asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request his economic advisory section to evaluate the loss of gross domestic product in Scotland arising from the Government's emergency measures, and publish its conclusions in the Scottish Economic Bulletin.

Estimates of Scottish gross domestic product are based on data which are only available retrospectively on an annual basis. It is therefore not at present possible to evaluate any loss of gross domestic product during the period of the emergency measures.

I thank the Secretary of State for that information, but does he not concede that the current loss of production in Scotland has been unnecessary, in view of the possibility of a move to a four-day or a five-day week? Is he aware that many firms in my constituency have been put to considerable hardship, bordering on bankruptcy on occasions, when they are in sight of two power stations, at which according to local rumour—I put it no higher—the coal stocks are sufficient to enable a five-day week to be worked? Will the Government review the whole procedure?

It has been explained to the House that it was necessary to go on to a three-day week when the crisis started, but because of the mild weather since then we are now able to consider other possibilities.

I do not endorse the terms of the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), but is my right hon. Friend aware of a problem causing grave concern in the Tayside area? Almost a fortnight ago my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced a special concession enabling the wool textile industry to operate on Sundays, where it had traditionally done so. Firms in the jute textile industry, which are in an exactly analogous position, have so far not been allowed that concession. They and I have consistently telephoned and approached the Department concerned, but we have been unable to obtain an answer. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to put a bomb under the Department of Energy?

I know that my hon. Friend has been pursuing this point on behalf of the jute textile industry in Scotland. He told me about it yesterday. We shall do all we can to ensure that it is sorted out.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement outlining how the statement announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December will affect public expenditure in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report details of the cuts in public expenditure to be made by his Department in agriculture, fisheries and food, trade, industry and employment, private industry and commerce, roads and transport, other environmental services, law, order, and protective services, each of the social services and other public services.

I refer to the information by programmes given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 21st January.—[Vol. 867, c. 244.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts which he is seeking to impose are of unparalled ferocity and that there is in particular extreme resentment at the cavalier way in which the Scottish Development Department has stopped approving all council improvement schemes? Is it not clear that if nothing is done we shall move from overheating in the building industry in Scotland to severe unemployment before the end of the year?

The measures are being carried out on a United Kingdom basis. The housing improvement schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred are those for which local authorities are responsible. So many have already been approved that local authorities will have difficulty in digesting them. New housing has not been affected by the measures.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Department is spreading circulars like confetti? To my knowledge ait least four have been issued dealing with various aspects of health, education, housing, and other matters. They mean, in effect, a cut in the standard of living of ordinary, poor working people. That is the indictment of the Government, that repeatedly, budget after budget and public expenditure cuts after public expenditure cuts hit people who can least bear the burdens. That is the gross unfairness of the society the Government have created since 1970.

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The circulars have been sent out quickly in response to requests for information and advice about the application of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In order to get the matter into perspective, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many housing improvements are now taking place, or how many have been completed in the last year for which figures are conveniently available? Will the postponement of expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have any effect on the rebuilding of the A9 Perth to Inverness road and the further development of the M90 motorway, both of which are central to oil development in Scotland?

In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I cannot give an exact figure without notice. House improvement schemes in both the private and public sectors have been much greater in number in the past year or two than ever before. I confirm that work on the A9 is not affected by my right hon. Friend's announcement and that other road programmes connected with North Sea oil are exempted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the housing improvement schemes approved by Glasgow Corporation are of extreme urgency? Should not the House be told that the Secretary of State for Scotland has stopped all such improvement schemes?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. There are house improvement schemes which have been approved. There is a great deal to be done, and it will be difficult for what has already been approved to be digested and carried out. It is new schemes, from a certain date, for which approval has been stopped.

Will my right hon. Friend take a further step to put into proper perspective the hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and confirm that it is not a question of cuts in public expenditure but merely a question of curbing the growth rate in public expenditure? Did not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support their Government in 1969 in imposing far more savage restrictions on the growth of public expenditure?

The reduction we are discussing is in respect of future programmes. It is a general reduction of 20 per cent. in capital formation and 10 per cent. in procurement expenditure, with exemptions in Scotland for important infrastructure expenditure connected with North Sea oil developments.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there are to be cuts of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure and 10 per cent. in current expenditure, but certain areas are to be exempt, other areas will have to bear much more savage cuts? Is he aware that there are to be cuts of £18 million in education and that roads, transport and environmental services bear more than 50 per cent. of the £72·3 million cuts. In view of the hopes and expectations of improvements in services, which are much needed, and which he took pride in saying that the Government were going to spend money on, that is not a matter for triumph but is a severe reflection on the Government's handling of the whole economy.

The right hon. Gentleman must have been in dreamland if he did not realise that the programmes he mentions are amongst those which we hoped to carry out before the international energy crisis and events at home caused this to be done. I have made clear publicly that I am disappointed that programmes for Scotland have to be slowed down in this way at a time when all the indicators in 1973—emigration, unemployment, and, above all, job vacancies—were so good and were set fair for Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has so far had with local authorities regarding the implementation of the Government's decision to curb the rate of growth in public expenditure.

Representatives of the local authority associations discussed with me on 18th January the rate support grant for 1974–75 and the savings required in both capital and current expenditure.

Since the curbs on excessive State spending go to the root of inflation, will my right hon. Friend make sure that full publicity is given to any recalcitrance on the part of any local authorities, so that the people of Scotland may know who the friends of inflation are? Will he at the same time reassure the House that there is no truth in reports that he indicated to the local authorities that he was reducing by £2½ million the savings that were required of them and that there has been no backsliding at St. Andrews House in this respect?

I think that I got the co-operation of the local authority representatives who appeared to recognise that the national economic situation called for special measures. But, understandably, they represented the serious consequences to the services for which they are responsible. I informed them of the exact amount of savings that they would have to make, which were slightly less than they had originally been told.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the importance in public expenditure is not only the rate of growth, or growth at all, but the purposes for which it is used? Will he do his best to impress on local authorities that they should concentrate on useful purposes, such as assistance to production, housing, and the improvement of the surroundings of houses, and not on such things as office building and, in some cases, the unnecessary straightening out of corners on roads which are already quite adequate?

I think that the local authority representatives were in agreement with me that it was necessary to concentrate on essential services and projects. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with that.

May we take it that the figures given by the Secretary of State on Monday, 21st January, at col. 244 of Hansard, in a Written Answer to his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were virtually the allocations given to the local authorities for various matters? That being so, did he get the agreement of the local authorities? Of course, there was not much that they could do about it when he said that that was all the money they were getting. Surely he was not discussing the Rate Support Grant Order for 1974–75, because we had that last year. I presume that he was discussing the rate increase order that is due to come before the House. Indeed, I am surprised that we have not yet had it. When shall we get it?

We were discussing the rate increase order, but we also discussed the new Rate Support Grant Order, because the Local Government (Scotland) Act has changed the situation and we must start with another order. In the context of considering the Rate Support Grant Order we naturally had to take into account the reductions in expenditure that local authorities now have to make. Within the broad headings and figures the local authorities are left to make their own decisions, but, as I have just said, we agreed that essential projects and services should get priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many truancy officers have been appointed in Scotland ; and by which education authorities.

There is no regular return by education authorities but the most recent information suggested that 20 authorities employed some 280 officials whose duties include attendance.

Is the Minister aware that this is a growing and challenging problem to local education authorities and that notwithstanding the shortage of professional teaching staffs it has been known for teachers to drive around in mini-buses to find absconders and bring them back to school? Is it not time that the Under-Secretary arranged for a top-level inquiry into the degree of defaults in Scotland at present, with a view to taking the necessary remedial action.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. My Department gave guidance on this serious problem two years ago, and we are now urgently considering what further steps to take.

What on earth is a truancy officer?

His duties include finding out why children are not in their places in school.

Does the Minister agree that the truancy problem in Scotland could be partially solved if he agreed to allow 16-year-olds, who are now forced to remain in school until the first available leaving date, to leave on their 16th birthday, as many of them are non-certificated pupils with no interest in remaining in school and are not catered for owing to the shortfall in teachers in Scotland?

I do not want to go in depth into the last part of the hon. Lady's question. This is one of the matters we are considering very carefully before deciding what action to take in the very near future. I hope not to become too deeply involved in the question of the dates on which pupils should leave school, because my right hon. Friend and I have said that we shall perhaps review the matter later in the year.

Can the Minister give us advance information about the number of 16-year-olds who left school and are still without a job? We shall have the figure tomorrow. May we have it today?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the housing completions by local authorities, private developers and other public agencies during 1973.

The figure was 30,033, of which 14,432 houses were completed by local authorities, 3,386 by other public sector agencies, and 12,215 by private developers.

Is the Minister aware that those shattering figures will be received with consternation by the homeless in Scotland? Is he aware that he begins his second incarnation as a Scottish Minister with the lowest figure of house completions for local authorities in any year since 1948, and that the total number of houses built in Scotland is less than the local authority programme completed by the Labour Government in 1970? Is he also aware that there is little hope in terms of new starts and houses in progress, as their number has fallen consistently every year? What priority will the hon. Gentleman give to relieving the housing situation in Scotland?

We shall do everything we can to get the housing situation in Scotland right, but it is for local authorities, not the Government, to initiate house building programmes. We have been encouraging them to build as many houses as they can. I remind the hon. Gentleman, first, that the figure of private building that I announced for last year is an all-time record. Secondly, the houses under construction by local authorities, or approved and awaiting start, total more than 50,000. We do not want to try to solve today's housing problems with yesterday's solutions. Many authorities have now met the numerical shortage of houses and are rightly concentrating on house improvement, of which the figures are a record, and on special needs. There is a great deal to be done, and I believe that we shall get it right.

What were the approval figures in the same years as have been quoted? Will my hon. Friend remind us of the shattering fall in local authority house building approvals by the Labour Government? How many houses in Scotland are now standing empty because there are no tenants for them in certain areas?

I could quote exciting figures for what the previous Government did, but I do not want to deal with the matter in a controversial way. The Government are not imposing, limitations on new house building, which has been exempted from the cuts. In many areas the numerical shortage has been dealt with, but there are many big problems to be dealt with in meeting specialist needs, such as more houses for the elderly, and house improvement. The figures of approvals for house improvements last year were a staggering all-time record.

We accept, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is always non-controversial in these matters, but as he is the new and fresh face at the Scottish Office, will he undertake to examine the length of time taken in his Department to siphon through approvals for both local authority and Scottish Special Housing Association projects? Will he assure the House that delaying approvals is not being used as a method of cutting back public expenditure on housing?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that categorical assurance. If there are difficulties in approvals, I shall be glad to look into them. I have a great deal still to learn. I repeat that houses under construction by public authorities or approved and awaiting start are more than 50,000, which is no mean figure.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of public sector houses built in each year from 1959 to 1973, inclusive.

With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister aware that when the figures are published they will clearly show that a Tory Government are the scourge of the homeless in Scotland? Why have his Government deliberately engineered a crisis in public sector house building by cutting the rate of completions by more than 17,000 in 1973 as compared with 1970, especially at a time when the private sector neither by volume of output nor, more important, by price, can meet the needs of the homeless in Scotland? Is it that the Tories have a vendetta against the Scots when it comes to housing policy?

I want to be non-controversial, but the hon. Gentleman is being scandalously unfair and unreasonable. He must know, because he has an interest in these matters, that the Government have not cut new house building. There are no cuts whatsoever in new house building. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that local authorities are now concentrating on other needs apart from simply providing houses. For example, the approvals last year for improvement of public sector houses were over 70,000. The year before we came to power the figure was 11,000. The increase to 70,000 is a dramatic change. If we are to solve the housing problems we should not use foolish and misleading language, which does not get us anywhere.

I first say to my hon. Friend "Welcome back". Will he confirm that the 1,500-plus council houses standing vacant in Dundee are of no value to the homeless? Is not that situation a scandalous indictment of the housing policies of the previous Labour Government and successive Labour administrations of the city of Dundee?

Houses lying empty, even though there is apparently a substantial number of people wanting houses, are becoming a problem in some areas. The housing needs of the future are different. We must concentrate on ensuring that we do not build a series of concrete jungles, because they do not solve the problem. Instead, they create a problem of vacant houses when there is an apparent demand.

Is the Minister aware that the empty houses in Dundee referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) were built by the 1963 Conservative Government and were not the result of the 1964–70 Labour administration? I ask the Minister, as the new patch on a very old pair of trousers, whether he is satisfied with the public sector record in house building in Scotland. Does he intend to improve on his predecessor's record or to continue in the same inefficient manner, in the hope that he will receive the same promotion?

I very much object to the suggestion that my predecessor was inefficient. One of the problems the hon. Gentleman will perhaps discover in due course, in the unlikely event of his party returning to power, is that it is very difficult to take over a job from someone who did it very well, as my hon. Friend who is now Minister of State for Defence did. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of our holding back on public sector house building where it is needed. We shall give every encouragement. But we do not want to make the mistakes of the past. Where there are social problems arising from mistakes by the previous Government or our Government, we want to put them right in community terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any investigations have been carried out by his Department into future potential developments in the generation of hydroelectric power.

Yes, Sir. These confirmed that the future of hydro-electric development lay mainly in pumped storage schemes. While these are not net producers of energy, they can help other forms of power station to be used flexibly and efficiently.

I am grateful for that answer, but will the Minister look again to see whether there is scope for smaller hydro-electric schemes than the ones we have built in recent years? Are not they a good hedge against inflation, and do not they add to our total energy resources?

That is certainly an interesting question. In physical terms the information I have is that probably no more than 1,000 megawatts of conventional hydro-electric generating capacity can be developed in Scotland. Recent investigations carried out with the assistance of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board showed that none of this would be economic, but in view of the continually changing situation and cost levels the possibilities will be kept under continuous review.

Does my hon. Friend think that, as we should be less dependent on coal and oil for electricity generation in the future, there should be a review of the possibilities of pumped storage, which will require liaison between the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Several studies are under investigation for development by the hydro-electric boards when required.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about his meeting with the Educational Institute for Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers for Scotland.

I had useful meetings on 8th January with both organisations and discussed staffing, accommodation and working conditions generally. I am now considering a number of points that were put to me, including the institute's proposal for a working party on conditions of service.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree after meeting both organisations that their members are the moderates in the teaching profession? Having visited Lanarkshire, does not he agree that there should be an immediate inquiry, as the situation there requires immediate attention? What remedy has he for dealing with this serious position, bearing in mind the go-slow in Scotland as a whole and in Lanarkshire in particular?

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps exaggerating when he says "Scotland as a whole". I have had very useful talks with the teaching associations and last week I met the employing associations. In the light of what everyone has told me I shall make a decision fairly shortly on what steps to take. On the general issue, we are looking closely at the designation scheme and hope to make an announcement on it in the not too distant future. I am having very constructive talks with the local authority associations about recruitment generally in Scotland and on the possibility of the better staffed authorities not recruiting as many staff as they have in the past, so that other areas, particularly Lanarkshire and Glasgow, will have a better opportunity this summer.

Does the Minister accept that we are pleased that he is thinking in terms of a spread of the available teaching manpower over the country as a whole? What is his attitude to the inquiry that both organisations have requested? I agree that a Royal Commission is perhaps a bit more than is required, but is not the situation so bad and so puzzling that a deeper inquiry than the one he promised is necessary?

I accept, as I have always done, that the situation in Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire is difficult. I ask hon. Members to keep the matter in perspective by looking at Scotland as a whole, where the pupil-teacher ratio is better now than it has been in any other year, with the exception of 1972. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for preferring not to make a statement at the moment. I have told the teaching associations that I shall let them know as early as possible in February, and I am busily considering all the information they have put to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received for the construction of an oil refinery at Hunterston ; what action he has taken on such proposals ; and if he will make a statement.

I have before me two planning applications for the construction of an oil refinery on substantially the same areas of land at Hunterston. Consultations about these have still to be completed, and a report from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee should reach me in the near future in connection with the nuclear power stations.

Is not the Secretary of State's indecision against the best interests of the Scottish people? Is he aware that his failure to give a quick decision on the Chicago Bridge application to build an oil platform at Dunnet Bay has cost 700 jobs, and that his failure to give the go-ahead to the petro-chemical installation at Hunterston may cost North Ayrshire 4,000 jobs, at a time when British Rail has decided to lift the railway track between Dairy and Kilmarnock? Does not the Secretary of State's lack of decision on Hunterston suggest either that it is time he got out of the job or made a decision which would be of benefit to incoming industrialists who are looking for sites in the Irvine New Town area?

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in speaking about indecision. These applications have been put in as revisions. My major decision that there will be industrial development at Hunterston was taken a long time ago. I could not ignore the nuclear safety aspects to which I referred. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about the position at Dunnet Bay. The company's decision was taken three months after planning permission had been granted, for, in its own words, "geophysical reasons." The company is reported as saying that the geophysical reasons meant that its first platform could be built a year earlier at the alternative site.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me where the oil is coming from? Is it coming from the North Sea or from Arabia? Because of the shortage of Arabian oil it is presumably coming from the North Sea, in which case should not the development be at Grangemouth rather than in Ayrshire?

I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Hunterston applications. I hope that by the time a refinery is operating at Hunterston the oil will be coming from British waters as well as from abroad.

For how long has the Secretary of State had these proposals before him?

These proposals in their revised form have been before me for some weeks. The right hon. Gentleman must have been following this matter, so he will know that there have been complications in finding a combination of industry to make the best use of this important but limited industrial site with its unique deep water facilities and to make the best contribution to the health of Scotland's economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will propose discussions with Scottish local authorities regarding rent rebates as a result of the three-day week.

Local authorities already have powers to adjust the rebate or allowance on any change in a tenant's circumstances, however caused. They may also, where appropriate, base any rebate or allowance on evidence of earnings week by week instead of over the normal five weeks or two months. This flexibility should be quite adequate in the present situation, but, of course, I should be glad to look into any difficulties of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware.

Is the Minister aware that the number of people entitled to rent rebates and rent allowances in Scotland as the result of the three-day week will almost double, and that many people are now living on a much lower wage? Will the Minister consider circularising Scottish local authorities to the effect that they can consider earnings week by week as opposed to considering them for a five-week period?

Indeed, local authorities can where appropriate base any rebate scheme on evidence of earnings week by week, as one or two local authorities are doing. I hope that that information is available to all. If the hon. Gentleman's own authority has any difficulty I hope it will consult the Department. I shall look carefully at his sensible suggestion.

Is there any truth in the recent report that one-third of Edinburgh tenants are receiving rent rebates under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act?

No, that information is not correct. I have not seen the report referred to. The position is not that one-third of Edinburgh tenants are receiving a rebate, but that one-half of them are. The exact figure is 51·98 per cent. That is the figure before the recent difficulties. The average rebate is more than £100 per year.

Will the recent three-day week and the consequent increase in the number of rebates be allowed for in the Government's calculations when we receive the rate support grant increase orders?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer, but I assure him that the new orders will take into account all relevant factors.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to ensure a reduction in the waiting time for orthopaedic consultations in the East Fife Hospital Board of Management Hospitals, following the board's decision to provide facilities for private practice by one of its part-time orthopaedic consultants.

The provision of facilities for private practice in Scottish hospitals requires my right hon. Friend's authorisation. I understand that such an application in respect of private orthopaedic consultation facilities has been made by the board of management for East Fife hospitals, but the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board has not yet considered it. All aspects of this matter, including the possible effect on waiting times for orthopaedic consultations, will be carefully considered before my right hon. Friend takes a decision.

Is the Minister aware—I am sure he must be, in view of all the correspondence on this matter and his replies to previous Questions—of the frustration, misery and suffering caused to orthopaedic patients in my constituency? If and when he receives the board's decision to provide such facilities for private practice, in view of the possible queue-jumping that will follow that decision, will he undertake not to approve this request while such unsatisfactory conditions exist for National Health Service patients?

I appreciate that the waiting list in Fife is longer than I should like, but I must not in any way prejudge a decision before the papers reach me.

Is the Minister aware of the great anger there will be in Fife if this private facility is provided, since it will clearly result in queue jumping? We very much object to a system under which the richer one is and the more fees one can afford to pay, the higher up the queue one goes. This is an obscenity.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view because the Expenditure Committee of the House concluded that private practice operates to the overall benefit of the National Health Service. I hope he will also remember that private practice in hospitals comes within the provisions of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 Act as it applies to Scotland. Under this Act only four hospitals have had approval, three of which were approved by the Labour Government.

Is it not about time that we got rid completely of this outmoded and archaic system of part-time consultancy private practice?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. He should remember that it was an all-party Expenditure Committee of this House that considered the matter and decided otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the regulations to allow increased higher school bursaries to be paid by local authorities.

The rates of higher school bursaries are at present under consideration with a view to amending the regulations to enable increased bursaries to be paid for session 1974–75.

Will the Minister confirm that this is probably the most important bursary in the whole bursary system and that it is the most direct encouragement to able children from poorer families to stay on in higher education? Is he aware that under the present system if parents have an income of about £23 they do not qualify for any bursary at all? In view of the inflationary situation, is it not time that there was a rapid review of the situation so that there should be a more generous pattern of bursaries in this important sector?

This is exactly what my Department and I are doing at the moment. We are going into these matters in detail. An announcement will be made in good time.

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Members for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) on this matter. Does the Minister recall that some time ago the regulations were amended to give some consideration to children who were infirm or handicapped. They were condemned to stay on at school until they were 16, as against the normal leaving age of 15. Now that the school leaving age has been raised to 16, with the probability that these children will stay on for a further period, will the Minister bear in mind this point in any review of the regulations?

Yes, I shall bear that point in mind. There always was an incentive to encourage children to stay on after school leaving age. We must not get involved in an argument about the respective merits of the ages 15 and 16.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consequential responsibilities have fallen upon him as a result of the setting up of the new Department of Energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the organisation of responsibilities within the Scottish Office for offshore oil development.

The Department of Energy has functions previously exercised by the Department of Trade and Industry, and the responsibilities of the Scottish Office are unchanged. In particular the responsibility for electricity in Scotland remain with the Scottish Office and my noble Friend's special rôle in oil developments affecting Scotland continues as before, including his chairmanship of the Oil Development Council for Scotland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour Members feel that a Minister separate from the Department of Energy should have been established in Scotland to deal exclusively with energy as a whole? Is he further aware that coal is no longer the Cinderella of the energy fuels and that my requests, made in the past, for an energy commission for Scotland were not misplaced? Will he ensure that in his dealing with the new Department of Energy the need for a full investigation into coal resources in Scotland will be stressed, and that once and for all we can scotch the idea that Scotland has not a large quantity of workable coal reserves?

I note what the hon. Gentleman said about coal reserves. Coal, both in Scotland and in England, was under the Department of Trade and Industry and is now under the new Department of Energy. I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that one of the Ministers from the Department of Energy might have been permanently in Scotland. But an alternative view is that one of the Scottish Office Ministers should have special responsibility for North Sea oil and other matters that go with it, including infrastructure. That is the situation we have at present.

Although it is only two and a half years since oil was discovered in commercial quantities in the North Sea, will the Secretary of State make certain that the necessary infrastructure will be ready to meet the heavy demands in the years ahead?

Yes, we have a special housing operation in the North of Scotland, which was launched some time ago. It includes over 3,500 houses to be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association. There are also special road programmes, which will be unaffected by reductions in public expenditure.

In respect of the Secretary of State's own planning responsibilities and further to the decision by the Chicago Bridge Company on the Dunnet Bay proposal—which he continues to insist is not his fault, but as a result of which Scotland lost 700 jobs—is he pretending that the geophysical difficulties were incapable of being overcome? In fact, is it not the position that had he not attached restrictive conditions to the grant of planning permission, which prevented the company from continuing on the site, this project could have gone ahead? Is he not aware that a "Government of businessmen" as they like to describe themselves, cannot be taken seriously when they refer these matters—as did the Secretary of State when I brought the dangers in this particular case to his attention—to some junior officials in the Scottish Economic Planning Department and the Offshore Supplies Office? Are not 700 jobs worth the attention of a member of the Cabinet?

Order. That is enough.

The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the situation. He is not taking any notice of what the company itself said. The company did not speak of "geophysical difficulties". It said that the geophysical situation was better at the alternative site, since it enabled it to build the platform a year earlier than would have been the case at Dunnet Bay. I was as disappointed as those in Caithness that three months after planning permission had been granted the company should have taken this decision. On the question of platform building as a whole, there are nine sites in Scotland which have planning clearance for platforms to be built and four of them are being used, but in no case has there been any delay in planning procedure which has affected the work.

Is it not clear that the Secretary of State for Energy was appointed by the Prime Minister without taking account of Lord Polwarth's position? Perhaps he had forgotten that Lord Polwarth was actually there. What is the noble Lord meant to be doing now? Is there not a danger that the new Department will usurp the responsibilities that the Secretary of State still has in Scotland—for example, in the planning of sites for concrete production platforms?

The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Because Lord Polwarth was already doing the job, with the special responsibility that he was given last year by the Prime Minister, there was no need to make any change and there has been no change. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. There has been no change in the special responsibility that Lord Polwarth holds for dealing with North Sea oil matters affecting Scotland. As I said in my original reply, the Department of Energy is taking its functions from the Department of Trade and Industry. The functions of the Scottish Office, including the rôle of the Minister of State, are completely unchanged. We will help the new Department and the Secretary of State for Energy to get on with, among other things, the urgent job of obtaining North Sea oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about dangers of fishing gear from sealed-off oil drillings in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland ; and if he will make a statement.

I am well aware of fishermen's concern about the possible damage from contact between fishing gear and wells where drilling has been suspended. The matter has been raised at meetings between representatives of the fishing industry and officials of the Departments involved and there will be further discussions shortly about ways and means of lessening the risks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishermen are as worried about possible damage to their gear as about the fact that it could involuntarily cause large-scale pollution of the sea, against which they are anxious to be safeguarded?

I am very much aware of the concern that has been expressed on this matter. I have spoken to the fishermen and considered representations that have been made to me. I assure my hon. Friend that these discussions should help considerably in lessening the risks.

Will the Under-Secretary address himself to the fact that there is inadequate fire protection available for the oil-drilling platforms? For instance, how many full-time fire brigades are available in the Highlands area?

That is another question, relating to oil rigs and drilling in the North Sea. However, I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my colleagues who are responsible and interested.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Hunter Committee's Report on Fishing Rights.

We intend to introduce legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, but with the many demands on parliamentary time it is unlikely that a Bill can be presented in the present Session.

In the meantime, what has become of the Hunter recommendations on the stocking of poor waters for public use?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the Government's White Paper on this matter.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Board of Management of the Coatbridge and Airdrie Group of hospitals has not appointed a matron or principal nursing officer to Hairmyres Hospital ; and when they intend to do so.

No appointment was made following the retirement of the matron because of the imminence of the implementation of a Salmon scheme for the hospitals in this group. I understand that the regional hospital board has advised the board of management that the officer acting as matron should be substantively promoted to this post.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Why has the board taken so long to make this appointment? Will there be retrospective action on the loss of salaries and pension rights involved among the nursing staff in this hospital? Does he accept that in a situation where, as one of the staff of the hospital has written and informed me, a 22-year old third-year nursing student takes home £16·40 per week, it is about time that something was done to implement the report in this and other hospitals in Scotland?

The hospital boards in Scotland have made substantial progress in moving towards the Salmon structure. Indeed, only 13 out of 65 boards have not implemented the scheme in full. There was delay here because of the retirement of the previous matron and the fact that the chief nursing officer for the whole group has not yet been appointed. However, the board is now moving as quickly as possible. In any event, the new area health board should make the appointment as soon as possible after 30th April.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings the Oil Development Council has had ; and if he will make a statement.

Three. In addition, committees established by the council to examine infrastructure and environmental questions associated with North Sea oil have met seven times.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that three meetings represent an inadequate number? Does he also agree that there is considerable confusion about who is responsible for oil and its development in related industries? Should not the council be made totally independent, which I would recommend, so that it can talk impartially about the impact of oil on the social life and economy of Scotland or be put under the new Secretary of State for Energy to whom its name would seem relevant?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the setting up of this council originally. It is an advisory, not an executive, body. It brings together people with a great many Scottish interests. Therefore, it is a Scottish body. While those primarily concerned with amenity matters might not share the same views as members who come from industry, discussion and study can lead to advice which can be in the best interests of Scotland as a whole.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the Oil Development Council makes a recommendation—for example, about the rate of exploitation—it will not be over-ruled by the new Secretary of State for Energy?

It will receive the fullest consideration by Ministers.