asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Scottish Development Agency money has been spent in Renfrew district since 1981.

In the period April 1981 to Nov ember 1986 the agency has spent a total of £15·6 million in Renfrew, representing 2·4 per cent. of its total budget.

Is the Minister aware that 250,000 people live within the Renfrew district and that over the past decade more than 20,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry in that area? Only last week 600 jobs were lost at Babcock and Walcock Power Ltd., which is a high tech industry based in Renfrew, yet the Scottish Development Agency has spent only 2 per cent. of its overall budget for the past five years in this area. That is disgraceful. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to increase that percentage, and does he intend to instruct the Scottish Development Agency to take account of the dire and grave situation that now exists at Babcock and Walcock in Renfrew?

I recognise the problems of Babcock's, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is a worldwide recession in the demand for power generating equipment. The development of the Scottish Development Agency's initiative reflects the concern in the Renfrew district. I shall meet the district council next week, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be as sympathetic and helpful as I can.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that we have been able to attract the firm of Compaq to my constituency of Renfrew, West. If we are able to attract such firms, it would be advisable for the Minister to initiate action along the lines of the successful Inverclyde initiative, perhaps on a larger scale. Will my hon. Friend consider granting special status for Renfrew, bearing in mind that traditional areas such as that district have difficulty in competing with the new towns and the enterprise packages that they can offer?

May I ask for brief questions?

I recognise the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). We are, indeed, anxious to get the Renfrew initiative under way. We are ready to give active and speedy consideration to any viable opportunities.

It will take the next four years to create half the number of jobs that we lost last week. Does the Minister accept that a decade ago over 20,000 women were working in the cotton industry in the same area, but that now there are only about 1,100? The entire Linwood factory has been decimated. Originally there were 8,000 workers, now there are none. Does the Minister accept that at the time of the Linwood closure, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. Curley), the Secretary of State promised special measures but they have not come forward? Compaq is good news, but we have not been given a good deal.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the initiative that we are considering and the success that we have had in broadening the manufacturing base of the Scottish economy. I recall the hon. Gentleman's prognostication in August 1978 that unemployment would rise to over 3 million, whichever party was in power.

Given the problems faced by Renfrew district and every other area in Scotland, what possible help can it be to impose, this week of all weeks, and today of all days, further moratoria on the payment of regional development grants in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? How long will the moratoria last and why, having lost 192,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland, are the Government now destroying the means by which industrial recovery could take place?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises the substantial take up of regional development aid under this Government. As he knows, two systems overlap at present, and this has created a bulge which will lead to a certain waiting period, but not an intolerable one.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about a meeting with Renfrew district and about the Renfrew initiative, but does he agree that a successful strategy for Renfrew must be based on successes in the area, such as the substantial expansion plans at Glasgow airport and the success and expansion of English Sewing at Neilston in Renfrewshire, in my constituency? Is it not appalling that Opposition Members should concentrate so much on the bad news instead of giving a balanced presentation?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those important successes. I understand that investment at the Neilston plant totals about £7 million and will create approximately 760 jobs, which is rather more than was envisaged when originally planned. I believe that it is the major thread manufacturing plant in the English Sewing group.

I presume that the Minister is familiar with the contents of the Government expenditure plans for 1987–88 to 1989–90, which were published at noon today. He will know, therefore, that they contain an announcement of further moratoria on the payment of regional development grant to cover new regional development grant as well as old grant. How long will these moratoria last? What will they save the Treasury, or, more important, on the other side of the coin, what will they cost Scottish industry?

I understand that the waiting period for RDG2 will be about two months, compared with four months for RDG1. That waiting period reflects the bulge that has arisen as a result of the substantial number of applications. However, the provision for next year is some 26 per cent. above what was originally anticipated.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland in each year since 1983.

In 1983, 17,800 houses were sold to sitting tenants, including tenants of the new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association. In 1984 the number was 16,000; and in 1985, 14,800. A final figure for 1986 is not yet available.

Can my hon. Friend tell us whether the number of applications to buy council houses in Scotland is on an upward or downward trend?

In the second quarter of 1986 the number of applications was running at about 2,000 each month, which was very encouraging. That is about 20 per cent. up on the same quarter in 1985 and is only slightly lower than the peak levels in 1983. We believe that that shows the healthy continuing impact of the right-to-buy policy in Scotland.

Does the north-east Fife district still hold the record for being the Scottish district council which has enabled the greatest number of its tenants to buy their own homes? If so, does that mean that more funds are available to meet today's housing needs for those who wish to remain tenants?

I cannot say whether that district council still holds the record, but it certainly has a very high, successful rate of council house sales. It is a lesson to other councils that the resources released by the sale of council houses can be used to deal with the serious structural problems that exist in the rest of Scotland's public housing stock.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the teaching unions about conditions for teachers in schools: and if he will make a statement.

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

Discussions during December within the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee resulted in new agreements on pay and conditions acceptable to the Government, the local authorities and the teachers' representatives. The proposals agreed offer teachers an improved salary structure and prospects, while clarifying teachers' duties and providing a more sensible approach to conditions of service.

Did the Secretary of State notice that the Main arguments for a "Yes" vote used by the Educational Institute of Scotland in the teachers' ballot was that a bad deal was the best that could be obtained from this Conservative Government and that the alternative was an imposed settlement? Why have the Government refused to restore teacher salaries to Houghton levels? Why have they attacked the professional status of teachers by stipulating duties and hours of work? Why have they failed to provide the additional staffing and material resources which the children in our state schools so desperately need?

For a start, in objecting to conditions of service, the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with every Labour-controlled local authority in Scotland. He will be well aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Labour-controlled education authorities have been as insistent as anyone else on that aspect of the negotiated package. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult his colleagues.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have seriously mishandled the issue ever since the Main report was produced and that there have been consequential effects in the low morale in our classrooms, is the Secretary of State aware that my right hon. Friends and I will urge the teachers to accept the new agreement that has been struck? It would help to obtain a positive response from the teaching profession if he would say what plans the Government have to ensure that teachers do not fall inexorably behind in future pay claims?

If the hon. Gentleman is being courteous and kind enough to recommend teachers to accept the proposed agreement, he might also acknowledge that that agreement has proved possible only because of the huge extra resources being made available by the Government to ensure increases in teachers' salaries.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the present likely settlement is due to his wisdom in setting up the Main committee last year? Does he agree that the vote is being taken virtually on the Main committee's recommendations and that the parents and the children of Scotland will be highly delighted with his achievement during the past year?

I thank my hon. Friend. Although the agreement that has been reached departs in several significant ways from the recommendation by Sir Peter Main and his colleagues, any fair and objective commentator would agree that without the report that Sir Peter Main produced some months ago it is almost inconceivable that we could now have reached an agreement that is endorsed by the teachers, the local authorities and the Government.

The Secretary of State will, of course, recognise that we have severe reservations about the way in which this very difficult matter has been handled. Does he accept that there will be relief, certainly among Opposition Members, if a settlement is reached in the dispute? I am sure that parents, the public and the vast majority of teachers do not want a return to confrontation.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for declaring that he would welcome an acceptance by the teachers of the current negotiated position. The personal contribution that he has made to ensure that the atmosphere in which these matters have been discussed during the past few weeks has helped towards what we all hope will be a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for forestry.

The policy remains as set out in statements by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), now the Secretary of State for Defence, on 10 December 1980 and, as far as the sale of Forestry Commission land is concerned, on 8 November 1984.

Is it not extraordinary that, in six years, the Government's forestry policy has not changed? Is there not a need to encourage the expansion of afforestation as an alternative crop, in the light of the surplus production from agricultural land and to increase the timber industry? Is it not also important that farmers, crofters and smallholders should be able to participate in that development? What proposals does the Minister have for the control of afforestation? Does he favour a licensing system, which seems to be widely favoured throughout Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. Forestry policy, as with all policies, is kept under review. Obviously, we are aware of all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. It is right that forestry policy should take into account matters such as conservation and the environment. It should also take into account the problem of agricultural surpluses, the need to find other uses for agricultural land and, indeed, the useful and important jobs that are provided by forestry in the countryside. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's view is on the rather more controversial issue of forestry in his own constituency, where important jobs are being provided.

Does my hon. Friend understand that there is great and growing concern about the widespread afforestation of the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland? Will he ensure that forestry applications in those areas are taken by the Forestry Commission to the Nature Conservancy Council for discussion so that this unique habitat can be adequately protected?

From my correspondence, I am well aware of the wide interest in the flow country, usually outside the flow country itself, where perhaps the locals—like the locals in most of the highlands—take a slightly more relaxed view of these matters because they see both sides of the issue. There is no question of the whole of the flow country being covered by conifers. Most of the land outside the areas already planted or approved for planting is either not suitable for forestry or will not be available for it. We have set up a group of officials to consider the future use of land in this part of Scotland and the NCC is represented in that group.

Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the impression he gave, the level of employment provided has been extremely small, even in the Highland region? Is he further aware of the criticism by the chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that the environment has been radically altered by insensitive planting and that most of that planting has been done by distant companies operating tax fiddles? When will the Scottish Office examine Scottish forestry policy?

The present procedure whereby the Forestry Commission consults several bodies before approving planting grants to the private sector and, indeed, before it decides on its own planting policy, works reasonably well. Forest planting is improving. Foresters in both the private and public sectors are more aware of environmental issues than they once were. About 40,000 jobs are provided in the forestry industry in Great Britain, either directly or in the downstream industries that depend on the raw material coming out of our forests.

My hon. Friend will be aware that substantial forests are contained within my constituency and that they are an important part of the local economy. Does he agree that any nation that has a £4,000 million import bill for timber must look carefully at the policy for more afforestation, that there is substantial scope for it in Scotland and that it should be encouraged substantially through the private sector?

I first welcome back my hon. Friend to the House. We look forward to hearing from him on a number of issues. He highlights an important point, namely, that forest product imports, running at £4·5 billion, are our major single import. Therefore, the increase of afforestation is important for that reason, as well as for many others.

May I reassure the Minister on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that he will reply to the Minister's question as soon as possible? May I resume my hon. Friend's point with specific reference to Glenelg in my constituency, a socially fragile area as regards employment, as the previous Secretary of State said in the announcement to which the Minister referred in his initial answer? Surely the handling of that raises my hon. Friend's point—that if there were more local participation in forestry some of the anxiety would, perhaps, be overcome or at least partially allayed. Instead, there have been rather dubious dealings on the possible disposal of that asset.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There is room for forestry, both on a large scale, financed by outside means, and for farm or estate forestry. It is important for us to find ways to encourage that. The Government are giving a good deal of thought to those matters at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the NCC is designating as SSSIs areas which might contain something of interest so that they cannot be planted? Is that not a gross misuse of present legislation?

I should certainly like to study any case that exhibits that tendency, because, as I remember, designation must be done on the basis of present scientific evidence, not on the basis of something which may or may not happen in future. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who is more directly involved in SSSIs, he should do so.

Now that the National Audit Office has joined almost everyone else in criticising the inordinate expense and questionable effects of vast tax handouts to private forestry speculators, including Mr. Terry Wogan and others, in Caithness and Sutherland, will the Government reconsider the scope of those incentives and the adoption of more positive incentives and policies for both the Forestry Commission and the private sector to expand woodlands sensibly and sensitively, especially in lowland agricultural areas?

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's question and found it difficult to understand what his party's policy would be if, in the unlikely event, it won an election. The present tax arragements for forestry are of long standing and Governments of both parties have gone along with them to encourage private afforestation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Labour party is against private afforestation, many people whose jobs depend on it will be interested.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed merger of Dundee and Aberdeen colleges of education.

I have endorsed the main principles in the report of the working party set up to consider the implementation of the decision to merge Aberdeen and Dundee colleges of education, including the report's recommendations for the pre-service rationalisation of community education and secondary teacher training.

Does the Minister think, in his heart of hearts, that it is nonsense geographically to link two colleges which are 60 miles apart and serve the distinctive areas of east central Scotland and northern Scotland? How does he think that the merger and the rationalisation that will take place will help educational provision in the areas concerned? Will he answer the particular worry expressed in Dundee, that there is an imbalance in the present arrangement in so far as the administration and principal are to be located principally in Aberdeen college, with Dundee reduced to a secondary status?

I cannot agree that the Dundee part of the northern college is being reduced to a secondary status. I remind him of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report which recommended to the Government that we should end up with three non-denominational colleges. This merger is an essential part of our strategy, which we adopted to achieve rationalisation without the closure of a single site. It is important to remember that. With effort on the part of the people in Aberdeen and Dundee, the merger can be made to work. There are important educational advantages in concentrating the services on one site instead of having very small classes indeed on two sites.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us feel that the Government were absolutely right to take the line that they have taken? Although it may not be ideal, it is infinitely better than the line recommended by STEAC, and it was supported by the Liberal party, because the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told the EIS that it was in favour of maintaining the majority of education centres in Scotland. Of course, that implied that the Liberals were prepared to close some. Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the suggestion for a European education establishment in Dundee?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the choices that were before the Government—the STEAC proposals to close some colleges and what we have put forward, which includes the merger of these two colleges. If and when a definite set of proposals for a European college is submitted for consideration by member states of the Community, I shall certainly wish to see Scotland's claim, including the claim by Dundee, being seriously considered.

The Minister must recognise that it is nonsense to try to suggest that two colleges that are over 60 miles apart can somehow be regarded as one. Beyond that, the secrecy and speed with which this report was cobbled together takes away any attempt by the Government to suggest that any democratic procedure was involved in the drawing up of this plan. The shambles that has resulted from the allocation of various departments to Aberdeen or to Dundee can only be the result of this nonsense of rushing through an undemocratically prepared report.

I cannot agree with the hon. Member that the report has been rushed through. The work was done on a tight time scale, but that was important because it cannot be in anybody's interest for the implementation of this merger to be drawn out unduly. The working party has demonstrated that the merger can create a new and powerful college by combining the two colleges at Aberdeen and Dundee.

Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that colleges of education have a local impact, especially on curriculum development and on student teaching practice? Distance does count and has a serious impact.

I appreciate that, and that is one of the reasons why we decided to keep both colleges and not close one, or indeed both, as STEAC might have suggested if one had read it that way. We have decided to keep both colleges, and their facilities will be available for education in both Grampian and Tayside.

Will the Minister respond especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and tell the House what precise savings will be made by the proposal that will justify the inconvenience and disrupion that will inevitably arise?

There will obviously be savings in some of the staffing costs. When we dispose of certain properties in the buildings which are not being used now, or will not be used in the future, that will obviously result in major savings. Above all, there are educational points to be made. Both colleges were running with extraordinarily small classes and on an extraordinarily limited coverage of the curriculum. The colleges will be greatly strengthened by concentrating their resources on one or the other in different fields.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will provide specific financial resources to enable local authorities to make provision for alcohol rehabilitation centres.

No, Sir. It is for local authorities to decide their own spending priorities within the available resources. Government grants are made to voluntary bodies which provide designated places under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

It is now seven years since the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 was introduced and we have still only one rehabilitation centre in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the reason for this is that the Government are unwilling to make any financial commitment beyond three years, and for that reason local authorities are unwilling to take on something for which they feel they will not be able to pay? That policy was again enunciated by the Government in a letter to Highland region in November last year about the proposed centre at Inverness. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider it there and elsewhere in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman ought to understand what pump-priming is about. It is an exercise to encourage the voluntary sector to set up these projects. We have put a lot of money into them, in capital terms, and we have helped them in the first three years in revenue terms. Indeed, in the case of Albyn House, we have gone on to help it for a fourth year. But these matters are the responsibility of local authorities. We are prepared to back voluntary projects to get them off the ground, and then local authorities will have to take over the main line funding. It is a method of encouraging projects, and I am keen to see more of them. I just wish that more projects would be brought forward.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Low Moss prison and Bishopbriggs have been doing valuable work in the treatment of alcohol offenders? Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that alcohol treatment centres such as Albyn House in Aberdeen are far more appropriate places in which to treat offenders who are guilty of drunken and disorderly offences? Does he agree that if such a change were to come about it would help to reduce prison overcrowding?

I agree that Albyn House has been successful. As I have already said, we are keen to help voluntary projects, if they are brought forward. We have one in Dundee, but we are having an awful lot of trouble with it. It is in trouble with Tayside regional council, which has refused a certificate of registration under the Act to the Dundee proposal. This is very discouraging.

Does the Minister not realise that alcohol is a very intractable problem and that what is required is not merely a local aspect to the treatment and rehabilitation of the people affected but a national aspect? Money needs to be spent on centres to help these people. Sometimes a one-to-one approach is required.

The hon. Gentleman has widened the question a little from designated centres. He is right to say that it is a difficult and intractable problem. The health boards try to play their part by providing facilities and resources and advice to people who have an alcohol problem. Help is also given by some of the voluntary bodies, which do excellent work.

I accept that the Albyn House experiment has been highly successful and is consistent with the objectives of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, but does the Minister accept that it is both unhelpful and hypocritical of the Government to endorse the principle without supplying resources so that local authorities are able to make such establishments available? Will resources be made available, or will local authorities be rate-capped if they pursue the Government's objectives?

That kind of resource is part and parcel of local authorities' social work resources. As for providing money for social work to local authorities, since the financial year 1982–83 to the one that we are just entering we have increased resources in real terms by about 12 per cent. That is a very significant increase in resources. Local authorities have to look to their priorities. If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest to his friends in COSLA that they should give this group a little higher priority, I might be able to agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the Highlands Regional Council report on the Dornoch rail bridge; and if he will make a statement.

The consultant's report is still being studied carefully, but it does not appear to provide justification for the building of a rail bridge.

Does the Minister not accept that the independent report presents a powerful and emphatic case for the building of the Dornoch rail bridge at the same time as the road bridge? When the Minister has finished studying the report, may I ask him not simply to pass the buck to British Rail but to take the initiative and have discussions with British Rail about how money for the funding of the bridge might be found?

We are looking closely at the report, but our first examination of it shows that the social cost-benefit analysis describes the net present value of the bridge as negative. The hon. Gentleman knows that according to British Rail's analysis last year the revenue at risk was about £120,000, against a very conservative estimate for the cost of building the bridge of £12·7 million. When the spending of public resources is involved, this is a matter that has to be taken into consideration.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that many people in the central belt question the justification for the priority given to the Dornoch road bridge within the total programme? Will he publish in the House of Commons Library a technical evaluation of the costs and benefits of the Dornoch road bridge?

In building any bridge or any road careful evaluation is made to show the positive benefits resulting from the work. This was done for the Dornoch road bridge and that is why we agreed to go forward with it. As regards a rail link associated with it, if this matter were to be re-opened it would delay severely the beginning of the construction of the road bridge.

Has the Minister not recongised that the consultants' report called for a cost-benefit analysis to be done and said that it was not possible for Mackay Consultants to do it? Will he therefore finance an independent cost-benefit analysis as a matter of urgency, since the narrow financial appraisal to which he referred and which was conducted by British Rail did not make out the case which Mackay Consultants felt was capable of being made out? Will he please not support his own party's spokesman's view that the road bridge will be delayed? The work on the approach roads could begin while this cost-benefit analysis was going ahead.

On that latter point, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Were a rail bridge associated with the road bridge to be considered, the design competition which is presently taking place would have to be put off while the design specifications for a rail bridge was drawn up. That would have the effect, as I said earlier, of delaying the start of the construction of the road bridge by a year. This is essentially a matter for British Rail, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the question mark which the building of a rail bridge would place over the Lairg loop.

Will the Minister reaffirm the excellent case put by the Government for the Dornoch rail link in his own submission to the European regional development fund, which takes into account the fact that the implications of this decision are far wider than the finances of ScotRail and British Rail and could well affect every aspect of life in the north of Scotland in the future? So will he stop passing the buck between his Department, the Highlands region, the Department of Transport and ScotRail and accept his responsibility to take this unique opportunity to secure the future of the north rail line?

The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of passing the buck when this is a matter which has to be initiated by British Rail in the first place. British Rail made its own analysis last year, which showed a revenue at risk which was very small in comparison with the total cost of the bridge, and on that basis it did not believe that the project should go ahead. That was British Rail's judgment then, and I have no reason to think that it has changed its mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of British Steel Corporation to discuss the steel industry in Scotland.

I meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation on a regular basis. No date for the next meeting has been arranged.

When the Minister next meets the British Steel Corporation chairman, will he discuss with him the steel users, many of whom are going out of business? As the Minister is aware, it has been announced today that the Caterpillar Tractor Company in my constituency will be closing within 15 to 18 months, with a loss of 1,121 jobs. As he is also aware, an announcement was made in September, when he was present, of a £62 million investment. Of that investment, £3·1 million of public money has been spent. Is he going to tell 113 now that he can do nothing about it? If so, what do the Government intend to do about it, because this is a diabolical scandal? This will mean unemployment in Lanarkshire on a 20 per cent. basis. The Secretary of State for Scotland and and the Government have a responsibility to do something about it.

I very much share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman over today's announcement affecting the plant at Uddingston. I regret and deplore the decision announced today. It is a decision which is all the more extraordinary because, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, as recently as four months ago the company announced a £62·5 million investment programme to secure the future of the plant. Substantial financial assistance for the project was offered by the Government and accepted by the company. The decision arises from a worldwide review of the company's manufacturing capacity. No consultation with the Government took place prior to today's announcement.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to remind the chairman of British Steel of the importance of getting across to the people of Scotland the fact that unless steel costs are kept within competitive levels steel users in the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, will find themselves uncompetitive and unable to compete?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very encouraging that British Steel recently announced half-yearly profits of about £68 million, compared with the vast losses that it was making a few years ago. Clearly, the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom can only be seen to be substantially improved now that the British Steel Corporation is profitable.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Steel, will he bear in mind the industrial wasteland being created in Lanarkshire as a result of steel industry and steel-using industry job losses and the fact that the closure of Caterpillar is yet another sickening blow for this area, which has suffered so much? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall Lord Young's speech at the Scottish Conservative party conference last year, when he held up the glowing example of the Garnock valley initiative in the creation of jobs where jobs in the steel industry had been lost? If the scale of help given to the Garnock valley is to be an example for Lanarkshire, the amount that will be required for Lanarkshire is more than £500 million. Are the Government willing to give that sort of help to unemployment-hit Lanarkshire?

I am well aware of the serious employment problems faced by Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman will know, not only does Lanarkshire come within the special development area category, but the Scottish Development Agency is particularly involved in a number of projects with employment implications in the area. Of course, we are always willing to look at any ideas that may be forthcoming to ensure the improvement of employment prospects in Lanarkshire. It is not the only locality with such problems, but I fully appreciate the difficulties faced by the community in that part of Scotland.

Does the commitment given by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to Ravenscraig still stand? If so, would it not be a good idea for the Minister to go to Ravenscraig to talk to the shop stewards there about the balance between low value-added slab and high-quality strip steel and the fact that, in the view of many people, this may well mean that Ravenscraig's future and profitability are gravely at risk?

I visited Ravenscraig not long ago and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—intends to make a similar visit in the relatively near future. We have had the opportunity to discuss matters with the trade unions and management at Ravenscraig. That useful source of information reveals the developments affecting Ravenscraig. I believe that the plant is in a far stronger position than it was some years ago because of the general improvement in the productivity of the individual plant and the increased profitability of the British Steel Corporation.

When my right hon. and learned Friend speaks again to the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he tell him of the disappointment of some steel workers in my constituency who have been made redundant and have not yet been given help with retraining or received their redundancy money, although it is well over a year since the plant closed? Can my right hon. and learned Friend speed things up a bit?

I shall certainly ensure that the matter is drawn to the BSC's attention, to ascertain whether some progress of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred can be made.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Eurofer, the European steel producers association, has undertaken to propose to the European Commission by the end of March the closure of some 5 million tonnes of flat product capacity in Europe? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the chairman of Eurofer is also the chairman of the British Steel Corporation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that those proposed closures will not include any reduction in capacity at the Ravenscraig or Dalzell works?

With regard to the Eurofer proposals, decisions on the future of any BSC works are subject to the strategy agreed in 1985. It would be for the Steel Corporation to consider in the light of that stategy what part it might play in the development of Eurofer's proposals for Europe as a whole?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to remind the House and the people of Scotland of the very welcome news recently that BSC intends to spend a further £30 million on new investment at Ravenscraig? Will he reiterate the importance of the corporation being in profit in order to find these funds for new investment?

The proposed £30 million investment must be good news, as one cannot seriously contemplate the closure of a plant if one is simultaneously proposing investment of that kind. I am aware that the trade unions have called for further investment in the coke ovens at Ravenscraig. I should point out that half the coke ovens should last until the turn of the century. There is good reason to believe that others will last well into the 1990s. Even the trade unions at Ravenscraig now recognise that limited reconstruction of existing ovens should overcome any shortfall in coke supplies during that period.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that on this side of the House we feel that the decision announced today by Caterpillar is either the result of monumental incompetence by management or soulless cynicism? There cannot be any other explanation of this astonishing turnabout in the last few months. Will he also note our sympathy, which I am sure he shares, for the 1,200 or so people and their families who are so suddenly and unexpectedly facing the dole queue? It is all the more bitter because it is so unexpected after the recent false optimism of the proposed £62 million investment. programme. Can the Secretary of State say whether any public money has been put into the firm since the announcement was made, that is, whether there is a public sector debit as a result of the announcement of that investment? If so, can he guarantee that there will be full recovery of that public money?

On his final point, the hon. Gentleman should realise that the proposed two-month period is half that which has been insisted on with regard to RDG 1 until now. With regard to his broader question on Caterpillar, I am not aware of any public funds that have yet been given to the company since the decision in September. Of course, we would take steps to ensure the recovery of public funds if that had happened.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make it his policy that bereaved relations of murder victims are informed in advance of the date of the commencement of the trial.

Procurators fiscal do give this information to bereaved relatives, but it is not done as a matter of course. The present policy is being reviewed, as my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has stated in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 12 January 1987.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that great distress was caused to my constituents when they learnt in a casual conversation with neighbours of the trial of the person accused of murdering their 16-year-old son? Does he accept that that was appalling? Does he accept that it is grossly offensive and insulting for the Lord Advocate to say that it is up to the individuals concerned to make inquiries of the procurator fiscal's office? Will he make sure that the review that is taking place will be based on making machinery available whereby bereaved relatives of murder victims will be notified automatically of the date when the trial is to take place?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were upset. I should explain that until recently there was probably no problem over this, inasmuch as one or more of the parents would be required to attend as witnesses to give formal evidence of identification. For good and proper reason, we seek as best we can to avoid that happening. I want to dispel any impression that there is any deliberate policy to avoid telling parents or spouses of these matters, and it is for that reason that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has said that he will carry out a review to ensure that the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman expresses do not arise again.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how, in considering possible legal proceedings arising from alleged breaches of confidentiality in relation to classified information, the Lord Advocate distinguishes between his roles as prosecutor in criminal proceedings and as nominal plaintiff in civil proceedings.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in deciding whether to prosecute any alleged offence relating to the disclosure of classified information, exercises a discretion as public prosecutor wholly independently of the Government. In acting in civil proceedings to restrain such disclosure, he does so on the authority of the Crown or of the appropriate public Department in terms of the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857.

Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland find it difficult to agree that the Lord Advocate and Kerr Fraser would have made an altogether much better job than did Sir Robert Armstrong, for the Attorney-General, in the Wright case?

I share the hon. Gentleman's views of the abilities of Sir William Kerr Fraser. It would be entirely wrong, however, for me to draw any comparisons between him and Sir Robert Armstrong.

Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland say in how many instances either he or the Lord Advocate has had to take no part in legal proceedings because of a conflict of interest or because of some other activity that he or his noble and learned Friend undertakes, such as being a Commissioner of Northern Lighthouses? Is the example that I have given an isolated one, or are there a number of different areas of public offices or other activities where the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland have a conflict of roles?

I cannot think immediately of any other situation where there might be a conflict of interest. In the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I am not entirely sure that there was a conflict of interest. To avoid any apparent disagreement or any apparent indication that we had acted with some impropriety, both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I declined to take any part in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he has had discussions with procurators fiscal on the implementation of the poaching clause in the Salmon Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

While I have not discussed this provision with procurators fiscal, a Crown Office circular has been issued to them dealing with the implementation of the Act in general.

Having enjoyed some poached salmon today with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for fisheries, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind the importance of salmon fishing to the tourist industry and to the the development of hotels in Scotland? Will he bring home to procurators fiscal and all involved that we must take a tough line with poachers if we are to achieve advancement in this area?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure he is aware that the Salmon Act 1986 came into force last week. It is for that reason that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, myself and the Crown Office have brought to the attention of procurators fiscal what is contained within the Act and made it clear to them that the provisions that deal with what might be described now as the statutory reset of poached salmon should be implemented wherever appropriate.

Given the draconian penalties laid down in the Salmon Act 1986, which mean that someone who is in possesion of a salmon in certain circumstances can be sent to prison for two years, and to avoid any accusations that the Crown Office is less than even-handed, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland assure ordinary working-class poachers who take an occasional salmon for the pot that they will get off with a friendly warning from the procurator fiscal in the same way as the Duke of Argyll and his cronies, who have been net fishing illegally for years in Loch Fyne and getting away with it scot-free?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware, as everyone else is, of the importance of salmon fishing to the tourist industry in Scotland. He should not think, even in a casual and half-comical fashion, that there is anything funny about the level of poaching in Scotland's rivers, which is causing real problems. If the hon. Gentleman would like to move away from the central belt occasionally and travel to the east coast of Scotland, the north-east or into the Highlands, he would learn of the serious effect that poaching and the prevalence of it has had on the tourist industry.

What does the Solicitor-General for Scotland think of the apparent complacency with which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland accepts the fact that its own recently published figures show that 14 per cent. of Scottish salmon fishery owners in the country did not even bother to submit, as they were legally supposed to do, return forms for their catches? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman concerned about that illegality, to which the Department is turning a blind eye?

One person who did make a return to the Department on that matter was the Duke of Argyll. However, if the proprietors of salmon fisheries are not making the appropriate returns, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is essentially a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay).

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the average length of time which elapses between charges being made for dangerous driving and an appearance in court.

This information is not readily available. Procurators fiscal take a serious view of cases of reckless driving and give them as much priority as their local circumstances permit.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the distress being caused to relatives—especially in cases in which near relations have been involved in fatal accidents—by the considerable delays being experienced in my constituency?

I am aware of one case in my hon. Friend's constituency about which he is concerned and which he has discussed with me. However, I advise him that the case is now before the courts and, as it is sub-judice, I can say nothing further about it.

Does the Solicitor-General for Scotland agree that it would be a good and sensible thing if those who are responsible for trying driving cases, especially dangerous driving cases, which involve objective, professional and technical judgment, at least had a driving qualification of some kind themselves?

Although in general I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, if that principle were applied broadly across the criminal law field only those who had committed fraud and who had an understanding of how to do so would decide and judge such cases. Generally speaking, we require people with some intelligence and some experience, but above all, we need to see that those who judge act fairly and without prejudice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Arising out of questions?

No.

Later, please.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning my authority on that matter. I must advise him that I allowed a good run on that question and that I must balance both sides of the House, and all the parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman will find that a member of his own party was called to ask a question.