlands and Islands Development Board
• International Distillers and Vintners
• Jewish Faith
• Law Society of Scotland
• Local Authorities in Scotland
• London Clubs Limited
• Lords Day Observance Society
• Mecca Limited
• Methodist Church in Scotland
• National Federation of Licenced House Managers
• National Consumer Council
• National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses
• Rank Leisure Services
• Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland
• Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain
• Royal College of Physicians
• Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
• Royal College of Psychiatrists
• Salvation Army
• Scottish Airports Limited
• Scottish Conservative party
• Scottish Consumer Council
• Scottish Council for Civil Liberties
• Scottish Council on Alcohol
• Scottish Grocers' Federation
• Scottish Health Education Group
• Scottish Labour Party
• Scottish Law Agents Society
• Scottish Law Commission
• Scottish Liberal Party
• Scottish Licensed Trade Association
• Scottish National Party
• Scottish Police Federation
• Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association
• Scottish Social Democratic Party
• Scottish Tourist Board
• Scottish Trades Union Congress
• Scottish Transport Group
• Sheriffs' Association
• Strathclyde Licensed Trade Association
• United Free Church of Scotland
• United Kingdom Bartenders Guild
• Working Men's Clubs and Institutes Union Limited

Private notice question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take points of order after the private notice question.